politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Chancellor David Gauke becomes 3/1 favourite for next Cab

Ken Clarke's backing him, then so am I, even if if costs me £610

I broadly agree with Mr. Smithson's sentiments, although with odds long enough (such as 51) I think exceptions might be made.

*a rush of money* *Cough 60-1

I'd agree with Mike's final paragraph right now though, 3-1 is not an attractive price to bet at as it now stands.

MarqueeMark said:

Both losing bets, TSE....

That's what people said about my thread on Sir Michael Fallon as Theresa's successor at 100/1 Jeremy Hunt as successor to Theresa May at 100/1

Seems the High Court has made the right decision but presumably we also have to see what the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decide if Warboys Appeals.

The Parole board faced criticism after another case this week so Hardwick also probably had to go.

http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2018-03-09/men-accused-of-killing-vietnamese-woman-are-convicted-murderers-jury-told/

Whether Gauke goes or not depends on the legal advice he was given

Not sure I understand the logic of sacking him... doesn’t TM have enough enemies as it is?

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Most annoying playing of this market was Chris Huhne hanging on, to get pipped to the winning post when he was so clearly banged to rights.... Grrrrr...

I won three times on that market, I knew the CPS would take their time, Liam Fox being outed as a national security risk was a great bonus.

I love Chris Huhne, without him I wouldn't have become guest editor of PB.

Rich as Creases is still my favourite pb.com pun, about his expenses claim for a trouser press....

Why should he have to resign? Or be sacked? He took legal advice. That advice turned out to be wrong. The High Court has ruled. Now the Parole Board will have to consider the implications of the ruling for their function.

Ministers resigning simply because the courts have taken a different view of the law to government lawyers seems to me unnecessary, in the absence of some other fault.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, annoying is when two winning bets both failed because Haas managed to screw up a second pit stop after they buggered up the first.

These things happen, but it's still irksome.

You could back them to beat Red Bull in Bahrain ?

Israeli Ambassador being diplomatic:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/979018823495020546

Mr. B, I'd be astounded if that happened. The Haas was over a second a lap slower in qualifying. We have a league of three at the front, and then the rest.

That said, perfect timing of a safety car could give track position, and the Haas might be good enough to keep a Red Bull behind it (McLaren was in Australia).

TGOHF said:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

Cummings on the front foot now..

So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?

Dom Cummings points out The Guardian uses the same 'harvesting data' techniques they are (erroneously) claiming Vote Leave did:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

Cummings on the front foot now..

So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?

Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

Cummings on the front foot now..

So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?

Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?

If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, I'd be astounded if that happened. The Haas was over a second a lap slower in qualifying. We have a league of three at the front, and then the rest.

That said, perfect timing of a safety car could give track position, and the Haas might be good enough to keep a Red Bull behind it (McLaren was in Australia).

No, you're probably right - last year's Red Bulls were close enough (in qualifying) to the Ferraris. If Haas get track position then they ought easily to keep the Red Bulls at bay.

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

Cummings on the front foot now..

So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?

I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.

If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

Cummings on the front foot now..

So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?

I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.

If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.

I hope Dom Cummings spends more time talking about the three years he spent living in Russia.

He's a Russophile, perhaps he can explain the mindset of Vladimir Putin.

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

Cummings on the front foot now..

So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?

I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.

If you follow the Guardian or the New York Times, or any major news network, you are likely to have noticed that a company called Cambridge Analytica have been in the headlines a lot.

The basic story as reported is as follows:

A shady UK data analytics company, with the help of a 24 year old tech genius developed an innovative technique to ‘hack’ facebook and steal 50 million user profiles. Then they used this data to help the Trump and Brexit campaigns psychologically manipulate voters through targeted ads. The result was Vote Leave ‘won’ the UK’s Brexit referendum and Trump was elected president in the US.

Unfortunately, almost everything in the above summary is false or misleading.

https://god-knows-what.com/2018/03/27/why-almost-everything-reported-about-the-cambridge-analytica-facebook-hacking-controversy-is-wrong/

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

Cummings on the front foot now..

So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?

Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?

If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.

If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.

Nah.

Mr. Eagles, I agree with you on the Lord Chancellor business. Blair was a short-sighted oaf.

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic it is just wrong that the Lord Chancellor isn't a Lord.

We're talking about one of the Great Officers of State, a role that goes back to the 7th Century.

It's not a Johnny Come Lately role like Lord Privy Seal.

This is the fault of Tony Blair and his constitutional vandalism.

Blair tried to abolish the Lord Chancellor because he couldn't abide the fact that there was a cabinet post that ranked higher than his in the order of precedence.

TheScreamingEagles said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

Cummings on the front foot now..

So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?

I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.

If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.

I hope Dom Cummings spends more time talking about the three years he spent living in Russia.

He's a Russophile, perhaps he can explain the mindset of Vladimir Putin.

Perhaps he needs to be careful of eating out in small provincial cities too...

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

Cummings on the front foot now..

So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?

I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.

If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.

All I’m seeing is the people who underestimated him in the Referendum doubling down on their mistake....

TheScreamingEagles said:

The really funny thing about Red Sparrow.

Hardly any of the Russians were played by a Russian, and the main American character was played by an Aussie.

Top drawer British talent in the main....

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/979032296241147910

Ishmael_Z said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?

Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.

Well the Lancastrians are weird.

https://twitter.com/HoCPress/status/978947467717816320?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://vote-2012.proboards.com/posts/recent&tfw_site=proboards

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

Why don't you start nearer to home and ask the Lancastrians about the 'Duke of Lancaster'?

https://twitter.com/IoWBobSeely/status/979025079987261440

https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/979035069380747264
https://twitter.com/matthewchampion/status/979034902879404032

https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/979035511674327040

Ishmael_Z said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ishmael_Z said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?

Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.

Well the Lancastrians are weird.

I'll take the Duke of Lancaster over the Duke of York any day.

Unfortunately for him, the Duke of Lancaster was comprehensively unable to take the Duke of York on pretty much any day, with the dazzling exception of the Battle of Wakefield.

Pretty much every other major battle in the Wars of the Roses - First St Albans, Northampton, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury - the Lancastrians got their arses handed to them.

https://twitter.com/amorris991/status/979037991531401217

Mr. Doethur, that's entirely possible.

Anyway, on the note of French dubiousness I must be off.

@ShippersUnbound: Who can this Milne? I mean, who can this mean? https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/979041284387205120

Good afternoon, everyone.

I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

Scott_P said:

@ShippersUnbound: Who can this Milne? I mean, who can this mean? https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/979041284387205120

The fact that some Corbynsceptic Labour MPs are criticising him does not mean there is no problem. It is a serious one because it sends a terrible signal to the world outside Labour.

Corbyn doesn’t have to sell his soul to address it. John McDonnell, his closest political ally, has shown a much surer touch in handling sensitive issues

Pretty sensible stuff. As for Corbyn planning to apologise but his statement amended, well, it is still his statement after all. And this sort of report will just make his base even more confused. Do they continue to say it is nonsense when not only has he said there is a problem, but he wanted to apologise earlier?

https://twitter.com/nytmike/status/979045466603126784

AnneJGP said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/979045933861277697

I swear he often seems to have a different position than the others, though eventually they come around.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/979045933861277697

He'll do as he's told......

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/979045933861277697

Comments below the line are twigging finally that Corbyn is Brexit’s Bezzy Mate. Not happy!

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.

There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.

MarqueeMark said:

If it was that big an issue, why get photographed at a Pride event at 10 Downing Street?

Lots of people attend Pride events who aren't gay.

oxfordsimon said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.

There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.

I am on the other side of this. If the new Mayors are to mean anything other than a sinecure, then they should be full time. If Jarvis wants to leave the Commons to do it, like Burnham or Khan, or Leicesters own Peter Soulsby have done, then he should. I don't think this is a new rule.

Foxy said:

oxfordsimon said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.

There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.

I am on the other side of this. If the new Mayors are to mean anything other than a sinecure, then they should be full time. If Jarvis wants to leave the Commons to do it, like Burnham or Khan, or Leicesters own Peter Soulsby have done, then he should. I don't think this is a new rule.

I think it comes down to individual choice. Labour threatening one of their own MPs over this is sending the wrong message entirely.

Changing the rules part way through the process is just not democratic.

Jarvis stood making his intentions very clear. He was duly selected. Then the rules were changed. No wonder people are narked.

oxfordsimon said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.

There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.

Im not opposed to people doing both, I just think parties can set their own rules on it. However, changing those rules part way through is just not cricket.

kle4 said:

oxfordsimon said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.

There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.

Im not opposed to people doing both, I just think parties can set their own rules on it. However, changing those rules part way through is just not cricket.

Or, as the case may be, is cricket.