politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mr. Johnson becomes favourite once again to succeed Mrs. May

FPT:

Deafbloke said:

Casino_Royale said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

GIN1138 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tory GE Manifesto

We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.

Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7

I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...

Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.

I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.

There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.

The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.

If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.

It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.

The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.

But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?

They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?

They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1064538640087437312?s=21
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1064545387950813189?s=21

Couldn't happen to nicer people.

The great mistake made by the media is to have regarded the ERG as an homogeneous grouping with a leader commanding a block vote. They are no more united than is the Cabinet.

Only a cynic would be scouring Theresa May's next honours list to count the knighthoods and damehoods dished out to constituency chairs!

philiph said:

Andrew said:

Slackbladder said:

If thats anyway near true, then holy cow, May might just just pull it off.

I'm beginning to think so.

Probably needs a solid phalanx of Labour abstainers though. Maybe after other options (EFTA, ref2) have been rejected by Commons votes, and the markets/sterling start to wobble?

Not sure that would be motivation for Labour to offer to support the Tory administration.

Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order:
1. Remain
2. EEA/EFTA
3. This Deal
4. No Deal

As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.

"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.

May I call on the Brains Trust within this community (Mr Smithson? Mr Meeks? Mr Nabavi?) to write a thread header (for five year olds, like me ) on how May's deal compares with what David Cameron was offering when he renegotiated. Pros and cons etc, and whether it was a fatal mistake to treat Cameron's offer so shabbily.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

I wonder if in terms of political triangulation Raab might have best placed himself to take the crown.
Resigned from the cabinet, but not sending in a letter and is behind May for the moment. Bojo and Davis look even more openly disloyal right now whereas those remaining in the cabinet probably have their chances dented if the good ship May sinks in the near future.

The trouble is that Raab doesn't seem to have distinguished himself in his cabinet role, and in fact seemed distressingly prone to gaffes.

I thought that comment about Dover showed real weakness on his part. This has been reflected in much of the ERG's dogma when spokespersons are confronted by the reality of the situation we will encounter should Hard Brexit be implemented.

Pulpstar said:

I wonder if in terms of political triangulation Raab might have best placed himself to take the crown.
Resigned from the cabinet, but not sending in a letter and is behind May for the moment. Bojo and Davis look even more openly disloyal right now whereas those remaining in the cabinet probably have their chances dented if the good ship May sinks in the near future.

I don't quite understand how he could resign and not send in a letter, and his admission to being hoodwinked doesn't look great, but on the basis that Gove and co look ridiculous and Boris and Davis can be accused, fairly or not, of jumping ship too early, he may be the one I guess.

Fenster said:

May I call on the Brains Trust within this community (Mr Smithson? Mr Meeks? Mr Nabavi?) to write a thread header (for five year olds, like me ) on how May's deal compares with what David Cameron was offering when he renegotiated. Pros and cons etc, and whether it was a fatal mistake to treat Cameron's offer so shabbily.

That strikes me as a category error.

Cameron's deal was primarily intended to put our status in the EU but outside the Eurozone on a permanently-sustainable basis. May's deal is simply an exit deal that takes us outside the EU. There is nothing binding about the long-term future relationship at all, other than the Northern Ireland protocol, which introduces the constraint that long-term divergence will not include Northern Ireland.

Mr. kle4, it might be they want the deal to fail to pass the Commons first rather than having a pre-emptive vote of no confidence.

https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1064555899715493889

TudorRose said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064555724561440768

Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!

Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, it might be they want the deal to fail to pass the Commons first rather than having a pre-emptive vote of no confidence.

Which is probably a better idea. I feel like the ERG were both too soon and too late. Too late as it was clear they would need May to go to get a change in direction so should have at least admitted that was necessary awhile ago, but too soon in that if they get their vote and she wins it only complicates things as she cannot be forced out when her deal fails (not easily anyway, since no formal mechanism to force it).

GIN1138 said:

FPT:

Deafbloke said:

Casino_Royale said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

GIN1138 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tory GE Manifesto

We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.

Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7

I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...

Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.

I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.

There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.

The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.

If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.

It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.

The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.

But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?

They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?

They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.

Why would the EU want a 'neutered, diminished and impotent nation'?
Has our government wanted that for France, Holland or Germany?
No, it's fine to look out for your country's interests, but there are also advantages to working together. That's also true, as much as is possible, if we have to leave.

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

I wonder if in terms of political triangulation Raab might have best placed himself to take the crown.
Resigned from the cabinet, but not sending in a letter and is behind May for the moment. Bojo and Davis look even more openly disloyal right now whereas those remaining in the cabinet probably have their chances dented if the good ship May sinks in the near future.

I don't quite understand how he could resign and not send in a letter, and his admission to being hoodwinked doesn't look great, but on the basis that Gove and co look ridiculous and Boris and Davis can be accused, fairly or not, of jumping ship too early, he may be the one I guess.

I'm slightly biased because I wrote a post suggesting to bet her as next PM (yes, don't laugh) but, on "the dog that didn't bark" principle, McVey's actions are interesting. Unlike Raab, she has kept her head down and, despite writing a more hostile resignation letter, hasn't publicly given any indication of whether she would vote against May or not.

kle4 said:

DanSmith said:

Sounds like the ERG did not have a good weekend talking to their associations.

Colour me surprised. Genuinely so, I would think associations would be inclined to be anti deal, but then I am not part of one.

Me neither, but I suspect there will be a cohort of Tory members thinking May's doing ok in a difficult situation. I would not be surprised if many Tories admire her perseverance and resilience while disliking the ERG disloyalty.

logical_song said:

GIN1138 said:

FPT:

Deafbloke said:

Casino_Royale said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

GIN1138 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tory GE Manifesto

We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.

Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7

I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...

Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.

I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.

There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.

The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.

If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.

It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.

The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.

But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?

They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?

They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.

Why would the EU want a 'neutered, diminished and impotent nation'?
Has our government wanted that for France, Holland or Germany?
No, it's fine to look out for your country's interests, but there are also advantages to working together. That's also true, as much as is possible, if we have to leave.

Selmayr has said he wants Northern Ireland to be the price we pay for daring to leave?

MarqueeMark said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

"The proper way to resolve the issue is to put the deal to the Commons as soon as possible, ideally this week. There’s very little on the agenda in the Commons this Thursday, for example."

Does DD think he is losing support day by day?

How can you put a deal to the HOC that is not concluded. That is just silly

If the deal has been agreed in principle by the negotiating teams why could the Commons not vote on it? It's at least a better idea than not voting on it just because it will lose.

The core problems with the deal are known. If they are unacceptable to the House, the negotiators need to know they don't have a deal....and try to go get one. If the other side won't even try - then we have no deal.

Sounds reasonable to me. Either way the House directs us down a path, intentionally or otherwise.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1064555899715493889

It is rather reminding me of situations where people are only just waking up to a major decision, and convince themselves they had no way of doing anything up until the end, and desperately try out a bunch of ideas which have already been worked on for a long long time as if they are brand new.

Given that the information may affect the currency and stock markets, is Brady only likely to make a 48 letter announcement (should one be required) after 17:00 or before 08:00?

Pulpstar said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TudorRose said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064555724561440768

Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!

Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear

Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.

Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TudorRose said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064555724561440768

Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!

Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear

Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.

Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.

And then what happens

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TudorRose said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064555724561440768

Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!

Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear

Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.

Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.

When she has a chunk of the Cabinet trying - against her will - to rewrite the deal she has said is final, and yet is too weak to fire them for doing so, you have to ask how much power and control does she have anyway?

Notch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

We should revoke Article 50.
Then invoke it again.

Call the first Brexit a mulligan.

I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.

Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.

Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?

Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064562180203393025

Morris_Dancer said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064562180203393025

Interesting use of the word 'clarify':

to clarify: to admit that one has got something completely wrong.

https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064562477088813056

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TudorRose said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064555724561440768

Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!

Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear

Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.

Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.

If there is a vonc then Theresa May will probably lose. It is not just the ERG who want a new leader, although of course, there is no agreement on who that should be. The vote will not be ERG versus the rest, it will be May against A N Other. Number 10 has not invested so much in killing off the vonc because they are confident of victory.

MarqueeMark said:

Morris_Dancer said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064562180203393025

Looks like another one for the Mickey Fab strategy. Letter written, but the moment is not yet right - until the deal fails to get approved.

Nothing would chill the bones of No 10 more than to hear that only Andrew Bridgen and Andrea Jenkyns' letters were with Brady.

GIN1138 said:

Pulpstar said:

Morris_Dancer said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064562180203393025

Ah so written but not delivered maybe

What's the point of writing it but not delivering it?

Hold it back for if the deal is voted down and May looks like backing remain over no deal.

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1064565995489161216

This is the same line Isabel Oakeshott was spinning on the Daily politics.

Might be true, but there does seem to be an air of Brexiteers wishing ever harder for things that just ain't happening

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1064565995489161216

This is the same line Isabel Oakeshott was spinning on the Daily politics.

Might be true, but there does seem to be an air of Brexiteers wishing ever harder for things that just ain't happening

Or, at this rate, *wont* be voting in a ballot, secret or not.

Beverley_C said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Notch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

We should revoke Article 50.
Then invoke it again.

Call the first Brexit a mulligan.

I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.

Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.

Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?

Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.

Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.

It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country

Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:

What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?

It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".

The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.

Pulpstar said:

GIN1138 said:

Pulpstar said:

Morris_Dancer said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064562180203393025

Ah so written but not delivered maybe

What's the point of writing it but not delivering it?

Hold it back for if the deal is voted down and May looks like backing remain over no deal.

Even then she probably still wins the VoNC.

Most up to date public count I think (anyone see missing?)

https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1064552421832212481

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1064565995489161216

This is the same line Isabel Oakeshott was spinning on the Daily politics.

Might be true, but there does seem to be an air of Brexiteers wishing ever harder for things that just ain't happening

Anyone who trusts the words of a so-called journalist who betrays every principle of her ostensible profession by shopping her sources is even more a fool than she is.

Afternoon again all

If you want another group of very angry people seemingly powerless to do anything to change their situation, look at all those people delayed by another disastrous day on South Western Railway.

I'd love someone to produce a clear account of why the engineering works overran so badly they weren't able to start a train service until 10am but I don't suppose that will happen.

More votes for rail re-nationalisation even though it's Network Rail's fault apparently.

Benpointer said:

Morris_Dancer said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064562180203393025

Interesting use of the word 'clarify':

to clarify: to admit that one has got something completely wrong.

A fairly regular, if not daily, occurrence for this particular non-journalist. The hopeless Kuenssberg is singlehandedly responsible for my deserting BBC News in favour of ITV.

Andrew said:

Most up to date public count I think (anyone see missing?)

https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1064552421832212481

Thinking about other brexiteers, what about John Baron and/or John Redwood?

Andrew said:

Most up to date public count I think (anyone see missing?)

https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1064552421832212481

Do we know how many were sent during Dave's glorious reign? If the percentage is comparable then perhaps this is just the normal amount of malcontents for any given leader.

Pulpstar said:

GIN1138 said:

Pulpstar said:

Morris_Dancer said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064562180203393025

Ah so written but not delivered maybe

What's the point of writing it but not delivering it?

Hold it back for if the deal is voted down and May looks like backing remain over no deal.

Well then you'd write the letter at that point wouldn't you?

I think Ms Villiers is just playing games...

Corbyn quotes Lord Denning, whose “appalling vista” turned out to be true.
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1064567848771756032?s=21

RochdalePioneers said:

philiph said:

Andrew said:

Slackbladder said:

If thats anyway near true, then holy cow, May might just just pull it off.

I'm beginning to think so.

Probably needs a solid phalanx of Labour abstainers though. Maybe after other options (EFTA, ref2) have been rejected by Commons votes, and the markets/sterling start to wobble?

Not sure that would be motivation for Labour to offer to support the Tory administration.

Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order:
1. Remain
2. EEA/EFTA
3. This Deal
4. No Deal

As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.

"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.

"As people voted leave to be better off..."

How do you know that? Some Leavers may have hoped or expected to be better off but I never got the impression that was the prime reason for voting Leave for many.

Even if the 48 promised by the Brexiters’ so-called master strategist Steve Baker are finally mustered, as they still may be, the rebels have lost face and momentum. As one Tory put it, “this is how Vote Leave would have looked without Dominic Cummings ”.

Ouch!

https://www.ft.com/content/15d51a5e-ebdf-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1064571785688035329

So they will vote for the deal then...

Andy_Cooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

We should revoke Article 50.
Then invoke it again.

Call the first Brexit a mulligan.

I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.

I do think that the sensible judgement would be that it's revocable by mutual agreement between the country invoking it and the European Council.

It'd allow an easy stop if desired, without allowing countries to take the piss playing Article 50 hokey-cokey.

("We're In! We're Out! We're In! We're Out! We're shaking it all about!")

Yes, I really don't see how it could be the case that we could unilaterally revoke Article 50, but would require unanimous agreement to extend it.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-300000-water-cannon-end-up-as-scrap-metal-a3993511.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Nigelb said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Be interesting to see if IDS puts his in after his meeting with the PM. Not having put it in was one of the cards he held going into that meeting.

https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/1064568448448118784

Big girls blouse.....

And you’re a tough guy ... ?

Well, he wants the benefit of others doing what he's too "honourable?" weak? soft? to do -because it's a horrid experience.

There's a reason he never became PM.

Anazina said:

RochdalePioneers said:

philiph said:

Andrew said:

Slackbladder said:

If thats anyway near true, then holy cow, May might just just pull it off.

I'm beginning to think so.

Probably needs a solid phalanx of Labour abstainers though. Maybe after other options (EFTA, ref2) have been rejected by Commons votes, and the markets/sterling start to wobble?

Not sure that would be motivation for Labour to offer to support the Tory administration.

Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order:
1. Remain
2. EEA/EFTA
3. This Deal
4. No Deal

As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.

"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.

I thought you voted to leave? Have you changed your mind??

I did vote to leave. My view that as a non-Schengen non-Euro not interested in the federal Europe project country we would be pushed to the outer reaches of the EU anyway. So why not step off under our own steam and rejoin an enlarged EFTA?

However, as it seems that we have binned off that option and upset EFTA into the process, to stay would be preferable to May's crap deal or leaving with no deal. And I think I raise a valid point - did any of the people who voted to leave vote to be worse off? Yes you get some gobshites who suggest "a dip is a price worth paying" but they don't mean them personally, it would hit other people.

Now that the facts regarding no deal are increasingly clear I expect that I am not the only person who has switched position...

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1064574949417984001