politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great Betfair TMay resignation date row
Comments
-
When nominations close this afternoon, it will be interesting to see if any declared supporters of one candidate nominated someone else.0
-
Bookmaking is about trying to get a balanced book without risk, not placing bets yourself - even if you think the odds are good. Personally I agree with you and have always been bemused by this, but I think bookies just view arbing as a danger to their business model so don't want to let it happen even if they think they are on the good side of it. If I were Shadsy I'd try and persuade my boss to let us put Leadsom at 14/1 until we had a set amount on risk.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand this, can someone please explain. Surely if the Betfair odds are wrong and Ladbrokes are taking virtually no money on her surely they would make more money by lengthening the odds and permitting people to arb them with Betfair?Quincel said:
Agreed. I think Ladbrokes said a few days ago they were taking virtually no money on her, and only shortening the odds to avoid people arbing them with Betfair.Pulpstar said:
The bookies are just following Betfair.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
If Betfair says 9/1, but the true value should be say 30/1, then if Ladbrokes put odds of perhaps 20/1 up then punters could arb with Betfair but Ladbrokes are still getting good margins themselves.0 -
So it is! I thought there was still another week.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If three days is a long way!williamglenn said:
The first ballot is still a long way away. Last time Johnson backed her after he pulled out of the race.Quincel said:
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016.Philip_Thompson said:
Deja vu.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Timeline0 -
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
0 -
John Oliver’s rather amusing take on the leadership contest (for a primarily American audience, with occasional bad language).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FTdWsqzb8ZM0 -
So leaving the EU won't prevent trade with the EU happening. Is that your point?SouthamObserver said:
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
You're trying to have you cake and eat it too.0 -
If they're not taking bets on Leadsom then that would imply their book is imbalanced. Arbs would balance it.Quincel said:
Bookmaking is about trying to get a balanced book without risk, not placing bets yourself - even if you think the odds are good. Personally I agree with you and have always been bemused by this, but I think bookies just view arbing as a danger to their business model so don't want to let it happen even if they think they are on the good side of it. If I were Shadsy I'd try and persuade my boss to let us put Leadsom at 14/1 until we had a set amount on risk.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand this, can someone please explain. Surely if the Betfair odds are wrong and Ladbrokes are taking virtually no money on her surely they would make more money by lengthening the odds and permitting people to arb them with Betfair?Quincel said:
Agreed. I think Ladbrokes said a few days ago they were taking virtually no money on her, and only shortening the odds to avoid people arbing them with Betfair.Pulpstar said:
The bookies are just following Betfair.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
If Betfair says 9/1, but the true value should be say 30/1, then if Ladbrokes put odds of perhaps 20/1 up then punters could arb with Betfair but Ladbrokes are still getting good margins themselves.0 -
Rory Stewart still walking around unsuccessfully trying to find Conservative MPs
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/11378116970271703090 -
Nope, that isn’t my point.Philip_Thompson said:
So leaving the EU won't prevent trade with the EU happening. Is that your point?SouthamObserver said:
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
You're trying to have you cake and eat it too.
0 -
Well, it's £300k staked on 8/1-10/1, so the question becomes, how much of that is the "nudge" required.Casino_Royale said:
As little as that?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I mentioned before, I think it has taken ~£50k or so to keep Leadsom at 9/1. That's not so bad compared to other ways of marketing your candidate.Sandpit said:
The other bookies are following to some extent Betfair’s lead on the prices, to avoid opening up an arb vs the exchange.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Edit: @Pulpstar makes the same point (and he’s got way more cash than me laying Leadsom!), as does @Quincel
it is definitely one or two actors in the market, though I cannot be sure what their motive is.
I think it's ~20%, but you can form your own view.0 -
Two reasons:Stocky said:Why would the major bookies follow Betfair? Perhaps i`m naive, but I thought that each bookies` odds were a reflection of their own liablities to each possible outcome. Why would Ladbrokes care if there is an arb with Betfair?
This is making me want to lay Leadsom too (don`t misinterpret).
1. Lack of confidence. Lots of bookies now have very risk-averse cultures such that if they are out of step with Betfair by much at all they will simply not trust themselves;
2. If you have an arb up for too long the people taking advantage will make your liabilities unbalanced anyway.0 -
Arbs present two problems for bookmakers.Stocky said:Why would the major bookies follow Betfair? Perhaps i`m naive, but I thought that each bookies` odds were a reflection of their own liablities to each possible outcome. Why would Ladbrokes care if there is an arb with Betfair?
This is making me want to lay Leadsom too (don`t misinterpret).
1) their books can become unbalanced as punters pile in to exploit the arb. Remember that if you can see the arb, so can everyone else.
2) Betfair is probably right and the bookmakers are probably wrong.0 -
Is it that free trade agreements [like we have with the EU and Australia has with most of the world] matters?SouthamObserver said:
Nope, that isn’t my point.Philip_Thompson said:
So leaving the EU won't prevent trade with the EU happening. Is that your point?SouthamObserver said:
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
You're trying to have you cake and eat it too.
Or is it that free trade agreements don't matter [as we trade with the rest of the world]?
If they matter then leaving the EU allows us to sign more.
If they don't matter then leaving the EU is moot so there's no problem.0 -
"My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it."Philip_Thompson said:
So leaving the EU won't prevent trade with the EU happening. Is that your point?SouthamObserver said:
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
- Boris Johnson
0 -
It will make it harder, not least because it will increase the amount of bureaucracy to move around Europe and work in other countries.Philip_Thompson said:
So leaving the EU won't prevent trade with the EU happening. Is that your point?SouthamObserver said:
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
You're trying to have you cake and eat it too.0 -
Bookmaking theory has the bookmaker making risk-free arbs between different gamblers, not gamblers making risk-free arbs between different bookmakers (or exchanges).Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand this, can someone please explain. Surely if the Betfair odds are wrong and Ladbrokes are taking virtually no money on her surely they would make more money by lengthening the odds and permitting people to arb them with Betfair?Quincel said:
Agreed. I think Ladbrokes said a few days ago they were taking virtually no money on her, and only shortening the odds to avoid people arbing them with Betfair.Pulpstar said:
The bookies are just following Betfair.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
If Betfair says 9/1, but the true value should be say 30/1, then if Ladbrokes put odds of perhaps 20/1 up then punters could arb with Betfair but Ladbrokes are still getting good margins themselves.1 -
The EU is much more than a free trade agreement. Surely you would admit that?Philip_Thompson said:
Is it that free trade agreements [like we have with the EU and Australia has with most of the world] matters?SouthamObserver said:
Nope, that isn’t my point.Philip_Thompson said:
So leaving the EU won't prevent trade with the EU happening. Is that your point?SouthamObserver said:
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
You're trying to have you cake and eat it too.
Or is it that free trade agreements don't matter [as we trade with the rest of the world]?
If they matter then leaving the EU allows us to sign more.
If they don't matter then leaving the EU is moot so there's no problem.0 -
0
-
Deleted.0
-
Nominations close today, the first ballot is on Thursday and the whole of the MPs' phase of the election is scheduled to be concluded by the end of next week.williamglenn said:
The first ballot is still a long way away. Last time Johnson backed her after he pulled out of the race.Quincel said:
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016.Philip_Thompson said:
Deja vu.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Timeline
We are well past the equivalent point where Johnson also pulled out of the election last time.0 -
I see your logic, but they have bets on Leadsom from after the 2016 contest which mean she is still a big loser for them.Philip_Thompson said:
If they're not taking bets on Leadsom then that would imply their book is imbalanced. Arbs would balance it.Quincel said:
Bookmaking is about trying to get a balanced book without risk, not placing bets yourself - even if you think the odds are good. Personally I agree with you and have always been bemused by this, but I think bookies just view arbing as a danger to their business model so don't want to let it happen even if they think they are on the good side of it. If I were Shadsy I'd try and persuade my boss to let us put Leadsom at 14/1 until we had a set amount on risk.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand this, can someone please explain. Surely if the Betfair odds are wrong and Ladbrokes are taking virtually no money on her surely they would make more money by lengthening the odds and permitting people to arb them with Betfair?Quincel said:
Agreed. I think Ladbrokes said a few days ago they were taking virtually no money on her, and only shortening the odds to avoid people arbing them with Betfair.Pulpstar said:
The bookies are just following Betfair.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
If Betfair says 9/1, but the true value should be say 30/1, then if Ladbrokes put odds of perhaps 20/1 up then punters could arb with Betfair but Ladbrokes are still getting good margins themselves.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1133668445281816576
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/11336652440169799680 -
Nope, it’s that EU membership does not prevent us trading with the rest of the world.Philip_Thompson said:
Is it that free trade agreements [like we have with the EU and Australia has with most of the world] matters?SouthamObserver said:
Nope, that isn’t my point.Philip_Thompson said:
So leaving the EU won't prevent trade with the EU happening. Is that your point?SouthamObserver said:
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
You're trying to have you cake and eat it too.
Or is it that free trade agreements don't matter [as we trade with the rest of the world]?
If they matter then leaving the EU allows us to sign more.
If they don't matter then leaving the EU is moot so there's no problem.
0 -
And leaving the EU does not prevent us trading with the EU.SouthamObserver said:Nope, it’s that EU membership does not prevent us trading with the rest of the world.
0 -
But if they thought the Betfair price was crazy short they would want their side of that arb money. Say she ought to be 50 but is 10 for size on the exchange. OK so offer at 20. Good trade for the bookie. So what if some of their customers lay off at 10.Quincel said:Agreed. I think Ladbrokes said a few days ago they were taking virtually no money on her, and only shortening the odds to avoid people arbing them with Betfair.
Alternatively, if they are short of AL liability - since they have her too short a price in their book - why not lay her themselves on the exchange at the 'false' price, thus improving and better balancing their overall position?
EDIT: Ah OK, just seen the tweets. Appears they are NOT short of Leadsom liability due to old bets. Fair enough.0 -
He withdrew on June 30th and the first ballot was July 5th, so there are only 2 days in it.david_herdson said:
Nominations close today, the first ballot is on Thursday and the whole of the MPs' phase of the election is scheduled to be concluded by the end of next week.williamglenn said:
The first ballot is still a long way away. Last time Johnson backed her after he pulled out of the race.Quincel said:
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016.Philip_Thompson said:
Deja vu.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Timeline
We are well past the equivalent point where Johnson also pulled out of the election last time.0 -
Leaving the EU takes us outside of any agreements the EU has already made with these other countries. Brexit therefore means not only tearing up our deal with Europe but also our deals (as part of the EU) with most of the rest of the world.Philip_Thompson said:
Is it that free trade agreements [like we have with the EU and Australia has with most of the world] matters?SouthamObserver said:
Nope, that isn’t my point.Philip_Thompson said:
So leaving the EU won't prevent trade with the EU happening. Is that your point?SouthamObserver said:
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
You're trying to have you cake and eat it too.
Or is it that free trade agreements don't matter [as we trade with the rest of the world]?
If they matter then leaving the EU allows us to sign more.
If they don't matter then leaving the EU is moot so there's no problem.0 -
We are the EU, and we will never let people like you forget it.Philip_Thompson said:
And leaving the EU does not prevent us trading with the EU.SouthamObserver said:Nope, it’s that EU membership does not prevent us trading with the rest of the world.
1 -
I don't know which is the more depressing, listening to the latest pronouncements of our next PM or reading Philip Thompson's and Max's attempts to explain the trading benefits of Brexit. Which ever way you look at it I believe we are f**cked!0
-
Boris drifting and Leadsom coming in are related.Pulpstar said:Boris drifiting slightly for no reason whatsoever.
Boris is drifting because Gove has proven that moral character still matters in this context, and Boris has more skeletons than a Halloween party at Skeletor's house. Plus he was trading as "Patriotic One Nation" but today his headline policy turns out to be a tax cut for the top 10% - how did that work out for Osborne?
Leadsom (and I'm red on her though less than others) is coming in because if Boris blows up, Gove is out and gone soft anyway, and Raab isn't credible, it's Leadsom or McVey for the hard-inclined.0 -
Politicians this time round who endorsed Leadsom last time and have not declared their preferred support yet:
1) Bill Cash
2) Richard Drax
3) Iain Duncan Smith
4) James Gray
5) Gordon Henderson
6) Hollobone
7) Bernard Jenkin
8) Loughton (Not declared a backer this cycle according to John Rentoul, disputes wiki)
9) Poulter
10) Redwood
11) Henry Smith
12) Bob Stewart
13) Martin Vickers
14) Theresa Williers
All that lot would get her to 18 backers, 1 less than Javid who is 25-1 on the exchange.
0 -
Yes. That's the problem remember?williamglenn said:
The EU is much more than a free trade agreement. Surely you would admit that?Philip_Thompson said:
Is it that free trade agreements [like we have with the EU and Australia has with most of the world] matters?SouthamObserver said:
Nope, that isn’t my point.Philip_Thompson said:
So leaving the EU won't prevent trade with the EU happening. Is that your point?SouthamObserver said:
Mate, I do most of my business with the rest of the world. I understand the EU does not prevent it happening.Philip_Thompson said:
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
You're trying to have you cake and eat it too.
Or is it that free trade agreements don't matter [as we trade with the rest of the world]?
If they matter then leaving the EU allows us to sign more.
If they don't matter then leaving the EU is moot so there's no problem.0 -
No, but it makes it harder and more expensive.Philip_Thompson said:
And leaving the EU does not prevent us trading with the EU.SouthamObserver said:Nope, it’s that EU membership does not prevent us trading with the rest of the world.
0 -
Jenkin look like he was about to back BorisPulpstar said:Politicians this time round who endorsed Leadsom last time and have not declared their preferred support yet:
1) Bill Cash
2) Richard Drax
3) Iain Duncan Smith
4) James Gray
5) Gordon Henderson
6) Hollobone
7) Bernard Jenkin
8) Loughton (Not declared a backer this cycle according to John Rentoul, disputes wiki)
9) Poulter
10) Redwood
11) Henry Smith
12) Bob Stewart
13) Martin Vickers
14) Theresa Williers
All that lot would get her to 18 backers, 1 less than Javid who is 25-1 on the exchange.0 -
Yep !TheWhiteRabbit said:
Jenkin look like he was about to back BorisPulpstar said:Politicians this time round who endorsed Leadsom last time and have not declared their preferred support yet:
1) Bill Cash
2) Richard Drax
3) Iain Duncan Smith
4) James Gray
5) Gordon Henderson
6) Hollobone
7) Bernard Jenkin
8) Loughton (Not declared a backer this cycle according to John Rentoul, disputes wiki)
9) Poulter
10) Redwood
11) Henry Smith
12) Bob Stewart
13) Martin Vickers
14) Theresa Williers
All that lot would get her to 18 backers, 1 less than Javid who is 25-1 on the exchange.
Jenkin retweeted this:
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1137351186259034112
So we're at 17 MAX MAX MAX from that list.0 -
According to Betfair Exchange's mid-morning odds, the Tory Leadership Contest is down to 3, or even 2½ runners, with Boris priced at 3/4, Jeremy Hunt at 5/1 and Andrea Leasdsom at 9/1 (why is she so short in the betting with supposedly only a handful of Tory MPs in support). Bringing up a very long rear, they then go 22/1 bar these 3. If the market has this wrong, then there's serious money to be made!0
-
Raab still on about poroguing parliament.
These nutters don't actually believe in parliamentary democracy do they? Just as bad as Jezza's inner circle.0 -
If MPs want to stop boris going to candidates, then they need to keep him to ~80 backers. Keep the pressure on.0
-
WTF is Rory up to?edmundintokyo said:Rory Stewart still walking around unsuccessfully trying to find Conservative MPs
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1137811697027170309
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?0 -
More like £100k now I think.Casino_Royale said:
As little as that?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I mentioned before, I think it has taken ~£50k or so to keep Leadsom at 9/1. That's not so bad compared to other ways of marketing your candidate.Sandpit said:
The other bookies are following to some extent Betfair’s lead on the prices, to avoid opening up an arb vs the exchange.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Edit: @Pulpstar makes the same point (and he’s got way more cash than me laying Leadsom!), as does @Quincel
it is definitely one or two actors in the market, though I cannot be sure what their motive is.0 -
I'm still laying Andrea Leadsom. I'm thinking carefully what I want my maximum exposure to be.0
-
One house or two?AlastairMeeks said:I'm still laying Andrea Leadsom. I'm thinking carefully what I want my maximum exposure to be.
0 -
He knows he's a big underdog with a message most of the selectroate don't want to hear, so he's trying something very different. It's the logical tactic for a big underdog:DecrepitJohnL said:
WTF is Rory up to?edmundintokyo said:Rory Stewart still walking around unsuccessfully trying to find Conservative MPs
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1137811697027170309
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?
1. Might get media coverage just for being different (and it has);
2. Bypasses an unwilling audience (MPs) to connect directly with more fertile ground (random members of the public), which will hopefully have a good response and build momentum the MPs can't ignore.
It's worked not bad so far, just nowhere near well enough. But he's had the biggest rise in Best PM numbers between YouGov's two polls and is joint top on Opinium's 'Rate these candidates out of 10' poll. Unfortunately for him that doesn't seem enough to get him dozens of MPs backing him, but would he have done any better trying to persuade MPs directly? I'm not convinced he would. And this has raised his public profile - always useful as a politician whatever happens.
Put another way, he's arguably the winner of the unknowns. Johnson/Gove/Raab/Hunt/Javid are already big names, they don't need to raise their profile. Hancock tried to get into the top tier as well, and failed. But everyone else has a challenge to even be noticed. Stewart has been noticed and gotten good publicity from this contest. You can't say that about McVey, Malthouse, Harper, etc.1 -
Let's hope she hasn't accidentally embroidered JEREMY C*NT on her tally.williamglenn said:HMS Mordaunt surfaces.
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/11380291918264115210 -
Amber Rudd this morning was adamant, in announcing her support for Hunt, that "parliament would find a way" to stop a no dealer. Boris is a no dealer so the question is whether the Conservative Party will continue to live in fantasy land by electing him to be their leader.
I know we have been down the "logical thinking" route previously which has to date looked for all there world like a dead end but there really should be no way at all that the Cons (or "we" as I like to put it) could elect a no dealer as leader as they would surely have to resign or face a general election in pretty short order and I mean surely SOME Cons members get that and hence I have re-topped up on Hunt (5.9) and Gove (26) on bf.0 -
This must be the worst set of Tory politicians in my lifetime, by some way.
People who have literally sat in Cabinet for three years involved in the whole Brexit process and who all know now how hard it is, are now lying their heads off about managed No Deals, renegotiations, mythical new border arrangements etc etc.
Just barefaced liars. They will say anything to get the membership to vote for them.-1 -
Yep. If 'something happens' with Johnson, Leadsom has a viable path to a run off versus Hunt. Her price at 10 is too short but not stupidly so IMO.oldpolitics said:Leadsom (and I'm red on her though less than others) is coming in because if Boris blows up, Gove is out and gone soft anyway, and Raab isn't credible, it's Leadsom or McVey for the hard-inclined.
0 -
If MPs want to stop Boris going to candidates, then they have a death wish for the Party. The only peope who should end his ambition to be PM are the membership.TheWhiteRabbit said:If MPs want to stop boris going to candidates, then they need to keep him to ~80 backers. Keep the pressure on.
0 -
I think it's understandable, his advisers must have told him he had to go and talk to Conservative MPs and he told them he'd rather talk to literally anyone else in the entire country.DecrepitJohnL said:
WTF is Rory up to?
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?2 -
Amber Rudd needs to decide whether she wants to bring down the government and let Jez into power. That's the equation for the die hard remainers in the party. The only way they can stop no deal is to bring the government down, which will mean Jez ends up as PM, enabled by them.TOPPING said:Amber Rudd this morning was adamant, in announcing her support for Hunt, that "parliament would find a way" to stop a no dealer. Boris is a no dealer so the question is whether the Conservative Party will continue to live in fantasy land by electing him to be their leader.
I know we have been down the "logical thinking" route previously which has to date looked for all there world like a dead end but there really should be no way at all that the Cons (or "we" as I like to put it) could elect a no dealer as leader as they would surely have to resign or face a general election in pretty short order and I mean surely SOME Cons members get that and hence I have re-topped up on Hunt (5.9) and Gove (26) on bf.0 -
If I had a vote in this I think I'd go for Andrea Leadsom.
As a mother she seems the most credible of the candidates to me...0 -
Sky News - Penny Mourdant sails into Jeremy Hunt's mooring .... pipes him aboard at his launch ....0
-
The default position when someone resigns is that they are no longer in post. Unfortunately for some bettors, it appears that the Tory Party does things differently.0
-
No, it's not the only way. Even if it were, there's nothing to lose because crashing out in chaos is guaranteed to destroy the electoral chances of the Conservative Party for a generation, and would almost certainly put Corbyn into No 10.MaxPB said:Amber Rudd needs to decide whether she wants to bring down the government and let Jez into power. That's the equation for the die hard remainers in the party. The only way they can stop no deal is to bring the government down, which will mean Jez ends up as PM, enabled by them.
0 -
Some Con members sure, but not enough of them. The Brexit virus is rampant.TOPPING said:Amber Rudd this morning was adamant, in announcing her support for Hunt, that "parliament would find a way" to stop a no dealer. Boris is a no dealer so the question is whether the Conservative Party will continue to live in fantasy land by electing him to be their leader.
I know we have been down the "logical thinking" route previously which has to date looked for all there world like a dead end but there really should be no way at all that the Cons (or "we" as I like to put it) could elect a no dealer as leader as they would surely have to resign or face a general election in pretty short order and I mean surely SOME Cons members get that and hence I have re-topped up on Hunt (5.9) and Gove (26) on bf.0 -
Yep Stewart is doing good ground work for a good job in the future cabinet and continuing to build a solid profile with the public.Quincel said:
He knows he's a big underdog with a message most of the selectroate don't want to hear, so he's trying something very different. It's the logical tactic for a big underdog:DecrepitJohnL said:
WTF is Rory up to?edmundintokyo said:Rory Stewart still walking around unsuccessfully trying to find Conservative MPs
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1137811697027170309
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?
1. Might get media coverage just for being different (and it has);
2. Bypasses an unwilling audience (MPs) to connect directly with more fertile ground (random members of the public), which will hopefully have a good response and build momentum the MPs can't ignore.
It's worked not bad so far, just nowhere near well enough. But he's had the biggest rise in Best PM numbers between YouGov's two polls and is joint top on Opinium's 'Rate these candidates out of 10' poll. Unfortunately for him that doesn't seem enough to get him dozens of MPs backing him, but would he have done any better trying to persuade MPs directly? I'm not convinced he would. And this has raised his public profile - always useful as a politician whatever happens.
Put another way, he's arguably the winner of the unknowns. Johnson/Gove/Raab/Hunt/Javid are already big names, they don't need to raise their profile. Hancock tried to get into the top tier as well, and failed. But everyone else has a challenge to even be noticed. Stewart has been noticed and gotten good publicity from this contest. You can't say that about McVey, Malthouse, Harper, etc.0 -
Pleased and relieved that the rumours of Rudd supporting Johnson in return for a shot at first female chancellor turned out to be false. It would have shown a breathtaking lack of integrity from a politician who I judge to have some. And integrity is in such short supply in politics right now.TOPPING said:Amber Rudd this morning was adamant, in announcing her support for Hunt, that "parliament would find a way" to stop a no dealer.
1 -
Mordaunt not running. Just endorsed Hunt.0
-
But we don't know who fills the vacancy yet.Dadge said:The default position when someone resigns is that they are no longer in post. Unfortunately for some bettors, it appears that the Tory Party does things differently.
0 -
I thought Mordaunt would go for Boris. Interesting.0
-
It now appears this may have been the Mordaunt support for Hunt.Pulpstar said:Boris drifiting slightly for no reason whatsoever.
0 -
They are either lying or idiots, and my assumption is that most of them tick both boxes. You can tell it is really bad by the fact that Hunt looks like one of the least bad choices.rottenborough said:This must be the worst set of Tory politicians in my lifetime, by some way.
People who have literally sat in Cabinet for three years involved in the whole Brexit process and who all know now how hard it is, are now lying their heads off about managed No Deals, renegotiations, mythical new border arrangements etc etc.
Just barefaced liars. They will say anything to get the membership to vote for them.
0 -
Laying Andrea?AlastairMeeks said:I'm still laying Andrea Leadsom. I'm thinking carefully what I want my maximum exposure to be.
Exposure?
Oo-er, Missus!
0 -
Only an idiot would lie so blatantly. That explains most of it.glw said:
They are either lying or idiots, and my assumption is that most of them tick both boxes. You can tell it is really bad by the fact that Hunt looks like one of the least bad choices.rottenborough said:This must be the worst set of Tory politicians in my lifetime, by some way.
People who have literally sat in Cabinet for three years involved in the whole Brexit process and who all know now how hard it is, are now lying their heads off about managed No Deals, renegotiations, mythical new border arrangements etc etc.
Just barefaced liars. They will say anything to get the membership to vote for them.
0 -
Thinking beyond the next few months. Unlike anyone else running for the leadership.DecrepitJohnL said:
WTF is Rory up to?edmundintokyo said:Rory Stewart still walking around unsuccessfully trying to find Conservative MPs
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1137811697027170309
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?0 -
If she is making that statement then you must believe that she has already gone down that path. So yes it seems that several Cons MPs would prefer to bring down the government (or perhaps not it would be a GE after all) than countenance No Deal.MaxPB said:
Amber Rudd needs to decide whether she wants to bring down the government and let Jez into power. That's the equation for the die hard remainers in the party. The only way they can stop no deal is to bring the government down, which will mean Jez ends up as PM, enabled by them.TOPPING said:Amber Rudd this morning was adamant, in announcing her support for Hunt, that "parliament would find a way" to stop a no dealer. Boris is a no dealer so the question is whether the Conservative Party will continue to live in fantasy land by electing him to be their leader.
I know we have been down the "logical thinking" route previously which has to date looked for all there world like a dead end but there really should be no way at all that the Cons (or "we" as I like to put it) could elect a no dealer as leader as they would surely have to resign or face a general election in pretty short order and I mean surely SOME Cons members get that and hence I have re-topped up on Hunt (5.9) and Gove (26) on bf.
If they really believe that No Deal would be very bad for the country then it is a reasonable position to take.0 -
I always lie. In fact, I am lying to you now.SouthamObserver said:
Only an idiot would lie so blatantly. That explains most of it.glw said:
They are either lying or idiots, and my assumption is that most of them tick both boxes. You can tell it is really bad by the fact that Hunt looks like one of the least bad choices.rottenborough said:This must be the worst set of Tory politicians in my lifetime, by some way.
People who have literally sat in Cabinet for three years involved in the whole Brexit process and who all know now how hard it is, are now lying their heads off about managed No Deals, renegotiations, mythical new border arrangements etc etc.
Just barefaced liars. They will say anything to get the membership to vote for them.0 -
If there was a market for next PM but one, or PM within five years I would be huge green on her.kinabalu said:
Pleased and relieved that the rumours of Rudd supporting Johnson in return for a shot at first female chancellor turned out to be false. It would have shown a breathtaking lack of integrity from a politician who I judge to have some. And integrity is in such short supply in politics right now.TOPPING said:Amber Rudd this morning was adamant, in announcing her support for Hunt, that "parliament would find a way" to stop a no dealer.
0 -
Corbyn will be worse than no deal. Though, maybe they think the same as Richard and one will inevitably lead to the other. I'm not so certain. Tbh, no deal is still one of the few areas where I fully admit being completely clueless.TOPPING said:
If she is making that statement then you must believe that she has already gone down that path. So yes it seems that several Cons MPs would prefer to bring down the government (or perhaps not it would be a GE after all) than countenance No Deal.MaxPB said:
Amber Rudd needs to decide whether she wants to bring down the government and let Jez into power. That's the equation for the die hard remainers in the party. The only way they can stop no deal is to bring the government down, which will mean Jez ends up as PM, enabled by them.TOPPING said:Amber Rudd this morning was adamant, in announcing her support for Hunt, that "parliament would find a way" to stop a no dealer. Boris is a no dealer so the question is whether the Conservative Party will continue to live in fantasy land by electing him to be their leader.
I know we have been down the "logical thinking" route previously which has to date looked for all there world like a dead end but there really should be no way at all that the Cons (or "we" as I like to put it) could elect a no dealer as leader as they would surely have to resign or face a general election in pretty short order and I mean surely SOME Cons members get that and hence I have re-topped up on Hunt (5.9) and Gove (26) on bf.
If they really believe that No Deal would be very bad for the country then it is a reasonable position to take.0 -
Hunt has a powerful argument. Boris would have to GE to get No Deal and it would be lost.
Will members listen to this logic?0 -
Would it be lost though?rottenborough said:Hunt has a powerful argument. Boris would have to GE to get No Deal and it would be lost.
Will members listen to this logic?0 -
That said he looked like Voldemort sidling up to those guys on Brick Lane.Slackbladder said:
Yep Stewart is doing good ground work for a good job in the future cabinet and continuing to build a solid profile with the public.Quincel said:
He knows he's a big underdog with a message most of the selectroate don't want to hear, so he's trying something very different. It's the logical tactic for a big underdog:DecrepitJohnL said:
WTF is Rory up to?edmundintokyo said:Rory Stewart still walking around unsuccessfully trying to find Conservative MPs
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1137811697027170309
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?
1. Might get media coverage just for being different (and it has);
2. Bypasses an unwilling audience (MPs) to connect directly with more fertile ground (random members of the public), which will hopefully have a good response and build momentum the MPs can't ignore.
It's worked not bad so far, just nowhere near well enough. But he's had the biggest rise in Best PM numbers between YouGov's two polls and is joint top on Opinium's 'Rate these candidates out of 10' poll. Unfortunately for him that doesn't seem enough to get him dozens of MPs backing him, but would he have done any better trying to persuade MPs directly? I'm not convinced he would. And this has raised his public profile - always useful as a politician whatever happens.
Put another way, he's arguably the winner of the unknowns. Johnson/Gove/Raab/Hunt/Javid are already big names, they don't need to raise their profile. Hancock tried to get into the top tier as well, and failed. But everyone else has a challenge to even be noticed. Stewart has been noticed and gotten good publicity from this contest. You can't say that about McVey, Malthouse, Harper, etc.
I think Benedict Cumberbatch is a shoe-in to play him in whatever forthcoming drama emerges from all this.0 -
I'm not convinced this will work for him, but it is a strategy:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/10/joe-biden-democrats-2020-strategy-1358530
Biden’s campaign has disproportionately focused on targeting Facebook ads to voters 45 years and older.
They make up an estimated 62 percent of likely Democratic primary voters, according to Bully Pulpit Interactive, a top Democratic digital firm. Biden has spent 83 percent of his total $1.2 million Facebook ad money on targeting them, according to data compiled by Bully Pulpit from April 20 until May 25.
No other top Democratic candidate in the primary has pursued a similar strategy...0 -
edmundintokyo said:
I think it's understandable, his advisers must have told him he had to go and talk to Conservative MPs and he told them he'd rather talk to literally anyone else in the entire country.DecrepitJohnL said:
WTF is Rory up to?
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?
0 -
Are you at the Frank conversation with your better half yet should it go tits up ?AlastairMeeks said:I'm still laying Andrea Leadsom. I'm thinking carefully what I want my maximum exposure to be.
0 -
He's making sure he gets a decent job in the next Cabinet.DecrepitJohnL said:
WTF is Rory up to?edmundintokyo said:Rory Stewart still walking around unsuccessfully trying to find Conservative MPs
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1137811697027170309
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?0 -
An alternative view.rottenborough said:This must be the worst set of Tory politicians in my lifetime, by some way.
People who have literally sat in Cabinet for three years involved in the whole Brexit process and who all know now how hard it is, are now lying their heads off about managed No Deals, renegotiations, mythical new border arrangements etc etc.
Just barefaced liars. They will say anything to get the membership to vote for them.
https://twitter.com/DouglasCarswell/status/11380368075835678730 -
Hes right but for one who in the members wants to hear that, and for two how then does he achieve Brexit when all opposition parties know the tories would suffer most so wont assist, and the DUP dont care as in an election most of their seats are safe?williamglenn said:0 -
Yes. Perhaps not as bad as some fear, but in a lot of areas the tories will lose out massively.MaxPB said:
Would it be lost though?rottenborough said:Hunt has a powerful argument. Boris would have to GE to get No Deal and it would be lost.
Will members listen to this logic?0 -
Corbyn will be worse than no deal but it will be argued in the same way that we have been arguing with you about leaving the EU - ie there will be some who want Corbyn as PM and think he would be great for the country.MaxPB said:
Corbyn will be worse than no deal. Though, maybe they think the same as Richard and one will inevitably lead to the other. I'm not so certain. Tbh, no deal is still one of the few areas where I fully admit being completely clueless.TOPPING said:
If she is making that statement then you must believe that she has already gone down that path. So yes it seems that several Cons MPs would prefer to bring down the government (or perhaps not it would be a GE after all) than countenance No Deal.MaxPB said:
Amber Rudd needs to decide whether she wants to bring down the government and let Jez into power. That's the equation for the die hard remainers in the party. The only way they can stop no deal is to bring the government down, which will mean Jez ends up as PM, enabled by them.TOPPING said:Amber Rudd this morning was adamant, in announcing her support for Hunt, that "parliament would find a way" to stop a no dealer. Boris is a no dealer so the question is whether the Conservative Party will continue to live in fantasy land by electing him to be their leader.
I know we have been down the "logical thinking" route previously which has to date looked for all there world like a dead end but there really should be no way at all that the Cons (or "we" as I like to put it) could elect a no dealer as leader as they would surely have to resign or face a general election in pretty short order and I mean surely SOME Cons members get that and hence I have re-topped up on Hunt (5.9) and Gove (26) on bf.
If they really believe that No Deal would be very bad for the country then it is a reasonable position to take.
Precious few conservatives, that said, but as cabinet ministers they have probably read more of the white papers on no deal than you or I. That twitter thread about moving livestock between NI and RoI the other day was pretty illuminating.
The problem as I see it is that too many people just can't visualise the UK in a seriously chaotic situation and believe "it will be alright".0 -
But probably not as dangerous as Gove's line.....rottenborough said:0 -
So, Tory MPs have some hard thinking now.
a) If Boris then highly likely they will face a GE. That is the message Hunt will bang on for next few days.
b) Do they really believe Boris has the magic to save their seats in an autumn GE?
c) If not, then they need to organize themselves to put Hunt and one other No Dealer to membership.
d) If they do that the voluntary party will implode.
What a mess.0 -
If you think plenty of floating voters voted Brexit to get rid of posh boy Cameron just think how they would line up to sh*t on Boris.MaxPB said:
Would it be lost though?rottenborough said:Hunt has a powerful argument. Boris would have to GE to get No Deal and it would be lost.
Will members listen to this logic?0 -
Jeremy Hunt is definitely the most grown-up of the contenders, but I don't see that he can cut the Gordian knot any more that anyone else can.0
-
No, that is where the maximum exposure limit starts. That's basically what I'm judging.Pulpstar said:
Are you at the Frank conversation with your better half yet should it go tits up ?AlastairMeeks said:I'm still laying Andrea Leadsom. I'm thinking carefully what I want my maximum exposure to be.
Since he's just unilaterally booked a cruise for next year, he's on thin ice if he wants to complain about unilateral monetary decisions. Not that that would stop him.0 -
Home Sec would make senseTissue_Price said:
He's making sure he gets a decent job in the next Cabinet.DecrepitJohnL said:
WTF is Rory up to?edmundintokyo said:Rory Stewart still walking around unsuccessfully trying to find Conservative MPs
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1137811697027170309
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?0 -
Members might not but MPs will be aware it is their jobs on the line.rottenborough said:Hunt has a powerful argument. Boris would have to GE to get No Deal and it would be lost.
Will members listen to this logic?0 -
Starting to think Hunt vs Gove might be the final two in the end. Green on both.0
-
Redwood on his blog looks to be ruling out backing Gove in favour of McVey and then Boris...0
-
Suspect they would lose their majority at an absolute minimum (and then all bets are off). Also, what is the electoral narrative here for the Tory party? This also likely becomes existential as half their MPs are probably anti campaigning on a no deal platform. Having voted Tory forever, for example, I would also never vote for that.MaxPB said:
Would it be lost though?rottenborough said:Hunt has a powerful argument. Boris would have to GE to get No Deal and it would be lost.
Will members listen to this logic?0 -
How is it dangerous? The reasoning of some of those backing him is only he can save them at an election, so they fear they need to be ready for one anyway. With as many backers as he had hes nigh impossible to keep out of the final two unless dozens are liars or change their minds. Which no matter how low we think of them why would so many lie, and the reasons to back 'proven winner' boris mean a change makes little sense.rottenborough said:0 -
Foreign surely? He must be one of the most experienced possible Foreign secs in a very long time.Pulpstar said:
Home Sec would make senseTissue_Price said:
He's making sure he gets a decent job in the next Cabinet.DecrepitJohnL said:
WTF is Rory up to?edmundintokyo said:Rory Stewart still walking around unsuccessfully trying to find Conservative MPs
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1137811697027170309
Seriously?
If the point is that he can speak human in a way that eluded the present incumbent in 2017 then he has proved it by now. Is he actually campaigning to be party chairman and tour constituencies on the rubber chicken circuit?0 -
As the taboo of a GE has now been broken, he can imply that if the WA doesn't get through there is no alternative to a GE - ie back me or sack me and ofc the HoC will sack him and hence a GE and hence...the WA!!Richard_Nabavi said:Jeremy Hunt is definitely the most grown-up of the contenders, but I don't see that he can cut the Gordian knot any more that anyone else can.
0
