politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next Chancellor of the Exchequer betting

Now Gove finding out what it's like to be knifed live on TV .... by Andrew Marr.

malcolmg said:

JackW said:

I'm think that PM May will swap Hammond and Osborne and put Grayling into the Home Office that she vacates.

Leadsom becomes SoS BREXIT. Crabb stays in place. Fox remains on the backbenches and is joined by Brutus. Boris to Party Chairman. SOS for Scotland, Wales and NI to be combined as SOS Devolved Admins and net +1 Cabinet new dept spot.

Three cabinet vacancies at Energy, Justice and Leader of the House with others possible from any Cabinet ministers retiring or sacked.

They will not need to worry about SOS for Scotland for much longer.

"SOS for Scotland"

Help ... send more turnips !!

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/749494792531406848

This was Boris's chance. I find it hard to envision scenarios where he'll become PM: if Cameron's replacement wins in 2020 it'll probably be another few years before the position'll be open. If they lose in 2020, they'll be looking for someone sensible to lead the party through opposition, and there'll be plenty of the 2010/15 intake who have their own ambitions and experience by that time. He's yesterday's man. Thankfully.

Boris will continue what he is best suited for. A National Treasure, panel show host and broadcaster. He has dodged a bullet.

A person who brings down the entire edifice, and then just runs away as if nothing had happened, is not really to be described as a "national treasure", Dr Fox.

Mr Dancer, rain has eased off a bit, the track is drying out and they may end up on slicks by the end of the 28 lap race. 11 laps to go.

The track is in a rather mountainous region of Austria, does appear to have its own little ecosystem so it's difficult to forecast rain too far in advance.

JackW said:

GIN1138 said:

No... But if the referendum result is essentially ignored by Mrs May chances are both Labour and Tories will collapse across the country in 2020.... And Farage will be the beneficiary.

The voters have put the political class on notice. What the politicians do next is up to them but the voters are watching and waiting...

What part of May intoning BREXIT means BREXIT passed you by ?

I just can't get over the suspicion that she'll try and kick this whole thing into the "long grass".

Clarke and Hezza are championing her cause for a reason...

But maybe not. We shall see.

PClipp said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/749494792531406848

This was Boris's chance. I find it hard to envision scenarios where he'll become PM: if Cameron's replacement wins in 2020 it'll probably be another few years before the position'll be open. If they lose in 2020, they'll be looking for someone sensible to lead the party through opposition, and there'll be plenty of the 2010/15 intake who have their own ambitions and experience by that time. He's yesterday's man. Thankfully.

Boris will continue what he is best suited for. A National Treasure, panel show host and broadcaster. He has dodged a bullet.

A person who brings down the entire edifice, and then just runs away as if nothing had happened, is not really to be described as a "national treasure", Dr Fox.

Not THE Dr Fox, surely? Our fellow poster is far too witty and erudite to be a failed politician!

murali_s said:

What is the feeling among PB Tories / PB Burleys on Liam Fox?

Shall we set up a campaign group on here?

Still enjoying your time as a PB Tory?

PClipp said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

Scott_P said:

htps://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/749494792531406848

This was Boris's chance. I find it hard to envision scenarios where he'll become PM: if Cameron's replacement wins in 2020 it'll probably be another few years before the position'll be open. If they lose in 2020, they'll be looking for someone sensible to lead the party through opposition, and there'll be plenty of the 2010/15 intake who have their own ambitions and experience by that time. He's yesterday's man. Thankfully.

Boris will continue what he is best suited for. A National Treasure, panel show host and broadcaster. He has dodged a bullet.

A person who brings down the entire edifice, and then just runs away as if nothing had happened, is not really to be described as a "national treasure", Dr Fox.

Mr Clipp, the EU as a political edifice remains, however the UK is leaving it - that is all.

Scott_P said:

Anyone know?

@neiledwardlovat: Was it not Andrea Leadsom who approved a huge loan to Bearings right before they crashed????

No. 100% guarantee she never loaned cash to Bearings.

It may have been made to a bank called Barings, of course.

That was a great Andrew Marr for Theresa May.

Also what planet was Len McCluskey on?

malcolmg said:

logical_song said:

blackburn63 said:

Looking at the front pages what a horrible bunch of people permeate the top of the Conservative Party. They need reminding that more than a year ago they were elected to govern, the PM has acted like a spoilt child, his sidekick has vanished after yet another u-turn and now senior figures are busily knifing each other front and back.

Meanwhile the country has spoken and expects the govt to act accordingly, what a useless, self serving mob they are.

Why do people keep saying 'the country has spoken'? It may have muttered a bit and indicated that it wasn't sure, really.

You obviously not clear that over 50% in a FPTP election means the people have spoken, you don't win just a little bit , it is black and white. You seem to think we are in a banana republic.

Over 37% in a FPTP election is apparently a strong mandate to govern.

Although that does seem to imply you're wrong and the UK is a banana republic,

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

ToryJim said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The other factor -- which may be why some Conservatives are pressing for a coronation, is how many votes the losing leadership candidates attract. It is not just Leave and Remain that must be considered when balancing the different wings of the party in Cabinet.

As an aside, do we know (or is there betting on) when David Cameron will leave the Commons? Tony Blair left the House immediately on handing over to Gordon Brown.

Next election I'd imagine. Unless there's a big international job in a few years but I expect he will wait it out.

On the other hand, it must be frustrating to be a backbencher after being PM.

It's actually quite a nice role. You get an office in central London, a platform to speak from and the Whips have no power over you so you can do what you like (in practice you usually end up paired) so no late nights.

Plus, so long as you're not Gordon Brown, you get paid large sums for being the headline speaker at various business events.

That's a given, of course. I was just thinking of the benefits of a fully paid for central London office

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

ToryJim said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The other factor -- which may be why some Conservatives are pressing for a coronation, is how many votes the losing leadership candidates attract. It is not just Leave and Remain that must be considered when balancing the different wings of the party in Cabinet.

As an aside, do we know (or is there betting on) when David Cameron will leave the Commons? Tony Blair left the House immediately on handing over to Gordon Brown.

Next election I'd imagine. Unless there's a big international job in a few years but I expect he will wait it out.

On the other hand, it must be frustrating to be a backbencher after being PM.

It's actually quite a nice role. You get an office in central London, a platform to speak from and the Whips have no power over you so you can do what you like (in practice you usually end up paired) so no late nights.

you forgot , unlimited expenses, susidised champagne and great working hours.

kle4 said:

OldKingCole said:

surbiton said:

Tories here: why did Boris not stand ? I believe the rules require only two backers, am I right ?
Or, did he really believe that he should be crowned with acclamation.

I’m not a Tory, but was it the prospect of an humiliation that even he couldn’t laugh off?

I think it's as simple as he didn't think he had the MP numbers to get into the final two without Gove, so didn't even bother to try, which is pretty spineless.

That’s what I meant.

So after triumphant outings on national TV by the leading Brexiteers, I am still not seeing their cheerleaders up and about this morning...

Scott_P said:

@paulhutcheon: Wow. Michael Gove was against the Good Friday Agreement #marr

Oh dear

I don't know if Gove has a Wee Free background but he certainly has a lot of very extreme Scottish presbyterian values. Those seem to drive him more than anything else.

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

ToryJim said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The other factor -- which may be why some Conservatives are pressing for a coronation, is how many votes the losing leadership candidates attract. It is not just Leave and Remain that must be considered when balancing the different wings of the party in Cabinet.

As an aside, do we know (or is there betting on) when David Cameron will leave the Commons? Tony Blair left the House immediately on handing over to Gordon Brown.

Next election I'd imagine. Unless there's a big international job in a few years but I expect he will wait it out.

On the other hand, it must be frustrating to be a backbencher after being PM.

It's actually quite a nice role. You get an office in central London, a platform to speak from and the Whips have no power over you so you can do what you like (in practice you usually end up paired) so no late nights.

you forgot , unlimited expenses, susidised champagne and great working hours.

Isn’t there a pension as well? Or is that only when one leaves Parliament?

AlastairMeeks said:

The Lead in Leadsom rhymes with the soft dull metal for a reason.

Leadsome: (def) having the properties of a dull base metal.

Gove is a better choice. I admire his ruthlessness.

GIN1138 said:

I just can't get over the suspicion that she'll try and kick this whole thing into the "long grass".

Clarke and Hezza are championing her cause for a reason...

But maybe not. We shall see.

May is a pragmatist not an ideologue.

A successful BREXIT = a lengthy May premiership.

GIN1138 said:

JackW said:

GIN1138 said:

No... But if the referendum result is essentially ignored by Mrs May chances are both Labour and Tories will collapse across the country in 2020.... And Farage will be the beneficiary.

The voters have put the political class on notice. What the politicians do next is up to them but the voters are watching and waiting...

What part of May intoning BREXIT means BREXIT passed you by ?

I just can't get over the suspicion that she'll try and kick this whole thing into the "long grass".

Clarke and Hezza are championing her cause for a reason...

But maybe not. We shall see.

She does have integrity and she will exit Europe.

I am concerned that the more extreme Brexiteers will damage their cause if they continue with their demands for a Brexiteer PM, as I believe that would not meet with the need to consider not only the 52% but the 48% who voted remain and will do everything to try to stop the process.

Cool determined heads are needed to ensure our exit and certainly Farage should be kept miles away from involvement.

Ok, we have seen the dilettantes

Now the serious candidate is on Peston

ydoethur said:

PClipp said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/749494792531406848

This was Boris's chance. I find it hard to envision scenarios where he'll become PM: if Cameron's replacement wins in 2020 it'll probably be another few years before the position'll be open. If they lose in 2020, they'll be looking for someone sensible to lead the party through opposition, and there'll be plenty of the 2010/15 intake who have their own ambitions and experience by that time. He's yesterday's man. Thankfully.

Boris will continue what he is best suited for. A National Treasure, panel show host and broadcaster. He has dodged a bullet.

A person who brings down the entire edifice, and then just runs away as if nothing had happened, is not really to be described as a "national treasure", Dr Fox.

Not THE Dr Fox, surely? Our fellow poster is far too witty and erudite to be a failed politician!

My political activities are at the ballotbox and in the hospital. Where there is people there is politrix!

Scott_P said:

Anyone know?

@neiledwardlovat: Was it not Andrea Leadsom who approved a huge loan to Bearings right before they crashed????

Yes, but.....

Two weeks later, there were murmurs through the markets of huge derivative losses in Barings’ Singapore office. I asked Barclays’ dealers if they could find out more and called Barings’ FD. He was unavailable, but later that day called me to ask for a large drawdown on a standby loan facility we had for them. I asked him outright – was there any truth in the rumours we were hearing – he answered outright – no, absolutely none. So after much discussion with Barclays’ credit department, we lent the money.

Within a week, it was clear the rumours were true and Barings was in deep trouble. I was about to leave the office for the weekend – 6pm on Friday evening – and a call came through from Andrew Buxton’s office (then Chairman of Barclays). My team and I spent the weekend in the office, working for Andrew Buxton and Eddie George, then Governor of the Bank of England, on two themes:

What was Barclays’ total exposure to Barings?

Could a consortium of banks be pulled together to underwrite Barings’ losses and thereby avoid its collapse?

There were around 20 financial institutions all working round the clock responding to the Governor’s attempt to save Barings. In the end, it proved impossible simply because over those 48 hours the potential losses could not be quantified and no financial institution would take the risk, either by buying Barings, or underwriting the losses.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/08/andrea-leadsom-the-lessons-about-banking-regulation-which-we-must-stay-with-us-from-the-collapse-of.html

chestnut said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Chestnut, what's she said?

The quotes in the Telegraph.

Here is her quote:

The Telegraph asked all five candidates whether they will “promise to end free movement and cut net migration to the tens of thousands”.

Mrs May says she would set out her “negotiating principles in more detail in the coming weeks”.

“There is clearly no mandate for a deal that involves accepting the free movement of people as it has worked until now,” she says. “We must regain more control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe, and reduce the numbers that come from outside Europe too. We need immigration to be sustainable and I think net migration in the tens of thousands is sustainable, but it is going to take time.”

What is "weak and insipid" about that? Which phrase? That it is going to take time?

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

ToryJim said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The other factor -- which may be why some Conservatives are pressing for a coronation, is how many votes the losing leadership candidates attract. It is not just Leave and Remain that must be considered when balancing the different wings of the party in Cabinet.

As an aside, do we know (or is there betting on) when David Cameron will leave the Commons? Tony Blair left the House immediately on handing over to Gordon Brown.

Next election I'd imagine. Unless there's a big international job in a few years but I expect he will wait it out.

On the other hand, it must be frustrating to be a backbencher after being PM.

It's actually quite a nice role. You get an office in central London, a platform to speak from and the Whips have no power over you so you can do what you like (in practice you usually end up paired) so no late nights.

you forgot , unlimited expenses, susidised champagne and great working hours.

Isn’t there a pension as well? Or is that only when one leaves Parliament?

It was mentioned last week somewhere that Cameron had, on taking office, declined the traditional pension paid to former PMs and Speakers, which was 50% of salary for life. Can't imagine that he will ever struggle for income somehow, three or four speeches a year will pay him more than he's earning now.

anotherDave said:

Lowlander said:

PClipp said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/749494792531406848

This was Boris's chance. I find it hard to envision scenarios where he'll become PM: if Cameron's replacement wins in 2020 it'll probably be another few years before the position'll be open. If they lose in 2020, they'll be looking for someone sensible to lead the party through opposition, and there'll be plenty of the 2010/15 intake who have their own ambitions and experience by that time. He's yesterday's man. Thankfully.

Boris will continue what he is best suited for. A National Treasure, panel show host and broadcaster. He has dodged a bullet.

A person who brings down the entire edifice, and then just runs away as if nothing had happened, is not really to be described as a "national treasure", Dr Fox.

I wonder if Boris is regretting his refusal to pay the tax he owed and give up his US citizenship. It would have given him a place to hide out,

I think he paid up in the end. He still has an escape route!

Perhaps in January we can look forward to the inauguration of President Trump and Vice President Boris.

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Hammond is the only one on that list with any sense of numbers.

We do fish in a fairly shallow puddle for our politicians.

Why are you ignoring Leadsom as someone with a sense of numbers?

Scared.

I am not an expert but there's an outside chance that May won't win and will therefore by given COTE isn't there?

OllyT said:

Leadsom another really committed Leaver then:-

From the Indy

"The junior energy minister, who is also emerging a serious contender in the Conservative leadership contest, said in a recording three years ago at the Hansard Society’s annual parliamentary affairs lecture that she was going “to nail my colours to the mast here”.
In the recording, obtained by the Mail on Sunday, Ms Leadsom added: “I don’t think the UK should leave the EU. I think it would be a disaster for our economy and it would lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty at a time when the tectonic plates of global success are moving."

I don't think any of them expected to win, it's all about internal Tory party manoeuvring

Ms Leadsom gave her side on that on Mr Marr's programme this morning. Annoyingly I was making a cup of tea at the time, so I missed a bit.

I think her line is:
1. Remark is taken out of context
2. Circumstances/EU have changed.

Barnesian said:

chestnut said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Chestnut, what's she said?

The quotes in the Telegraph.

Here is her quote:

The Telegraph asked all five candidates whether they will “promise to end free movement and cut net migration to the tens of thousands”.

Mrs May says she would set out her “negotiating principles in more detail in the coming weeks”.

“There is clearly no mandate for a deal that involves accepting the free movement of people as it has worked until now,” she says. “We must regain more control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe, and reduce the numbers that come from outside Europe too. We need immigration to be sustainable and I think net migration in the tens of thousands is sustainable, but it is going to take time.”

What is "weak and insipid" about that? Which phrase? That it is going to take time?

Not answering your question (I think she's right) but that quote suggests she will do a deal on FoM - no mandate for FoM "as it has worked until now"

Lowlander said:

Scott_P said:

@paulhutcheon: Wow. Michael Gove was against the Good Friday Agreement #marr

Oh dear

I don't know if Gove has a Wee Free background but he certainly has a lot of very extreme Scottish presbyterian values. Those seem to drive him more than anything else.

Yes have to say I was humbled by Gove's statement on Marr he knifed Boris because he put his country before personal relations, his values are clearly beyond question.

Lowlander said:

Charles said:

Don't forget that in a FPTP election the successful candidate also has to represent those who didn't vote them.

Where do people get this nonsense from?

There is no obligation whatsoever on a succesful candidate to represent anyone, their voters or not. And there is no method for unhappy constituents to boot out failing representatives before the next election.

Obviously there is a self-preservation mantra whereby a candidate that wants to win again might want to build an electoral base. But FPTP deliberately marginalises votes so they are meaningless and minimise the requirement for candidates to support everyone in their constituency.

In reality FPTP works exactly opposite to the naive and childlike way you seem to view it.

There is no obligation for anyone to do their job, and no ability to sack anyone with a fixed 5 year contract in any walk of like. So your point, such as it is, is utterly fatuous and a waste of time.

I take a Burkean view of the role of a MP

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Michael Gove is a non-starter. And if the Conservatives choose Andrea Leadsom they will be choosing someone who simply isn't yet ready for primetime. She was far too wooden and far too slow on her feet.

She is being hugely overhyped. Apparently on the basis of the fact that she could speak coherently in a debate. FFS! The bar ought to be higher than that. Her CV is average, frankly. And I think that she would be far too dependant on others who will use her.

And someone who - according to the Telegraph - is pitching herself as the next Maggie simply does not understand what a divided nation we have and that the role of the PM is to find a way of reconciling this divided country while respecting the result. A monumental task. I don't see - based on what I have seen and heard so far - that she is up to this task.

The choice is between a cast of nobodies and comic singers, god help the country if this is the best we have.

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

ToryJim said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The other factor -- which may be why some Conservatives are pressing for a coronation, is how many votes the losing leadership candidates attract. It is not just Leave and Remain that must be considered when balancing the different wings of the party in Cabinet.

As an aside, do we know (or is there betting on) when David Cameron will leave the Commons? Tony Blair left the House immediately on handing over to Gordon Brown.

Next election I'd imagine. Unless there's a big international job in a few years but I expect he will wait it out.

On the other hand, it must be frustrating to be a backbencher after being PM.

It's actually quite a nice role. You get an office in central London, a platform to speak from and the Whips have no power over you so you can do what you like (in practice you usually end up paired) so no late nights.

you forgot , unlimited expenses, susidised champagne and great working hours.

Don't forget the pension rights...

gold plated as well with bells on and humungous amount of holidays

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

Anyone know?

@neiledwardlovat: Was it not Andrea Leadsom who approved a huge loan to Bearings right before they crashed????

Yes, but.....

Two weeks later, there were murmurs through the markets of huge derivative losses in Barings’ Singapore office. I asked Barclays’ dealers if they could find out more and called Barings’ FD. He was unavailable, but later that day called me to ask for a large drawdown on a standby loan facility we had for them. I asked him outright – was there any truth in the rumours we were hearing – he answered outright – no, absolutely none. So after much discussion with Barclays’ credit department, we lent the money.

Within a week, it was clear the rumours were true and Barings was in deep trouble. I was about to leave the office for the weekend – 6pm on Friday evening – and a call came through from Andrew Buxton’s office (then Chairman of Barclays). My team and I spent the weekend in the office, working for Andrew Buxton and Eddie George, then Governor of the Bank of England, on two themes:

What was Barclays’ total exposure to Barings?

Could a consortium of banks be pulled together to underwrite Barings’ losses and thereby avoid its collapse?

There were around 20 financial institutions all working round the clock responding to the Governor’s attempt to save Barings. In the end, it proved impossible simply because over those 48 hours the potential losses could not be quantified and no financial institution would take the risk, either by buying Barings, or underwriting the losses.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/08/andrea-leadsom-the-lessons-about-banking-regulation-which-we-must-stay-with-us-from-the-collapse-of.html

And if that's all the due diligence that was done by her / Barclays, it's an utter fail on their part, even by the standards of the time.

Another 2 Tory women have had a very good EUref.are Amber Rudd,who started the ball rolling on the stop Johnson campaign,called out Farage and admirably,she wants to know whether the candidates deny anthropogenic climate science as agreed by 97% of science.Credit too to Anna Soubry for calling out Farage's racist poster.Farage is yet to apologise nor condemn increased hate crimes.It's time he did.
A 50-50 gender split in cabinet before Labour could give the impression the Tory party really is a one-nation party.
I hope May is able to select without ageism.It is rampant ageism in the PLP that needs an independent enquiry-victimising the Leader is proof of this.Again,the Tories can win points off the opposition by having a zero-tolerance policy on ageism.

ThreeQuidder said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

logical_song said:

blackburn63 said:

Looking at the front pages what a horrible bunch of people permeate the top of the Conservative Party. They need reminding that more than a year ago they were elected to govern, the PM has acted like a spoilt child, his sidekick has vanished after yet another u-turn and now senior figures are busily knifing each other front and back.

Meanwhile the country has spoken and expects the govt to act accordingly, what a useless, self serving mob they are.

Why do people keep saying 'the country has spoken'? It may have muttered a bit and indicated that it wasn't sure, really.

You obviously not clear that over 50% in a FPTP election means the people have spoken, you don't win just a little bit , it is black and white. You seem to think we are in a banana republic.

Don't forget that in a FPTP election the successful candidate also has to represent those who didn't vote them.

If you assume that a "100% Brexit" position is WTO, then the fact that the vote was 52/48 between that an "Remain" means that you need to look for a compromise position between the two.

We can no longer be a member of the EU.

But we have to find the solution that most people are happy with. That's probably EEA+EFTA rather than any bespoke deal - especially if it's sold to the British public as a temporary deal (even if it then turns out to be as temporary as income tax).

Yes: EEA+EFTA with a deal on FoM [that preserves the principle for the Europeans, but reduces the numbers - especially of unskilled workers should do it]. If it were Free Movement of Labour vs Free Movement of People that should do it.

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

ToryJim said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The other factor -- which may be why some Conservatives are pressing for a coronation, is how many votes the losing leadership candidates attract. It is not just Leave and Remain that must be considered when balancing the different wings of the party in Cabinet.

As an aside, do we know (or is there betting on) when David Cameron will leave the Commons? Tony Blair left the House immediately on handing over to Gordon Brown.

Next election I'd imagine. Unless there's a big international job in a few years but I expect he will wait it out.

On the other hand, it must be frustrating to be a backbencher after being PM.

It's actually quite a nice role. You get an office in central London, a platform to speak from and the Whips have no power over you so you can do what you like (in practice you usually end up paired) so no late nights.

you forgot , unlimited expenses, susidised champagne and great working hours.

Isn’t there a pension as well? Or is that only when one leaves Parliament?

as Charles said a gold plated one

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

Anyone know?

@neiledwardlovat: Was it not Andrea Leadsom who approved a huge loan to Bearings right before they crashed????

Yes, but.....

Two weeks later, there were murmurs through the markets of huge derivative losses in Barings’ Singapore office. I asked Barclays’ dealers if they could find out more and called Barings’ FD. He was unavailable, but later that day called me to ask for a large drawdown on a standby loan facility we had for them. I asked him outright – was there any truth in the rumours we were hearing – he answered outright – no, absolutely none. So after much discussion with Barclays’ credit department, we lent the money.

Within a week, it was clear the rumours were true and Barings was in deep trouble. I was about to leave the office for the weekend – 6pm on Friday evening – and a call came through from Andrew Buxton’s office (then Chairman of Barclays). My team and I spent the weekend in the office, working for Andrew Buxton and Eddie George, then Governor of the Bank of England, on two themes:

What was Barclays’ total exposure to Barings?

Could a consortium of banks be pulled together to underwrite Barings’ losses and thereby avoid its collapse?

There were around 20 financial institutions all working round the clock responding to the Governor’s attempt to save Barings. In the end, it proved impossible simply because over those 48 hours the potential losses could not be quantified and no financial institution would take the risk, either by buying Barings, or underwriting the losses.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/08/andrea-leadsom-the-lessons-about-banking-regulation-which-we-must-stay-with-us-from-the-collapse-of.html

And if that's all the due diligence that was done by her / Barclays, it's an utter fail on their part, even by the standards of the time.

Hey, she asked the Financial Director and he said it was fine, what more do you want?

Obviously in all seriousness I haven't the slightest clue what proper practice would look like, but it's fun to laugh at politicians again.

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

Anyone know?

@neiledwardlovat: Was it not Andrea Leadsom who approved a huge loan to Bearings right before they crashed????

Yes, but.....

Two weeks later, there were murmurs through the markets of huge derivative losses in Barings’ Singapore office. I asked Barclays’ dealers if they could find out more and called Barings’ FD. He was unavailable, but later that day called me to ask for a large drawdown on a standby loan facility we had for them. I asked him outright – was there any truth in the rumours we were hearing – he answered outright – no, absolutely none. So after much discussion with Barclays’ credit department, we lent the money.

Within a week, it was clear the rumours were true and Barings was in deep trouble. I was about to leave the office for the weekend – 6pm on Friday evening – and a call came through from Andrew Buxton’s office (then Chairman of Barclays). My team and I spent the weekend in the office, working for Andrew Buxton and Eddie George, then Governor of the Bank of England, on two themes:

What was Barclays’ total exposure to Barings?

Could a consortium of banks be pulled together to underwrite Barings’ losses and thereby avoid its collapse?

There were around 20 financial institutions all working round the clock responding to the Governor’s attempt to save Barings. In the end, it proved impossible simply because over those 48 hours the potential losses could not be quantified and no financial institution would take the risk, either by buying Barings, or underwriting the losses.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/08/andrea-leadsom-the-lessons-about-banking-regulation-which-we-must-stay-with-us-from-the-collapse-of.html

And if that's all the due diligence that was done by her / Barclays, it's an utter fail on their part, even by the standards of the time.

Depends on the terms of the standby facility, surely?

If Barings had the right to draw on it then they would have been damn sure to reject the request (especially if it was to precipitate the collapse of the firm)

NB: I've never play in the RCF/standby market so don't know their standard terms (especially as it was in the 90s).

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

Anyone know?

@neiledwardlovat: Was it not Andrea Leadsom who approved a huge loan to Bearings right before they crashed????

Yes, but.....

Two weeks later, there were murmurs through the markets of huge derivative losses in Barings’ Singapore office. I asked Barclays’ dealers if they could find out more and called Barings’ FD. He was unavailable, but later that day called me to ask for a large drawdown on a standby loan facility we had for them. I asked him outright – was there any truth in the rumours we were hearing – he answered outright – no, absolutely none. So after much discussion with Barclays’ credit department, we lent the money.

Within a week, it was clear the rumours were true and Barings was in deep trouble. I was about to leave the office for the weekend – 6pm on Friday evening – and a call came through from Andrew Buxton’s office (then Chairman of Barclays). My team and I spent the weekend in the office, working for Andrew Buxton and Eddie George, then Governor of the Bank of England, on two themes:

What was Barclays’ total exposure to Barings?

Could a consortium of banks be pulled together to underwrite Barings’ losses and thereby avoid its collapse?

There were around 20 financial institutions all working round the clock responding to the Governor’s attempt to save Barings. In the end, it proved impossible simply because over those 48 hours the potential losses could not be quantified and no financial institution would take the risk, either by buying Barings, or underwriting the losses.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/08/andrea-leadsom-the-lessons-about-banking-regulation-which-we-must-stay-with-us-from-the-collapse-of.html

And if that's all the due diligence that was done by her / Barclays, it's an utter fail on their part, even by the standards of the time.

Shush. You'll enrage the PB supporters of Leadsom. She's good with numbers you know.

malcolmg said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Michael Gove is a non-starter. And if the Conservatives choose Andrea Leadsom they will be choosing someone who simply isn't yet ready for primetime. She was far too wooden and far too slow on her feet.

She is being hugely overhyped. Apparently on the basis of the fact that she could speak coherently in a debate. FFS! The bar ought to be higher than that. Her CV is average, frankly. And I think that she would be far too dependant on others who will use her.

And someone who - according to the Telegraph - is pitching herself as the next Maggie simply does not understand what a divided nation we have and that the role of the PM is to find a way of reconciling this divided country while respecting the result. A monumental task. I don't see - based on what I have seen and heard so far - that she is up to this task.

The choice is between a cast of nobodies and comic singers, god help the country if this is the best we have.

They're applying to replace David Cameron, not Margaret Thatcher.

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

logical_song said:

blackburn63 said:

Looking at the front pages what a horrible bunch of people permeate the top of the Conservative Party. They need reminding that more than a year ago they were elected to govern, the PM has acted like a spoilt child, his sidekick has vanished after yet another u-turn and now senior figures are busily knifing each other front and back.

Meanwhile the country has spoken and expects the govt to act accordingly, what a useless, self serving mob they are.

Why do people keep saying 'the country has spoken'? It may have muttered a bit and indicated that it wasn't sure, really.

You obviously not clear that over 50% in a FPTP election means the people have spoken, you don't win just a little bit , it is black and white. You seem to think we are in a banana republic.

Glad you reject the 45ers nonsense. Referendums on national sovereignty should be a once in a lifetime kind of thing as Salmond wisely opined. The sovereign will of the people should be respected, you can't play ducks and drakes with it.

That is more like your normal mince Monica

Scott_P said:

kle4 said:

Did Leadsom really say she could be the next Thatcher? Bold to do that, I thought it was the done thing to never claim the mantle oneself but to let others do it for you.

Nobody else would do it for her...

Amusing, but I'm sure that's not true - you can't be a Tory woman being talked about as a potential leader without someone saying Thatcher.

kle4 said:

Did Leadsom really say she could be the next Thatcher? Bold to do that, I thought it was the done thing to never claim the mantle oneself but to let others do it for you.

Leadsom's quote on Thatcher: - “As a person, she was always kind and courteous and as a leader she was steely and determined,”

“I think that’s an ideal combination – and I do like to think that’s where I am.”

Make of that what you will.

@andyburnhammp: I have shadowed both Gove & May. No question in my mind who's the better politician & person. Hope the Tories go for Gove.

david_kendrick1 said:

May's claims that she will appoint a Brexiteer to lead a dept negotiating Leave. This is a serious cop out---a ducking of the PM's responsibility. If she wants to be in command, she has to do the difficult herself. Nobody expects her to do the clerking, but the she cannot delegate the main issue of the day.

And this is her problem. If her heart is not in, the UK will finish up with a poor deal. cf DC...

I disagree. The negotiations are going to take a very long time and should be a full time job. The idea that a PM could do that as well as leading the Government seems daft to me.

Of course in the end she will be responsible for the final deal just as she is responsible for the actions of all her minsters in any department. But she certainly needs someone formally designated to lead the negotiations whether a Leaver or Remainer previously.

As an aside, I'm running out of shelf space, which means I've, naturally, discovered many books I want to buy [may be doing a giveaway of books in the future]. One which seems very good value is an Asbridge history of the Crusades [NB plural, not just book on the First Crusade], which is just over £8 but 800 pages long.

Edited extra bit: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crusades-War-Holy-Land/dp/1849836884/

kle4 said:

Did Leadsom really say she could be the next Thatcher? Bold to do that, I thought it was the done thing to never claim the mantle oneself but to let others do it for you.

She was asked a question.