politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next Prime Minister: Gus O’Donnell at 250/1?

Richard_Tyndall said:

On topic.

I have not really followed the arguments around the FTPA so was wondering about something.

Is it not possible to simply repeal the act with a simple majority in Parliament?

The biggest obstacle with that would be getting it past the House Of Lords, I would suggest.

I've no idea if it would be constitutionally viable (I suspect not) but from a purely practical point of view I don't see any huge problem with the idea of leaving the office of PM vacant just for the duration of short GE campaign should a sitting government fall and an immediate election be required. Personally I find this idea somewhat more acceptable than appointing a caretaker PM though neither option is ideal.

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I had a similar idea, but instead of Gus O'Donnell, I was thinking of Mark Carney instead.

We've had a Canadian born U.K. PM before.

But Carney isn't a Member of Parliament. True, he could be given a peerage to become one but it would look rather bad.

So what? There'd be an election on: no-one would be a Member of Parliament. In some ways, an extraparlamentary government would reemphasise its caretaker / time-limited mandate.

Not quite correct. As Lords are not elected they remain Members during an election (indeed at all times). This is why traditionally they took no part in campaigns.

Of course in practice that distinction is not usually noticed so it is accepted somebody who was an MP at dissolution and is standing for re-election is still eligible to be PM. The more notable possible exception would be from 23rd October-8th November 1963, when the Prime Minister had resigned from one house to be elected to the other one.

M6 toll has the most stupid pricing structure. Not only just too much for a single user, too rigid between different times of the day (there is only two prices for basically day vs night), but you can't buy things like a season pass etc that offer proper discounts for daily users). I believe the best discount they offer is 10% off if you pay for a box.

NickPalmer said:

Is there a scenario in which Le Pen wins? The only one I can think of is some outrageous scandal hitting her rival between round 1 and round 2 ballots. Not IMO worth it at anything less than about 40 - and her current price is a ludicrous 4. Laying her remains a good bet.

DYOR, of course.

Well, surely this is precisely when whatever (if anything) the Russians have on Macron will be released? Plus making the final helps to legitimise her a bit more - especially if she's topped the ballot in round 1.

Not that 4.0 is particularly attractive, but 40 would be massive.

Tissue_Price said:

NickPalmer said:

Is there a scenario in which Le Pen wins? The only one I can think of is some outrageous scandal hitting her rival between round 1 and round 2 ballots. Not IMO worth it at anything less than about 40 - and her current price is a ludicrous 4. Laying her remains a good bet.

DYOR, of course.

Well, surely this is precisely when whatever (if anything) the Russians have on Macron will be released? Plus making the final helps to legitimise her a bit more - especially if she's topped the ballot in round 1.

Not that 4.0 is particularly attractive, but 40 would be massive.

40-1, though, would be the odds on a US state where one party was consistently 20-30 points ahead in the polls.

The situation is analogous.

(Albeit, I accept the French situation is a lot more fluid, and we have debates and time ahead of us.)

After my initial bets on Macron in the 18-21 range (most of which I sold out of, foolishly), I've been mostly just laying Le Pen. Recently, I've bought a little bit of Fillon. Overall, I'm roughly £2k out of pocket if Le Pen wins, and between £1,500 and £3,000 up if anyone else does.

NickPalmer said:

Also under the heading of long shots, a quick look at France:

Nominations close this week (15th, I think). Polls show Macron in a commanding position, roughly tied with Le Pen in round one and 65-35 ahead in round 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017

Consequently, his odds have been steadily shortening - now 1.87 on Betfair, which is probably still value but not by much. (I got him on 3 thanks to Peter from Putney). If he holds his nerve he should be fine. But what if the debates produce an unexpected result, or he is perceived to be guilty of some sort of scandal?

1. As Richard Nabavi has noted, Fillon might possibly push Le Pen into third. If so, he will have the momentum. Macon should still win but it's less clear. Fillon seems to have a 20% floor impervious to any amount of negative publicity. A 3% switch from Le Pen would get him to the second round. Perhaps his price of 6.2 is worth a small saver.

2. What if Hamon shines in the debate and both Macron AND Fillon falter? Hamon is telegenic and there is a big pool of left-wing voters to draw on, currently split evenly with Melanchon. Could he burst through in round 2 (which he'd win)? Unlikely, but his price is 75. Again, a small saver might be a good idea.

Is there a scenario in which Le Pen wins? The only one I can think of is some outrageous scandal hitting her rival between round 1 and round 2 ballots. Not IMO worth it at anything less than about 40 - and her current price is a ludicrous 4. Laying her remains a good bet.

DYOR, of course.

Marine Le Pen is well to the left of yourself on most issues. Must be a strange feeling for an ex-Eurocommunist, n'est pas ?

Given the extraordinary powers it assigns to the Prime Minister, I suspect that the Civil Contigencies Act may have more relevance than the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.

NickPalmer said:

Also under the heading of long shots, a quick look at France:

Nominations close this week (15th, I think). Polls show Macron in a commanding position, roughly tied with Le Pen in round one and 65-35 ahead in round 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017

Consequently, his odds have been steadily shortening - now 1.87 on Betfair, which is probably still value but not by much. (I got him on 3 thanks to Peter from Putney). If he holds his nerve he should be fine. But what if the debates produce an unexpected result, or he is perceived to be guilty of some sort of scandal?

1. As Richard Nabavi has noted, Fillon might possibly push Le Pen into third. If so, he will have the momentum. Macon should still win but it's less clear. Fillon seems to have a 20% floor impervious to any amount of negative publicity. A 3% switch from Le Pen would get him to the second round. Perhaps his price of 6.2 is worth a small saver.

2. What if Hamon shines in the debate and both Macron AND Fillon falter? Hamon is telegenic and there is a big pool of left-wing voters to draw on, currently split evenly with Melanchon. Could he burst through in round 2 (which he'd win)? Unlikely, but his price is 75. Again, a small saver might be a good idea.

Is there a scenario in which Le Pen wins? The only one I can think of is some outrageous scandal hitting her rival between round 1 and round 2 ballots. Not IMO worth it at anything less than about 40 - and her current price is a ludicrous 4. Laying her remains a good bet.

DYOR, of course.

As a moderate member of the centre-left and a Spurs supporter on top, it is clear to me that Macron will not win and that something will happen to ensure that Le Pen does. This is our world currently.

Basically, countries need to go through with the right what Labour is going through now with the far left - the total destruction of a political model and way of seeing the world before sanity can prevail. We just have to hope that the damage is not too severe in the meantime.

@juliamacfarlane: America's at that point in the breakup where they keep bumping into their ex who looks amazing

https://twitter.com/tvonetv/status/840339878625869824

NickPalmer said:

Is there a scenario in which Le Pen wins? The only one I can think of is some outrageous scandal hitting her rival between round 1 and round 2 ballots. Not IMO worth it at anything less than about 40 - and her current price is a ludicrous 4. Laying her remains a good bet.

DYOR, of course.

From a betting point of view, I would agree that her price is ludicrously low. However, in the days of Betfair, where one can lay as well as bet, as a trader, I can understand why she is the price she is.

As a bettor, I would say she has considerably less chance than the current odds of 3/1 suggest. That would imply she has a 25% chance of winning and most sensible people who understand the French voting system would probably realistically put her chances at no more than 10%. Yes, a case can be made offering an opinion that she has a far better chance than that, but I would think the majority of people would agree with us both and say she has less than a 25% chance.

However, as a trader, on a market such as this, I have to ignore probabilities of winning and concentrate solely on probabilities of the direction of movement of her price. The two can be totally different. I have to consider the effect of Le Pen continuing to get an inordinate amount of Press coverage (in relation to her actual chances of winning) when scare stories abound about Le Pen winning and causing the destruction of the EU and the Euro abound. I have to consider the over-reaction that will occur if there is a terrorist incident in France. An event, by the way, which would increase her chances a little, but not by the magnitude that her inevitable plunge in the betting market would suggest, when and if that event happened.

I also have to consider the fact that there are quite a few people playing the market who do not fully understand the French voting system and if they see she goes ahead by 4 or 5 points in the first round voting intentions will bet heavily on her, forcing her price down even lower.

So, yes Nick, as a bettor, I would agree with you. Le pen should be a lot nearer to 10/1 than her current price. And the conclusion from that is that both Macron and Fillon are remarkably good value. For people who are betting in the old-fashioned sense of the word, the odds on both of these are extremely generous.

However, as a trader, it would be foolish of me to try and lay her heavily at current odds.

Theuniondivvie said:

'Euro chief warns against ‘economic nationalism’ in exclusive daily column

The president of the European Commission has written an exclusive column for a daily newspaper in which he warned “economic nationalism” ahead of the forthcoming trigger of the Brexit.'

https://tinyurl.com/jp4uexj

I wonder why Jean-Claude chose a Scottish paper? *innocent face*

Because he's an unelected, embittered, meddling, drunken-clown ?

Scott_P said:

@juliamacfarlane: America's at that point in the breakup where they keep bumping into their ex who looks amazing

https://twitter.com/tvonetv/status/840339878625869824

I do genuinely believe history will judge Obama very well. And not just because of who preceded and succeeded him. It is a great shame the Democrats couldn't find someone viable to follow him.

PlatoSaid said:

For fans of St Obama, some sobering stats in this piece. Ignore the messenger, note the numbers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301466/PIERS-MORGAN-Obama-deported-millions-killed-thousands.html

So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?

I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.

You couldn't make it up.

Or you could.

Some fools will always believe you.

Mr. Alex, I agree. The FTPA should've had a sunset clause. Was Cameron a bit daft or... I can't actually think of another reason why it didn't have one, to be honest.

Scott_P said:

@juliamacfarlane: America's at that point in the breakup where they keep bumping into their ex who looks amazing

https://twitter.com/tvonetv/status/840339878625869824

And you wake up with a massive hangover and lift the duvet to reveal last night's lumber.

https://twitter.com/tylerhogg76/status/839356858963877888

NickPalmer said:

Also under the heading of long shots, a quick look at France:

Nominations close this week (15th, I think). Polls show Macron in a commanding position, roughly tied with Le Pen in round one and 65-35 ahead in round 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017

Consequently, his odds have been steadily shortening - now 1.87 on Betfair, which is probably still value but not by much. (I got him on 3 thanks to Peter from Putney). If he holds his nerve he should be fine. But what if the debates produce an unexpected result, or he is perceived to be guilty of some sort of scandal?

1. As Richard Nabavi has noted, Fillon might possibly push Le Pen into third. If so, he will have the momentum. Macon should still win but it's less clear. Fillon seems to have a 20% floor impervious to any amount of negative publicity. A 3% switch from Le Pen would get him to the second round. Perhaps his price of 6.2 is worth a small saver.

2. What if Hamon shines in the debate and both Macron AND Fillon falter? Hamon is telegenic and there is a big pool of left-wing voters to draw on, currently split evenly with Melanchon. Could he burst through in round 2 (which he'd win)? Unlikely, but his price is 75. Again, a small saver might be a good idea.

Is there a scenario in which Le Pen wins? The only one I can think of is some outrageous scandal hitting her rival between round 1 and round 2 ballots. Not IMO worth it at anything less than about 40 - and her current price is a ludicrous 4. Laying her remains a good bet.

DYOR, of course.

Have we passed the point where Fillon can legally withdraw?

Listened to a podcast on the French election from Chatham House by Prof John Gaffney last night. Made a couple of interesting points re Le Pen saying that even if she won she has virtually no chance of winning a majority in the Assembly elections a month later and that she would therefore end up fairly powerless.

He also argued that comparisons with Trump don't really hold because the French electorate is considerably better informed and more sophisticated than the US electorate and Le Pen would not get away with the tactics that won it for Trump. She has also dropped the FN logo and her surname from all her campaign material and is trying to tap into the Gaullist "strong leader" meme.

He also seemed to believe that the Fifth Republic is on its way out and was very pessimistic about France's ability to deal with its structural problems.

I still think that the result might surprise us

SouthamObserver said:

PlatoSaid said:

For fans of St Obama, some sobering stats in this piece. Ignore the messenger, note the numbers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301466/PIERS-MORGAN-Obama-deported-millions-killed-thousands.html

So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?

I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.

You couldn't make it up.

Or you could.

Some fools will always believe you.

haha wise words!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alex, I agree. The FTPA should've had a sunset clause. Was Cameron a bit daft or... I can't actually think of another reason why it didn't have one, to be honest.

Because it was intended to be permanent?

F1: article on testing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39234387

And here's mine:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/testing-times-part-two.html

david_herdson said:

On (1), I'd disagree. We've not had them before because we've not needed them before.

Agreed. The coming process will be deeply disturbing for people who like to imagine the UK as the European 'city upon a hill'.

OllyT said:

NickPalmer said:

Also under the heading of long shots, a quick look at France:

Nominations close this week (15th, I think). Polls show Macron in a commanding position, roughly tied with Le Pen in round one and 65-35 ahead in round 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017

Consequently, his odds have been steadily shortening - now 1.87 on Betfair, which is probably still value but not by much. (I got him on 3 thanks to Peter from Putney). If he holds his nerve he should be fine. But what if the debates produce an unexpected result, or he is perceived to be guilty of some sort of scandal?

1. As Richard Nabavi has noted, Fillon might possibly push Le Pen into third. If so, he will have the momentum. Macon should still win but it's less clear. Fillon seems to have a 20% floor impervious to any amount of negative publicity. A 3% switch from Le Pen would get him to the second round. Perhaps his price of 6.2 is worth a small saver.

2. What if Hamon shines in the debate and both Macron AND Fillon falter? Hamon is telegenic and there is a big pool of left-wing voters to draw on, currently split evenly with Melanchon. Could he burst through in round 2 (which he'd win)? Unlikely, but his price is 75. Again, a small saver might be a good idea.

Is there a scenario in which Le Pen wins? The only one I can think of is some outrageous scandal hitting her rival between round 1 and round 2 ballots. Not IMO worth it at anything less than about 40 - and her current price is a ludicrous 4. Laying her remains a good bet.

DYOR, of course.

Have we passed the point where Fillon can legally withdraw?

Listened to a podcast on the French election from Chatham House by Prof John Gaffney last night. Made a couple of interesting points re Le Pen saying that even if she won she has virtually no chance of winning a majority in the Assembly elections a month later and that she would therefore end up fairly powerless.

{SNIP}

Is that really true? Leaving aside any debate about the power of the French President against a hostile Assembly, but aren't arguments against Le Pen's chances of success in assembly elections linked inextricably to arguments why she can't win the Presidency? So if she actually DID win the Presidency then arguments about the Assembly would have to be revisited. She can't be that divorced as an individual from her Party?

On topic, the conversation at the Palace would go something like:

PM: I've lost the confidence of Parliament, Ma'am.
HMQ: So we have two weeks to find a successor.
PM: There isn't anyone, Ma'am.
HMQ: So there's no point faffing around, then?
PM: Quite so, Ma'am.
HMQ: Parliament is dissolved!

The Conservatives are returned with a large majority on a manifesto that includes HoL reform (vaguely specified) and repeal of the FTPA. The latter is swiftly enacted. Meanwhile a few die-hard constitutionalists persist in the view that the 2017 GE was invalid, and like those heroic figures who believe 1688 was a stitch-up, continue to gather on a blasted heath on the first Thursday in May in any year that ends with a '0' or a '5', to collectively bay at the moon.

Roger said:

Philip Hammond's demonisation could be the chink of light the Remainers have been waiting for. As I see it Article 50 is reversable until it isn't. The EU will find a way..... The interventions of Major Hesseltine and Blair have had an effect. People seem less willing to go gently into that goodnight.

Article 50 will be signed but every dot and comma will be scrapped over and more important will be news. If urbane Philip Hammond can get the treatment imagine the reaction to the sleasy trio of Johnson Davis and Fox when it starts to go pear-shaped.

The experts no longer shackled by having to start every sentence 'we accept the democratic will etc' will start saying what they've been gagging to say since the vote.

In one day we've had Stephen Hawkins Richard Dawkins and a documentary with Laura Kuinsberg giving the same message.'We're going to land in a pile of shit'

Back to the chink of light..... Experts and the media can make the natives restless but to get this thing reversed needs a political leader with credibility.....

Step forward slayer of white van man.......

Surely, 'respect' is what you feel when you see a white van?

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I had a similar idea, but instead of Gus O'Donnell, I was thinking of Mark Carney instead.

We've had a Canadian born U.K. PM before.

But Carney isn't a Member of Parliament. True, he could be given a peerage to become one but it would look rather bad.

So what? There'd be an election on: no-one would be a Member of Parliament. In some ways, an extraparlamentary government would reemphasise its caretaker / time-limited mandate.

Not quite correct. As Lords are not elected they remain Members during an election (indeed at all times). This is why traditionally they took no part in campaigns.

Of course in practice that distinction is not usually noticed so it is accepted somebody who was an MP at dissolution and is standing for re-election is still eligible to be PM. The more notable possible exception would be from 23rd October-8th November 1963, when the Prime Minister had resigned from one house to be elected to the other one.

It's not noticed because the Lords don't sit during an election, so there's no practical difference - though arguably, if you are going to have a caretaker PM for the course of an election campaign, this is another argument for him or her being from the Lords?

The Prime Minister draws their powers from the Crown, so there is no requirement for them to be in Parliament, is there? It is all just convention.

Mr. Glenn, I consider your implied supposition that a prime minister with a majority is not daft to be substantially and demonstrably false.

Theuniondivvie said:

Scott_P said:

@juliamacfarlane: America's at that point in the breakup where they keep bumping into their ex who looks amazing

https://twitter.com/tvonetv/status/840339878625869824

And you wake up with a massive hangover and lift the duvet to reveal last night's lumber.

https://twitter.com/tylerhogg76/status/839356858963877888

If ever 2 pictures were REALLY worth a thousand words......

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Philip Hammond's demonisation could be the chink of light the Remainers have been waiting for. As I see it Article 50 is reversable until it isn't. The EU will find a way..... The interventions of Major Hesseltine and Blair have had an effect. People seem less willing to go gently into that goodnight.

Article 50 will be signed but every dot and comma will be scrapped over and more important will be news. If urbane Philip Hammond can get the treatment imagine the reaction to the sleasy trio of Johnson Davis and Fox when it starts to go pear-shaped.

The experts no longer shackled by having to start every sentence 'we accept the democratic will etc' will start saying what they've been gagging to say since the vote.

In one day we've had Stephen Hawkins Richard Dawkins and a documentary with Laura Kuinsberg giving the same message.'We're going to land in a pile of shit'

Back to the chink of light..... Experts and the media can make the natives restless but to get this thing reversed needs a political leader with credibility.....

Step forward slayer of white van man.......

The parties that are committed to Brexit have about 55% support, and those which are opposed have about 20% support, so Brexit is going to happen.

I don't understand why Roger thinks that well known Remain supporters coming out and .......supporting remain .........is the start of a fightback or the tide turning against Brexit. Out in the real world, most people barely mention Brexit. Now, I realise that that should change in the very near future, but at the moment, the likes of Major, Blair and Heseltine aren't really on most people's radar.

MalcolmG

When Moniker emigrates to Scotland will he lower the average intelligence of both countries?

scotslass said:

Malcom G

How dare you invest in Moniker Di Canio the gross exageration that he is half witted!

I apologise I should not be boosting her intelligence with that whopper, must have been a Tory moment.

GeoffM said:

Roger said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Scott_P said:

@juliamacfarlane: America's at that point in the breakup where they keep bumping into their ex who looks amazing

ttps://twitter.com/tvonetv/status/840339878625869824

And you wake up with a massive hangover and lift the duvet to reveal last night's lumber.

https://twitter.com/tylerhogg76/status/839356858963877888

If ever 2 pictures were REALLY worth a thousand words......

I can see three pictures of Trump playing golf.
Is this the Odd One Out round of the PB weekend pub quiz?

I must have pressed the wrong button and got a very fat man from Rochdale playing golf

alex. said:

OllyT said:

NickPalmer said:

Also under the heading of long shots, a quick look at France:

Nominations close this week (15th, I think). Polls show Macron in a commanding position, roughly tied with Le Pen in round one and 65-35 ahead in round 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017

Consequently, his odds have been steadily shortening - now 1.87 on Betfair, which is probably still value but not by much. (I got him on 3 thanks to Peter from Putney). If he holds his nerve he should be fine. But what if the debates produce an unexpected result, or he is perceived to be guilty of some sort of scandal?

1. As Richard Nabavi has noted, Fillon might possibly push Le Pen into third. If so, he will have the momentum. Macon should still win but it's less clear. Fillon seems to have a 20% floor impervious to any amount of negative publicity. A 3% switch from Le Pen would get him to the second round. Perhaps his price of 6.2 is worth a small saver.

2. What if Hamon shines in the debate and both Macron AND Fillon falter? Hamon is telegenic and there is a big pool of left-wing voters to draw on, currently split evenly with Melanchon. Could he burst through in round 2 (which he'd win)? Unlikely, but his price is 75. Again, a small saver might be a good idea.

Is there a scenario in which Le Pen wins? The only one I can think of is some outrageous scandal hitting her rival between round 1 and round 2 ballots. Not IMO worth it at anything less than about 40 - and her current price is a ludicrous 4. Laying her remains a good bet.

DYOR, of course.

Have we passed the point where Fillon can legally withdraw?

Listened to a podcast on the French election from Chatham House by Prof John Gaffney last night. Made a couple of interesting points re Le Pen saying that even if she won she has virtually no chance of winning a majority in the Assembly elections a month later and that she would therefore end up fairly powerless.

{SNIP}

Is that really true? Leaving aside any debate about the power of the French President against a hostile Assembly, but aren't arguments against Le Pen's chances of success in assembly elections linked inextricably to arguments why she can't win the Presidency? So if she actually DID win the Presidency then arguments about the Assembly would have to be revisited. She can't be that divorced as an individual from her Party?

If Macron does win the Presidency he could potentially face an even more hostile Assembly than Le Pen with FN and LR voters turning out in force and his En Marche party is barely even represented in the legislature at present and the PS is also in a weak position in the polls

GeoffM said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

PlatoSaid said:

For fans of St Obama, some sobering stats in this piece. Ignore the messenger, note the numbers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301466/PIERS-MORGAN-Obama-deported-millions-killed-thousands.html

So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?

I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.

You couldn't make it up.

Or you could.

Some fools will always believe you.

It's quite touching, in a way how those stats seem to come as a surprise to Plato. Most politically engaged US liberals have been well aware of them - and indeed plenty have critiqued him on that basis. The "St Obama" thing seems to be how the right thinks the left views him, which is fairly ridiculous, as many on the left see him as a moderate conservative.

The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.

George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office

That's arguably true (although from a small sample base). However, GOP aside, the US as a whole is much better served by Trump rather than Clinton appointing new members of the Supremes.

Though if the GOP lose the House in 2018 and the Senate in 2020 (assuming he is reelected) even those appointments will be more difficult for a Trump administration to get through

HYUFD said:

If Macron does win the Presidency he could potentially face an even more hostile Assembly than Le Pen with FN and LR voters turning out in force and his En Marche party is barely even represented in the legislature at present and the PS is also in a weak position in the polls

The FN only has one out of 577 seats in the French parliament currently, and (realistically) won't end up with more than half a dozen because of the French two round system.

It will be interesting to see how En Marche does in the subsequent parliamentary elections. I would guess that they'll also end up with only a relatively small number of directly elected parliamentarians, but the two round system benefits them. I'd guess they'll end up with 50 or so.

ThreeQuidder said:

Roger said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Scott_P said:

@juliamacfarlane: America's at that point in the breakup where they keep bumping into their ex who looks amazing

https://twitter.com/tvonetv/status/840339878625869824

And you wake up with a massive hangover and lift the duvet to reveal last night's lumber.

https://twitter.com/tylerhogg76/status/839356858963877888

If ever 2 pictures were REALLY worth a thousand words......

Yes, they succinctly explain why Trump won.

????? They like fatties in the US?

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

If Macron does win the Presidency he could potentially face an even more hostile Assembly than Le Pen with FN and LR voters turning out in force and his En Marche party is barely even represented in the legislature at present and the PS is also in a weak position in the polls

The FN only has one out of 577 seats in the French parliament currently, and (realistically) won't end up with more than half a dozen because of the French two round system.

It will be interesting to see how En Marche does in the subsequent parliamentary elections. I would guess that they'll also end up with only a relatively small number of directly elected parliamentarians, but the two round system benefits them. I'd guess they'll end up with 50 or so.

We will see, though both the FN and EM should be boosted by a Le Pen v Macron runoff, however the most likely outcome is LR win most seats in the legislature which means Macron would have to face the conservative opposition in charge of the Assemblee Nationale from the beginning of his presidency

Turkish president brands the Dutch "Nazi remnants and fascists" as row over cancelled Rotterdam rally escalates

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39242707

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Philip Hammond's demonisation could be the chink of light the Remainers have been waiting for. As I see it Article 50 is reversable until it isn't. The EU will find a way..... The interventions of Major Hesseltine and Blair have had an effect. People seem less willing to go gently into that goodnight.

Article 50 will be signed but every dot and comma will be scrapped over and more important will be news. If urbane Philip Hammond can get the treatment imagine the reaction to the sleasy trio of Johnson Davis and Fox when it starts to go pear-shaped.

The experts no longer shackled by having to start every sentence 'we accept the democratic will etc' will start saying what they've been gagging to say since the vote.

In one day we've had Stephen Hawkins Richard Dawkins and a documentary with Laura Kuinsberg giving the same message.'We're going to land in a pile of shit'

Back to the chink of light..... Experts and the media can make the natives restless but to get this thing reversed needs a political leader with credibility.....

Step forward slayer of white van man.......

The parties that are committed to Brexit have about 55% support, and those which are opposed have about 20% support, so Brexit is going to happen.

The question is how ressilient will that support be when things start going wrong and there are some respected figures to remind us that we were duped?

As for two parties supporting with 55% this crosses party boundaries. From memory MP's were about 450 Remain 200 Leave and as with Iraq when things get sticky I expect them remind us which way they voted

Roger said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Philip Hammond's demonisation could be the chink of light the Remainers have been waiting for. As I see it Article 50 is reversable until it isn't. The EU will find a way..... The interventions of Major Hesseltine and Blair have had an effect. People seem less willing to go gently into that goodnight.

Article 50 will be signed but every dot and comma will be scrapped over and more important will be news. If urbane Philip Hammond can get the treatment imagine the reaction to the sleasy trio of Johnson Davis and Fox when it starts to go pear-shaped.

The experts no longer shackled by having to start every sentence 'we accept the democratic will etc' will start saying what they've been gagging to say since the vote.

In one day we've had Stephen Hawkins Richard Dawkins and a documentary with Laura Kuinsberg giving the same message.'We're going to land in a pile of shit'

Back to the chink of light..... Experts and the media can make the natives restless but to get this thing reversed needs a political leader with credibility.....

Step forward slayer of white van man.......

The parties that are committed to Brexit have about 55% support, and those which are opposed have about 20% support, so Brexit is going to happen.

The question is how ressilient will that support be when things start going wrong and there are some respected figures to remind us that we were duped?

As for two parties supporting with 55% this crosses party boundaries. From memory MP's were about 450 Remain 200 Leave and as with Iraq when things get sticky I expect them remind us which way they voted

What if people turn out to reasonably content with Brexit? Blair, Dawkins et al will be howling into the wind.

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

PlatoSaid said:

For fans of St Obama, some sobering stats in this piece. Ignore the messenger, note the numbers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301466/PIERS-MORGAN-Obama-deported-millions-killed-thousands.html

So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?

I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.

You couldn't make it up.

Or you could.

Some fools will always believe you.

It's quite touching, in a way how those stats seem to come as a surprise to Plato. Most politically engaged US liberals have been well aware of them - and indeed plenty have critiqued him on that basis. The "St Obama" thing seems to be how the right thinks the left views him, which is fairly ridiculous, as many on the left see him as a moderate conservative.

The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.

George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office

I understand that. I was talking about the voter engagement systems (fairly advanced at the time) which the Obama campaign built, and which then got folded into the national Democratic bureaucracy and became fairly moribund. State parties were neglected woefully.

alex. said:

I still find it mystifying that the FTPA was legislated as a permanent change to the arrangements for dissolving parliament, when its primary purpose was to give security to the specific circumstances of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. I know that the LibDems have always been in favour of Fixed term parliaments on principle, but surely they would have accepted an Act that limited itself to the period of the 2010-15 Parliament?

Presumably the Tories involved in the negotiation didn't think it was a bad idea on the merits. From the point of view of ministers trying to get things done, it must be useful to know how much time you've got to do it in, exceptional circumstances notwithstanding.

A party with a majority wouldn't have done it because it means giving up a tactical weapon that can help them win the next election, but applied to future parliaments you don't know whether you'll be in government or opposition, so you may as well go for the one that gives you better government.

alex. said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I had a similar idea, but instead of Gus O'Donnell, I was thinking of Mark Carney instead.

We've had a Canadian born U.K. PM before.

But Carney isn't a Member of Parliament. True, he could be given a peerage to become one but it would look rather bad.

So what? There'd be an election on: no-one would be a Member of Parliament. In some ways, an extraparlamentary government would reemphasise its caretaker / time-limited mandate.

Not quite correct. As Lords are not elected they remain Members during an election (indeed at all times). This is why traditionally they took no part in campaigns.

Of course in practice that distinction is not usually noticed so it is accepted somebody who was an MP at dissolution and is standing for re-election is still eligible to be PM. The more notable possible exception would be from 23rd October-8th November 1963, when the Prime Minister had resigned from one house to be elected to the other one.

It's not noticed because the Lords don't sit during an election, so there's no practical difference - though arguably, if you are going to have a caretaker PM for the course of an election campaign, this is another argument for him or her being from the Lords?

The Prime Minister draws their powers from the Crown, so there is no requirement for them to be in Parliament, is there? It is all just convention.

Correct. And 'convention' is a mixture of what's happened before and what's acceptable in current circumstances.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Turkish president brands the Dutch "Nazi remnants and fascists" as row over cancelled Rotterdam rally escalates

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39242707

Is there anyone that the Turkish President has not called a Nazi recently? Someone should tell him about Godwin's law.

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Philip Hammond's demonisation could be the chink of light the Remainers have been waiting for. As I see it Article 50 is reversable until it isn't. The EU will find a way..... The interventions of Major Hesseltine and Blair have had an effect. People seem less willing to go gently into that goodnight.

Article 50 will be signed but every dot and comma will be scrapped over and more important will be news. If urbane Philip Hammond can get the treatment imagine the reaction to the sleasy trio of Johnson Davis and Fox when it starts to go pear-shaped.

The experts no longer shackled by having to start every sentence 'we accept the democratic will etc' will start saying what they've been gagging to say since the vote.

In one day we've had Stephen Hawkins Richard Dawkins and a documentary with Laura Kuinsberg giving the same message.'We're going to land in a pile of shit'

Back to the chink of light..... Experts and the media can make the natives restless but to get this thing reversed needs a political leader with credibility.....

Step forward slayer of white van man.......

The parties that are committed to Brexit have about 55% support, and those which are opposed have about 20% support, so Brexit is going to happen.

The question is how ressilient will that support be when things start going wrong and there are some respected figures to remind us that we were duped?

As for two parties supporting with 55% this crosses party boundaries. From memory MP's were about 450 Remain 200 Leave and as with Iraq when things get sticky I expect them remind us which way they voted

What if people turn out to reasonably content with Brexit? Blair, Dawkins et al will be howling into the wind.

I agree. That's a possibility but if anything goes wrong in the next 3 years it's likely it'll be blamed on Brexit and there are some pretty influential people with good media access to ram home the point. Particularly when the three people charged with being the face of Brexit are so flakey and frankly untrustworthy.

Roger said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Philip Hammond's demonisation could be the chink of light the Remainers have been waiting for. As I see it Article 50 is reversable until it isn't. The EU will find a way..... The interventions of Major Hesseltine and Blair have had an effect. People seem less willing to go gently into that goodnight.

Article 50 will be signed but every dot and comma will be scrapped over and more important will be news. If urbane Philip Hammond can get the treatment imagine the reaction to the sleasy trio of Johnson Davis and Fox when it starts to go pear-shaped.

The experts no longer shackled by having to start every sentence 'we accept the democratic will etc' will start saying what they've been gagging to say since the vote.

In one day we've had Stephen Hawkins Richard Dawkins and a documentary with Laura Kuinsberg giving the same message.'We're going to land in a pile of shit'

Back to the chink of light..... Experts and the media can make the natives restless but to get this thing reversed needs a political leader with credibility.....

Step forward slayer of white van man.......

The parties that are committed to Brexit have about 55% support, and those which are opposed have about 20% support, so Brexit is going to happen.

The question is how ressilient will that support be when things start going wrong and there are some respected figures to remind us that we were duped?

As for two parties supporting with 55% this crosses party boundaries. From memory MP's were about 450 Remain 200 Leave and as with Iraq when things get sticky I expect them remind us which way they voted

What if people turn out to reasonably content with Brexit? Blair, Dawkins et al will be howling into the wind.

I agree. That's a possibility but if anything goes wrong in the next 3 years it's likely it'll be blamed on Brexit and there are some pretty influential people with good media access to ram home the point. Particularly when the three people charged with being the face of Brexit are so flakey and frankly untrustworthy.

You've not really learned much about the common ground of this country have you, Roge.

Those who voted Leave dislike Europolitics. They'll blame Europolitics.

Mortimer said:

Roger said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Philip Hammond's demonisation could be the chink of light the Remainers have been waiting for. As I see it Article 50 is reversable until it isn't. The EU will find a way..... The interventions of Major Hesseltine and Blair have had an effect. People seem less willing to go gently into that goodnight.

Article 50 will be signed but every dot and comma will be scrapped over and more important will be news. If urbane Philip Hammond can get the treatment imagine the reaction to the sleasy trio of Johnson Davis and Fox when it starts to go pear-shaped.

The experts no longer shackled by having to start every sentence 'we accept the democratic will etc' will start saying what they've been gagging to say since the vote.

In one day we've had Stephen Hawkins Richard Dawkins and a documentary with Laura Kuinsberg giving the same message.'We're going to land in a pile of shit'

Back to the chink of light..... Experts and the media can make the natives restless but to get this thing reversed needs a political leader with credibility.....

Step forward slayer of white van man.......

The parties that are committed to Brexit have about 55% support, and those which are opposed have about 20% support, so Brexit is going to happen.

The question is how ressilient will that support be when things start going wrong and there are some respected figures to remind us that we were duped?

As for two parties supporting with 55% this crosses party boundaries. From memory MP's were about 450 Remain 200 Leave and as with Iraq when things get sticky I expect them remind us which way they voted

What if people turn out to reasonably content with Brexit? Blair, Dawkins et al will be howling into the wind.

I agree. That's a possibility but if anything goes wrong in the next 3 years it's likely it'll be blamed on Brexit and there are some pretty influential people with good media access to ram home the point. Particularly when the three people charged with being the face of Brexit are so flakey and frankly untrustworthy.

You've not really learned much about the common ground of this country have you, Roge.

Those who voted Leave dislike Europolitics. They'll blame Europolitics.

I think that's a bit simplistic. If large firms close down factories and relocate them inside the EU, I think those affected will probably not choose to blame "Europolitics", they'll blame British politicians - either for not doing enough to keep them, or for lying to them.

Fortunately, so long as we are relatively sensible, this is unlikely to be a major issue.

Theuniondivvie said:

Fuc
king
hell

https://twitter.com/madeofwasps/status/840522103250137088

Well I'd take issue with the shit bit, but frankly I think comparing all our politics to wizard based fiction would be a good idea. Makes everything more palatable in a good and evil kind of way, no problems.