politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So which ones will survive the first vote?

GIN1138 said:

JackW said:

Will Boris attend the Channel 4 debate on Sunday?

Waste of time (who actually watches C4 on a Sunday night?)

He should do BBC and/or ITV though.

Audience numbers not as important as the dire impression it gives.

Boris is a perpetual free hit for the opposition were the opposition not lead by someone who is a perpetual free hit for the government.

TOPPING said:

Boris is a perpetual free hit for the opposition were the opposition not lead by someone who is a perpetual free hit for the government.

Boris is more damaged goods than those water damaged umbrellas Del Boy once tried to sell in Only Fools and Horses.

If I was Javid I would be giving serious thought as to who might offer me Chancellor for the bloc of supporters I may be able to deliver. Gove and Hunt have to be possibilities. Boris probably doesn't need him but may be willing to consider it.

Hancock is grossly over promoted in his current post but must be having similar thoughts about a top job. Home Secretary perhaps.

Benpointer said:

JosiasJessop said:

theProle said:

logical_song said:

theProle said:

logical_song said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

tlg86 said:

Is this true?

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1139116590270693376

Given Theresa May has virtually bankrupted the party I'd not be surprised...

.. and the country with her zero-carbon-by-2050 idea.

What a stupid comment.

Why is that a stupid comment? Plausible estimates suggest a cost in the order of trillions. As with so much of this climate stuff, the cure currently proposed will do far more damage than the disease.

Please do some reading about the science.

I have. A lot. Probably more than 99.9% of the population, and at least 70% of posters here.

The science essentially says that there is probably an effect from atmospheric co2, the size of which is exceptionally difficult to predict, and which involves a load of feedback mechanisms we don't really understand, and as we've currently only one earth to experiment with has proved really difficult to model.

This is not the level of certainly one requires to impose trillions of pounds of costs on our society, especially in a context where doing so unilaterally is of no global significance at all.

I agree with some of that.

However: there are other advantages to moving to green energy. As a simple example, the move away from burning coal means much less crud into the atmosphere and less radioactive waste (flyash is slightly radioactive). And fewer IC cars, and more electric, in our cities will immeasurably improve the quality of life for residents.

It may also increase our energy security - both in terms of supply and sourcing fuel - but only if we get storage sorted.

There were many grumbles over the various clean air acts from the ?1950s? onwards, and they undoubtedly had penalties for our industries. But who would go back to the days of the London smog?

I can see the same being said in fifty years over the current CO2 debate. And the environmentalists will have moved onto something else ...

It's also important not to think that 'costs of trillions of pounds' means trillions of pounds being lost... those costs get recycled through the economy.

Also that might be the total cost but over thirty years we have to replace lots of our infrastructure anyway, and so the marginal cost will be lower - and could even end up being negative if technology develops quickly as has happened with solar.

Ploppikins said:

What happens if BoJo gets over 200 votes in the final three or four? Do they have to go to members or is coronation likely?

I would have thought the term "coronation" is reserved for occasions when the new leader hasn't faced a vote by MPs or by members?
eg.
Brown, 2007
Howard, 2003

TGOHF said:

Shamu on Trump for this latest tweet..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1139155440959463425

Does he have (U.K.) in brackets after England because he thinks the real England is in the North East of the US?

TGOHF said:

Shamu on Trump for this latest tweet..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1139155440959463425

https://twitter.com/hazelshearing/status/1139158881387651072?s=21

nico67 said:

Quite a risky strategy by Stewart but I think his pitch to more moderate Tories is back me for another round to send out a strong message that suspending parliament is unnaceptable .

He is putting himself in pole position to be the "I told you so" candidate once Johnson has crashed and burned. It's a smart strategy if the Tories can escape from the all-out, hard core English nationalism they have embraced.

Quite funny and self-aware. Is JRM actually going backwards in age, getting younger each day?

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1139112970166919169

SouthamObserver said:

nico67 said:

Quite a risky strategy by Stewart but I think his pitch to more moderate Tories is back me for another round to send out a strong message that suspending parliament is unnaceptable .

He is putting himself in pole position to be the "I told you so" candidate once Johnson has crashed and burned. It's a smart strategy if the Tories can escape from the all-out, hard core English nationalism they have embraced.

When does Labour plan to escape the all-out, hardcore, any-other-country-but-England nationalism they have embraced?

Byronic said:

Incidentally I watched Boris’s launch speech last night. After all the wild critiques on Twitter I had expected a dull, mirthless, wooden, performance, something painful to view.

It was quite the opposite. Passionate, articulate, sometimes flowery, sometimes boastful, yet generally sensible. Sure it lacked a classic gag in the Boris mould, but this was not a time for blatant jokes.

That said, he got in some subtle digs and trolls, which I am not sure any other politician would dare to do, or even be smart enough to do

First, When asked about those opinions on burqas, he said ‘the public don’t want politicians real opinions to be muffled, or, if I might say so, veiled’

Second, when asked about his alleged cocaine use, he talked about the public not wanting to focus on this trivia, ‘so let’s just blow this nonsense away’. Blow? I thought it was possibly a coincidence but it wasn’t. You see a tiny twinkle as does it.

Third. He used the word syzygy. Correctly. Surely a first in a leadership race!

I don’t like Boris. I think he is too chaotic, and narcissistic, and his morals ARE highly questionable, and that matters. Personally I’d go for Rory.

But Boris is clever, cunning, punchy and ruthless - and yet also very flexible. These aren’t bad attributes to have, in a leader, as we take on Brexit. And at least he will watchable. Unlike Mrs May.

Now Sam is out, ALL remainers should be backing Rory.

Good afternoon, everyone.

They're mad to be backing a known incompetent.

IanB2 said:

theProle said:

This is not the level of certainly one requires to impose trillions of pounds of costs on our society, especially where doing so unilaterally is of no global significance.

Surely that assessment rests upon the probability that the theory is right, and if it is the probability of being able to rescue things later if we do nothing now. Simply saying that the costs are high and the probability of correctness isn’t 100% ...

Managing risks where predictions both of probability and of impact are uncertain or unknowable means that we have to use non-quantitative approaches.

Essentially, there are just two:
1. the precautionary principle, however hard or soft a version you wish to apply
2. adaptive risk management

The first in its hard version means not doing something at all until it is proven not to cause harm. That is not feasible in most cases on global issues unless we are prepared for millions to die from starvation and disease, or from war or civil unrest. But a modified version of not doing what we know to have adverse effects, or at least moderating those activities in order to mitigate those effects, is feasible in most cases, because in most cases, as with climate, our ignorance is not total. Clearly, also, we should try to focus on those mitigating actions where our confidence is highest that the benefits will clearly exceed the costs.

Adaptive risk management is about doing what you think will mitigate the risks, but then following the evidence of the impact of those measures, and adapting to that evidence on a continuous basis. This is hard but doable for companies (they like certainty), harder for governments (the don't move that fast) and even harder for the global community (that moves in archeological time).

For these reasons, I personally think that effective responses to the potential damages of climate change will only come about when corporations -rather than governments or international institutions - feel the need to respond to public (i.e. customer) concerns. We see that partly in the rise of electric cars, and in the issue of over-use of plastics.

Risk perceptions are very important in getting to action. The problem with climate change is that humans are pretty poor at judging risk in complex situations. In general, we under- or over-estimate risks for a number of reasons - as many as 13 risk perception factors have been well-documented, including if the risk is in the future, if the risk is chronic vs acute, if the risk is unlikely to affect us, and so on. Most of these cognitive failures in risk valuation apply in the case of climate. So while the public may vaguely agree that climate change is a real risk, their emotional recognition of that risk rarely meets the threshold required to precipitate personal action. And until that happens, companies are going to slow to respond.

Agree with all you say, which points up their (Tory MPs' collectively) utter stupidity.

Byronic said:

Mango said:

Byronic said:

Incidentally I watched Boris’s launch speech last night. After all the wild critiques on Twitter I had expected a dull, mirthless, wooden, performance, something painful to view.

It was quite the opposite. Passionate, articulate, sometimes flowery, sometimes boastful, yet generally sensible. Sure it lacked a classic gag in the Boris mould, but this was not a time for blatant jokes.

That said, he got in some subtle digs and trolls, which I am not sure any other politician would dare to do, or even be smart enough to do

First, When asked about those opinions on burqas, he said ‘the public don’t want politicians real opinions to be muffled, or, if I might say so, veiled’

Second, when asked about his alleged cocaine use, he talked about the public not wanting to focus on this trivia, ‘so let’s just blow this nonsense away’. Blow? I thought it was possibly a coincidence but it wasn’t. You see a tiny twinkle as does it.

Third. He used the word syzygy. Correctly. Surely a first in a leadership race!

I don’t like Boris. I think he is too chaotic, and narcissistic, and his morals ARE highly questionable, and that matters. Personally I’d go for Rory.

But Boris is clever, cunning, punchy and ruthless - and yet also very flexible. These aren’t bad attributes to have, in a leader, as we take on Brexit. And at least he will watchable. Unlike Mrs May.

On the other hand, he is vermin.

In the opinions of some. Yes. But 1. They are a fairly small hardcore. 2. Does it matter, maybe we need a nasty bastard to take on Barnier et al, 3. This sort of dehumanizing language will possibly shift support TO Boris.

Boris will bump up against the reality of the backstop just as May did. There will I suspect be many civil servants, advisers, MPs even, lining up to explain to him the issues at stake and, again like May, he will realise that it is the only option. He will then have no other option but to support the WA and, with him and his undoubted charisma, would have a non-trivial probability of getting it passed.

Whether this dampens his appeal to some of the dolts who currently support him who knows.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

They're mad to be backing a known incompetent.

A proven election/referndum winner who will fight Corbyn with every fibre of his being, not least because his own career and power depends upon it. We could do - and have done - a lot worse.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

They're mad to be backing a known incompetent.

Seems to be all the rage at the moment. Look at Labour. And indeed Mrs May has been PM for 3 years.

GIN1138 said:

AndyJS said:

I think Raab will get 33 in the next round because his current support is solid and he should pick up at least 6 from Leadsom and McVey.

It'll be interesting to see who McVey and Leadsom endorse.

Andrea famously fell out with Boris when he started messing her around over that weekend when he want to play cricket.

Boris could have lent Leadson a few votes to get her into the second round today and didn't...

I could see both Leadsom and McVey endorsing Raab to be honest.

If you really don't want Boris as leader, then the only alternative now is to go with Raab as every other candidate is to the left of Boris on Brexit. I still don't think Raab has the personality but I can't see any other scenario where BoJo does not become leader.

I don't think Leadsom brings much to Raab to be honest beyond dull competence. I quite liked the blue collar conservatism of McVey though and, in a run-off between Raab and BoJo, it could make a difference.

blueblue said:

Mango said:

Byronic said:

<

In the opinions of some. Yes. But 1. They are a fairly small hardcore. 2. Does it matter, maybe we need a nasty bastard to take on Barnier et al, 3. This sort of dehumanizing language will possibly shift support TO Boris.

He is a narcissist. A liar. An over-confident, under-prepared lump of privilege. A lazy rich boy who has thrown his cards in with the Bannonites.

Exactly what we do not need, I would say.

What was it in his performance as foreign secretary that makes you think he deserves a crack at anything other than his next floozy?

We need someone who can beat Labour, who are currently being run by a bunch of clowns and communists. Compared to that, I couldn't care less about Boris' personal foibles.

And only Boris can beat Labour? My goodness, you are in a bad way.

@ Mr Dancer. Do Ferrari have any chance of changing the ruling on Vettel? It strikes me that, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the original penalty, about a third of the race was conducted in response to that penalty, and hence to overturn it at this point - even if to correct a wrong - is merely to create another wrong to those who adapted their race strategy to the penalty.

blueblue said:

Mango said:

Byronic said:

<

In the opinions of some. Yes. But 1. They are a fairly small hardcore. 2. Does it matter, maybe we need a nasty bastard to take on Barnier et al, 3. This sort of dehumanizing language will possibly shift support TO Boris.

He is a narcissist. A liar. An over-confident, under-prepared lump of privilege. A lazy rich boy who has thrown his cards in with the Bannonites.

Exactly what we do not need, I would say.

What was it in his performance as foreign secretary that makes you think he deserves a crack at anything other than his next floozy?

We need someone who can beat Labour, who are currently being run by a bunch of clowns and communists. Compared to that, I couldn't care less about Boris' personal foibles.

Didn't the last election show that there has to be a positive reason to vote for a party. Banging on about how bad the others are isn't constructive.

RobD said:

blueblue said:

Mango said:

Byronic said:

<

In the opinions of some. Yes. But 1. They are a fairly small hardcore. 2. Does it matter, maybe we need a nasty bastard to take on Barnier et al, 3. This sort of dehumanizing language will possibly shift support TO Boris.

He is a narcissist. A liar. An over-confident, under-prepared lump of privilege. A lazy rich boy who has thrown his cards in with the Bannonites.

Exactly what we do not need, I would say.

What was it in his performance as foreign secretary that makes you think he deserves a crack at anything other than his next floozy?

We need someone who can beat Labour, who are currently being run by a bunch of clowns and communists. Compared to that, I couldn't care less about Boris' personal foibles.

Didn't the last election show that there has to be a positive reason to vote for a party. Banging on about how bad the others are isn't constructive.

Yet so many Tories think the lesson is that they weren't negative enough.

Thinking about this further, it seems to me that the candidate whose underperformance is most serious is Jeremy Hunt. Given that Gove was suffering from a little local difficulty, and that Javid didn't make much impression, I'd have expected Hunt to pick up a larger chunk of the centre ground of Tory MPs. Instead a lot of those potential votes seem have gone to Boris, and probably aren't coming back. Unfortunately for Hunt, he doesn't seem particularly well placed to pick up transfers from lower-ranked candidates; those who supported Raab, Leadsom and McVey are probably going to go either for Boris or for Gove in preference to Hunt, and the pool of more centrist/moderate transfers is rather small and will be split three ways.

It seems to me, therefore, that the market may be over-estimating his chance of making the final two; we may well see Michael Gove overtake him as the rounds progress.

dodrade said:

Probably enough votes for one of Hancock, Javid or Stewart to get through the next round but will have to eat into each other's existing support to make it.

Stewart has momentum. I think he goes through, the other two either drop out or will get less than 33 on Tuesday.

RobD said:

blueblue said:

Mango said:

Byronic said:

<

In the opinions of some. Yes. But 1. They are a fairly small hardcore. 2. Does it matter, maybe we need a nasty bastard to take on Barnier et al, 3. This sort of dehumanizing language will possibly shift support TO Boris.

He is a narcissist. A liar. An over-confident, under-prepared lump of privilege. A lazy rich boy who has thrown his cards in with the Bannonites.

Exactly what we do not need, I would say.

What was it in his performance as foreign secretary that makes you think he deserves a crack at anything other than his next floozy?

We need someone who can beat Labour, who are currently being run by a bunch of clowns and communists. Compared to that, I couldn't care less about Boris' personal foibles.

Didn't the last election show that there has to be a positive reason to vote for a party. Banging on about how bad the others are isn't constructive.

Agreed, but does anyone doubt that Boris can present a positive vision - irrespective of the reality or otherwise of that vision - with more passion and conviction than May ever could?

Mr. T, I read a few minutes ago that Ferrari have withdrawn their appeal. Even if they'd maintained it, I think the odds would be practically zero anyway.

Mr. Divvie, aye. Daft sods.

What happens to Heathrow expansion if Boris becomes PM?

https://twitter.com/haggis_uk/status/1139108228355231745?s=21

Richard_Nabavi said:

Thinking about this further, it seems to me that the candidate whose underperformance is most serious is Jeremy Hunt. Given that Gove was suffering from a little local difficulty, and that Javid didn't make much impression, I'd have expected Hunt to pick up a larger chunk of the centre ground of Tory MPs. Instead a lot of those potential votes seem have gone to Boris, and probably aren't coming back. Unfortunately for Hunt, he doesn't seem particularly well placed to pick up transfers from lower-ranked candidates; those who supported Raab, Leadsom and McVey are probably going to go either for Boris or for Gove in preference to Hunt, and the pool of more centrist/moderate transfers is rather small and will be split three ways.

It seems to me, therefore, that the market may be over-estimating his chance of making the final two; we may well see Michael Gove overtake him as the rounds progress.

I think there is a battle between them when Hunt would have hoped he'd have been clear

MTimT said:

@ Mr Dancer. Do Ferrari have any chance of changing the ruling on Vettel? It strikes me that, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the original penalty, about a third of the race was conducted in response to that penalty, and hence to overturn it at this point - even if to correct a wrong - is merely to create another wrong to those who adapted their race strategy to the penalty.

No chance at all.
Though as Hamilton was still trying to overtake him, and Ferrari somehow neglected to inform Leclerc of the situation at all, no one in contention with him did adapt their race strategy.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. (Miss?) Blue, he was incompetent as Foreign Secretary. He's been proven not to do what he promises. A Heathrow resignation was promised, instead he hid in Afghanistan. When it comes to leaving the EU on 31 October will we find him in cupboard in Khartoum?

As for 'referendum-winning', he did play a role in the referendum result. So did many others. His victory there alienated most of London, which provided his earlier electoral success. His conduct since, including in office, has put off those of us with not afflicted with amnesia or blind optimism.

I'm sure he'll fight Corbyn with every fibre of his being. The problem is being incompetent. He was a failure of a Foreign Secretary. He reneged upon a promise made to the electorate.

What thing has Boris achieved? The referendum result was as much, perhaps even more so, down to Gove in the winning of it, and Farage in creating the circumstances of it being held. Boris' triumphs are shared or long past, his incompetence recent and plain to see.

Maybe I'll be wrong. I hope I am.

Perhaps he can get Lynton Crosby to renegotiate Brexit for him ?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. (Miss?) Blue, he was incompetent as Foreign Secretary. He's been proven not to do what he promises. A Heathrow resignation was promised, instead he hid in Afghanistan. When it comes to leaving the EU on 31 October will we find him in cupboard in Khartoum?

As for 'referendum-winning', he did play a role in the referendum result. So did many others. His victory there alienated most of London, which provided his earlier electoral success. His conduct since, including in office, has put off those of us with not afflicted with amnesia or blind optimism.

I'm sure he'll fight Corbyn with every fibre of his being. The problem is being incompetent. He was a failure of a Foreign Secretary. He reneged upon a promise made to the electorate.

What thing has Boris achieved? The referendum result was as much, perhaps even more so, down to Gove in the winning of it, and Farage in creating the circumstances of it being held. Boris' triumphs are shared or long past, his incompetence recent and plain to see.

Maybe I'll be wrong. I hope I am.

'Dr. Blue', strictly speaking. The sad thing is I don't disagree with the points you've made, but I think most of the other candidates would go down very badly in an early general election that now looks inevitable whoever becomes leader. Rory Stewart is perhaps the only exception, but both the party and the country are in an insufficiently sane state to appreciate him.

We Tories are in a deep, deep hole, with nothing but bad options. But if you're going to be in a fight for your life, then you bloody well need a fighter, and Boris will be that.

blueblue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. (Miss?) Blue, he was incompetent as Foreign Secretary. He's been proven not to do what he promises. A Heathrow resignation was promised, instead he hid in Afghanistan. When it comes to leaving the EU on 31 October will we find him in cupboard in Khartoum?

As for 'referendum-winning', he did play a role in the referendum result. So did many others. His victory there alienated most of London, which provided his earlier electoral success. His conduct since, including in office, has put off those of us with not afflicted with amnesia or blind optimism.

I'm sure he'll fight Corbyn with every fibre of his being. The problem is being incompetent. He was a failure of a Foreign Secretary. He reneged upon a promise made to the electorate.

What thing has Boris achieved? The referendum result was as much, perhaps even more so, down to Gove in the winning of it, and Farage in creating the circumstances of it being held. Boris' triumphs are shared or long past, his incompetence recent and plain to see.

Maybe I'll be wrong. I hope I am.

'Dr. Blue', strictly speaking. The sad thing is I don't disagree with the points you've made, but I think most of the other candidates would go down very badly in an early general election that now looks inevitable whoever becomes leader. Rory Stewart is perhaps the only exception, but both the party and the country are in an insufficiently sane state to appreciate him.

We Tories are in a deep, deep hole, with nothing but bad options. But if you're going to be in a fight for your life, then you bloody well need a fighter, and Boris will be that.

What makes you think Boris is a fighter? He comes across as being utterly lazy.

blueblue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. (Miss?) Blue, he was incompetent as Foreign Secretary. He's been proven not to do what he promises. A Heathrow resignation was promised, instead he hid in Afghanistan. When it comes to leaving the EU on 31 October will we find him in cupboard in Khartoum?

As for 'referendum-winning', he did play a role in the referendum result. So did many others. His victory there alienated most of London, which provided his earlier electoral success. His conduct since, including in office, has put off those of us with not afflicted with amnesia or blind optimism.

I'm sure he'll fight Corbyn with every fibre of his being. The problem is being incompetent. He was a failure of a Foreign Secretary. He reneged upon a promise made to the electorate.

What thing has Boris achieved? The referendum result was as much, perhaps even more so, down to Gove in the winning of it, and Farage in creating the circumstances of it being held. Boris' triumphs are shared or long past, his incompetence recent and plain to see.

Maybe I'll be wrong. I hope I am.

'Dr. Blue', strictly speaking. The sad thing is I don't disagree with the points you've made, but I think most of the other candidates would go down very badly in an early general election that now looks inevitable whoever becomes leader. Rory Stewart is perhaps the only exception, but both the party and the country are in an insufficiently sane state to appreciate him.

We Tories are in a deep, deep hole, with nothing but bad options. But if you're going to be in a fight for your life, then you bloody well need a fighter, and Boris will be that.

He calls me Mr D all the time

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/haggis_uk/status/1139108228355231745?s=21

Isn't Hammond as irrelevant as May ?

An old man shouting at the wind.

When you have a majority of 3 (along with your slightly less than completely reliable friends in the DUP) pretty much everyone is important.

But we are, thankfully, in the final days of his Chancellorship. Its not that he did much wrong but he did very little right. A dull accountant with no imagination. And his failure to prepare for significantly possible outcomes for Brexit was unforgivable.

DavidL said:

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/haggis_uk/status/1139108228355231745?s=21

Isn't Hammond as irrelevant as May ?

An old man shouting at the wind.

When you have a majority of 3 (along with your slightly less than completely reliable friends in the DUP) pretty much everyone is important.

But we are, thankfully, in the final days of his Chancellorship. Its not that he did much wrong but he did very little right. A dull accountant with no imagination. And his failure to prepare for significantly possible outcomes for Brexit was unforgivable.

+1

Richard_Nabavi said:

Opposition MPs who want to attack Boris have oodles of ammunition, but they really would be well advised to avoid accusing him of racism. It's such a feeble and unsubstantiated accusation that it merely distracts from the substantial stuff.

That he's a fascist?

JosiasJessop said:

blueblue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. (Miss?) Blue, he was incompetent as Foreign Secretary. He's been proven not to do what he promises. A Heathrow resignation was promised, instead he hid in Afghanistan. When it comes to leaving the EU on 31 October will we find him in cupboard in Khartoum?

As for 'referendum-winning', he did play a role in the referendum result. So did many others. His victory there alienated most of London, which provided his earlier electoral success. His conduct since, including in office, has put off those of us with not afflicted with amnesia or blind optimism.

I'm sure he'll fight Corbyn with every fibre of his being. The problem is being incompetent. He was a failure of a Foreign Secretary. He reneged upon a promise made to the electorate.

What thing has Boris achieved? The referendum result was as much, perhaps even more so, down to Gove in the winning of it, and Farage in creating the circumstances of it being held. Boris' triumphs are shared or long past, his incompetence recent and plain to see.

Maybe I'll be wrong. I hope I am.

'Dr. Blue', strictly speaking. The sad thing is I don't disagree with the points you've made, but I think most of the other candidates would go down very badly in an early general election that now looks inevitable whoever becomes leader. Rory Stewart is perhaps the only exception, but both the party and the country are in an insufficiently sane state to appreciate him.

We Tories are in a deep, deep hole, with nothing but bad options. But if you're going to be in a fight for your life, then you bloody well need a fighter, and Boris will be that.

What makes you think Boris is a fighter? He comes across as being utterly lazy.

Agreed. I think he will be like Gordon Brown. To him it is all about his ego. He just wants to be able to say to himself that he got the top job. He has no idea what he will do with it. Where I do agree with "Dr" Blue, is that we Tories (it will soon be THE Tories when I have resigned my membership) are in a deep deep hole. Where I would go further is to say that fat lazy Boris will not be the person to get his party and the country out of it. A hole largely of his creation.

Richard_Nabavi said:

What happens to Heathrow expansion if Boris becomes PM?

Boris Island happens.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XzAujyzN9JxpUl9rN7EIIX0AlgaXL8rE/view

It is a somewhat... long list

Tissue_Price said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Thinking about this further, it seems to me that the candidate whose underperformance is most serious is Jeremy Hunt. Given that Gove was suffering from a little local difficulty, and that Javid didn't make much impression, I'd have expected Hunt to pick up a larger chunk of the centre ground of Tory MPs. Instead a lot of those potential votes seem have gone to Boris, and probably aren't coming back. Unfortunately for Hunt, he doesn't seem particularly well placed to pick up transfers from lower-ranked candidates; those who supported Raab, Leadsom and McVey are probably going to go either for Boris or for Gove in preference to Hunt, and the pool of more centrist/moderate transfers is rather small and will be split three ways.

It seems to me, therefore, that the market may be over-estimating his chance of making the final two; we may well see Michael Gove overtake him as the rounds progress.

Agree with this. I thought Hunt would be 50+.

EDIT: votes that is, not current price! But Gove surprised on the upside.

I predicted Hunt would get 45 votes which I thought was maybe a little on the low side but in fact he only got 43 which was interesting.

blueblue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. (Miss?) Blue, he was incompetent as Foreign Secretary. He's been proven not to do what he promises. A Heathrow resignation was promised, instead he hid in Afghanistan. When it comes to leaving the EU on 31 October will we find him in cupboard in Khartoum?

As for 'referendum-winning', he did play a role in the referendum result. So did many others. His victory there alienated most of London, which provided his earlier electoral success. His conduct since, including in office, has put off those of us with not afflicted with amnesia or blind optimism.

I'm sure he'll fight Corbyn with every fibre of his being. The problem is being incompetent. He was a failure of a Foreign Secretary. He reneged upon a promise made to the electorate.

What thing has Boris achieved? The referendum result was as much, perhaps even more so, down to Gove in the winning of it, and Farage in creating the circumstances of it being held. Boris' triumphs are shared or long past, his incompetence recent and plain to see.

Maybe I'll be wrong. I hope I am.

'Dr. Blue', strictly speaking. The sad thing is I don't disagree with the points you've made, but I think most of the other candidates would go down very badly in an early general election that now looks inevitable whoever becomes leader. Rory Stewart is perhaps the only exception, but both the party and the country are in an insufficiently sane state to appreciate him.

We Tories are in a deep, deep hole, with nothing but bad options. But if you're going to be in a fight for your life, then you bloody well need a fighter, and Boris will be that.

Where do you get time to hold an election given the time frame a general election requires?

Remember you need 5 weeks minimum to hold an election and it takes 2 weeks for a new Parliament to be sworn in and a Queen's Speech to occur.

Even if the Parliament did nothing given the leave date of 31st October the election can't be later than 17th October and realistically the 3rd / 10th.

And to hold an election on October 10th the election needs to be called 35 days earlier on roughly September 4th which is literally the first day after Summer Recess..

IanB2 said:

Byronic said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

What happens to Heathrow expansion if Boris becomes PM?

I was thinking the same. I suspect the die is cast and LHR3 will survive. Boris has got Brexit to deal with (if he wins). Trying to unpick the Heathrow decision would use up tons of spare energy and capital which he can’t afford.

HS2 is more threatened.

A lot depends on whether Boris will listen to and be influenced by the Cabinet Office machine (his time at London suggests, possibly, at least on all but a few major issues) or, whether like Trump (cf. Fire and Fury) he simply doesn't read and doesn't listen.

Pretty sure he can read. He read classics didn't he?