Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tory leadership – an alternative view
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tory leadership – an alternative view
David’s piece yesterday was very insightful on the mechanics for how a new Conservative leader could be elected. I wanted to add a few thoughts on what has happened over the past week, and what are the betting implications on the political front.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/robertcourts/status/1018503420901249026?s=21
McVey has hardly been sure footed since her elevation.
PB should have strict standards of disclosure, as for a site with financial/investment commentary.
The problem is that his belief in Brexit is convenience not conviction.
1. Will a new leader come from my faction of the party? If not, have I traded May for something worse?
2. Will a new leader be able to get anything better from the EU? Or will the reduced time until Brexit Day have reduced our leverage over the EU even more?
3. Will a new leader improve my chance of re-election in 2022, or will it potentially split the party, and result in me losing my seat?
Put together, I can see Mrs May's opponents getting the 48 or so votes to force a contest. But, right now, I cannot see them getting enough to topple her.
If I were Mrs May, and I'm glad I'm not, the temptation to reply with "Without a doubt, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard" would have been overwhelming.
Now for the footy!
Oh, I missed two goals!
Oh no! Not another one! As Brenda from Bristol might say. Of course that depends on how stupid the new Conservative leader is, so its a distinct possibility.
It would be a courageous decision to sue the EU in the CJEU/ECJ because... errr... they weren't offering what we wanted.
1. I have backed McVey (and Mourdant for that matter) but on straightforward odds, mainly at Ladbrokes, of 100/1 so I win or lose the bet. So I have put my money where my mouth is because I believe in the bet (as well as cover if I am wrong) but I do not benefit from the odds coming in and persuading people to follow my line.
2. Re my "success" ratio, I disclosed in a previous post on the US midterms that I had done very well on Brexit and Trump in 2016 but badly with the 2017 GE ex-Scotland
3. In answering Mike's question, I would hope not as that is an easy way to lose money - I do support Brexit but my main criticism of May is that I am in the camp that believes that, to negotiate well, you have to threaten to walk away. Suddenly, the EU has been a lot more conciliatory towards Italy since the latter started mouthing off.
DavidL, thank you for your defence and you are right, IanB2 should be careful in what he writes. His comments may be interpreted as suggesting a fraudulent intent in some circumstances.
LOL, Trump is something else.
The site would nevertheless benefit from a disclosure policy from all lead writers. If only to avoid such discussions as this.
We love you. But you need know there is no such thing as a soft Brexit. There never was an option for a Soft Brexit.
From the moment we joined in 73 there was always the question is our influence over decision making via council of ministers and representatives in commission and EU Parliament and input into drafting of treaty’s effective enough to justify and compensate for adopting European law and regulation above our own parliament, it’s an argument pro Europeans never won, our input into EU democracy has never felt influential enough to justify degree of surrender of democracy from our own parliament. In fact, increasingly over 45 years the pro Europeans stuck their heads in the sand each time that question came up (sweetly underlined by Brown not even turning up at signing of Britains last Treaty in the EU his government helped create). But, Every definition of soft Brexit we withdraw from influencing EU parliament, commission and councils, yet tie ourselves to their regulations and decisions made by those EU institutions. Not only is that clearly not a better deal it doesn’t even make a shred of logical sense to any sane and thoughtful person.
Let’s call out soft Brexit for what it really is. What is being called Soft Brexit is Business Brexit designed to protect, through spin, fudge and lies, negatives of Globalisation such as zero control of borders to allow business to suck in what they want, the very issues 17M UK voters acted against. 17M voters genuine in concerns, that Soft Brexit is Business Brexit surrendering Britain’s democracy and sovereignty to a Global Commerce that cares not for voters or referendums or state democracy, but exploits freedoms which simultaneously worry us workers and voters. Even many remainers recognise folly of pandering to global commerce, want control of borders, don’t want wages driven down by multinationals.
Business Brexit is your Soft Brexit, pandering to worst of globalisation in disregard for voters concerns, what is driven purely by profit, not planning and managing impact of immigration, deindustrialisation, re skilling and rebalancing a nations economy our governments need to be empowered to manage and achieve.
That’s two coherent and solid reasons why Soft Brexit is so bad it’s not really an option, there is another compelling reason Soft Brexit is the worst Brexit, it will end up putting extremists and fruitcakes, such as those who believe the NHS is a relic of a soviet era, in power, the establishment parties who make soft Brexit, the naive members of those parties who help build such a “folly”, swept away by the betrayed voters .
Edit/ on the slomo he appears to open his hand as the ball approaches
https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/1018501070652432384
I see Croatia are beating France, but struggling somewhat against the referee.
In reply to Lord of Reason
Thank you for your explanation but I am pro business and in particular pro Airbus, Jaguar Land Rover, and others and as both John Mann and Tom Watson affirmed on this mornings tv the deal has to protect these businesses and jobs and John Mann supports Chequers and he is a Brexiteer.
The political class are in chaos and there are widespread views from Norway option right through to walking out.I hope a deal is done that respects the referendum but also our economy. I do see Chequers failing and at that point the HOC have to take over the process in cross party agreement in the National interest.
The future of TM is not my concern and am content for a VNOC. Indeed it may be time for Boris to take over and own the mess that is coming
She remains one of the swivel-eyed options I would like to see replacing May.
...they're off to the salt mines.
It's the way you tell 'em
The narrative that former UKIP supporters who voted Tory in 2017 (Often for the first time) are the "bedrock" of Tory support seems anathema to me. I know lots of life long Tories who do not support Brexit but voted Tory in 2017 anyway and I was one of those people. I simply do not buy into the myth that massive numbers of people will or will not vote Tory in the future on Brexit alone. If they have not supported the party before and for one election backed it I do not think they are reliable travellers in the Tory party wagon. General election campaigns wake up powerful thoughts in people and energise them to vote, Brexit is the last election, I suspect the next election will be focused on the economy assuming Brexit happens and the unpleasant fallout from Brexit. To be honest the PM is hopelessly out of her depth but looking around at people like Johnson makes me despair. The man is not cut out to be PM, he would be a F***ing disaster!
Can you imagine Boris as PM? Seriously? Mr "F*** Business" and other insightful political comments...
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1018076729754243072
Heck this only ties with England 4 West Germany 2
Trump is quite happy to spout obvious untruths and nonsensical plans whose appeal is atavistic rather than rational. After all, it was originally his support for the ridiculous birther theories which set him on the path to the nomination.
Similar considerations apply to Brexit.