Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Has to be Hunt – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    The Dems would absolutely love to be up against Giuliani in 2024.
    They would be stupid to do so, Giuliani still has a lot of appeal to bluecollar voters in particular, the type who voted Trump in 2016 but Biden in 2020 but are a bit wary of the culture warriors in the Dems like AOC, Giuliani is a social moderate but economic conservative.

    If Biden ran again in 2024 I think he would likely be re elected, if he did not and Harris or AOC got the Democratic nomination I would fancy Giuliani to beat either of them
    He’s coming over as a head case at present
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    Scott_xP said:
    As I posted earlier, I think we're starting at the back of the pack with regard to the 'new brooms' in the White House.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    I agree. Sunak's window is closing quickly, the economy is cratering (not his fault, but he is holding the parcel of ordure when the music stops).

    Raab, Patel and Gove are making all the right noises for the faithful.

    So what of Hunt? Something of a political chameleon who has finally become very effective through the pandemic. People like me wouldn't vote for him, but would be comfortable with him as PM. That is probably a good reason why he won't succeed in the Conservative leadership battle against the likes of Sunak, Raab, Patel or Gove.
    Hunt's chances surely depend quite strongly on how swiftly the EU negotiations produce something that'll work in the long term. The right of the Tory party is mostly coalesced around Brexit issues - once that's actually in the past then there's sufficient divergences that I don't see a strong right vs left split as being certain.
    Continuing difficulties would very likely mean Hunt couldn't win.

    I've personally backed Patel as I think that assuming she steers clear of the many reefs in the Home Office then she'll have a pretty good track record to point to in early 2024 (or in my view more likely 2025).

    Sunak is too short to back.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    Stocky said:

    On topic, Hunt is well back in the running with Tory MPs, behind both Sunak and Gove.

    So I'm told by them.

    Would Patel have sufficient MP numbers to get in the last two for the members ballot?
    She could threaten to hang or flog anyone who didn't support her.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 421
    On the article, Hunt strikes me as competent, which the other options (except perhaps Sunak) do not. I agree he'd be better for the country than any of them.

    He has been extremely quiet in his current role, and ever since losing to Johnson last time. It at least means he won't be seen as disloyal, but he could have remained relevant by championing an uncontroversial cause (e.g. mental health).
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    The Dems would absolutely love to be up against Giuliani in 2024.
    They would be stupid to do so, Giuliani still has a lot of appeal to bluecollar voters in particular, the type who voted Trump in 2016 but Biden in 2020 but are a bit wary of the culture warriors in the Dems like AOC, Giuliani is a social moderate but economic conservative.

    If Biden ran again in 2024 I think he would likely be re elected, if he did not and Harris or AOC got the Democratic nomination I would fancy Giuliani to beat either of them
    He’s coming over as a head case at present
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    I agree. Sunak's window is closing quickly, the economy is cratering (not his fault, but he is holding the parcel of ordure when the music stops).

    Raab, Patel and Gove are making all the right noises for the faithful.

    So what of Hunt? Something of a political chameleon who has finally become very effective through the pandemic. People like me wouldn't vote for him, but would be comfortable with him as PM. That is probably a good reason why he won't succeed in the Conservative leadership battle against the likes of Sunak, Raab, Patel or Gove.
    Hunt's chances surely depend quite strongly on how swiftly the EU negotiations produce something that'll work in the long term. The right of the Tory party is mostly coalesced around Brexit issues - once that's actually in the past then there's sufficient divergences that I don't see a strong right vs left split as being certain.
    Continuing difficulties would very likely mean Hunt couldn't win.

    I've personally backed Patel as I think that assuming she steers clear of the many reefs in the Home Office then she'll have a pretty good track record to point to in early 2024 (or in my view more likely 2025).

    Sunak is too short to back.
    I`ve been on both Sunak and Hunt for months, more recently added a small bit on Patel. I can`t see past these three. I don`t rate Gove`s chances, though this needs a rethink as MarqueeMark seems to disagree.
  • kle4 said:

    I know its predicated on the situation being different, but for the same reason I thought Boris would win if he got past the MPs, I can't see Hunt winning unless it's a coronation or moderate (or at least more standard) fix. Granted, the labour membership went for the sensible option right after Corbyn, but Corbyn lost and left, Boris going would be before a GE defeat and clearly forced on him, his supporters would be livid.

    I think hes going nowhere.

    I don't agree with this because his supporters are no longer his supporters - I've been speaking to a few recently; Boris is rapidly running out of road.

    I think everyone is still focussed on fighting the last war and, like my header points out, assuming Boris's successor must be someone suitably tub-thumping and hardcore.

    Sensible Tories will see the need for competent stable Government after Boris and all the drama and uncertainty of recent years - it'll be their only chance to win in GE2024 - and remember the membership elected Cameron over Davis and (as WilliamGlenn reminded me) were more tempted by May than Johnson in 2016.
  • stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    Good post
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,042
    .
    stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    First challenge is going to be getting his cabinet picks approved.
    The chances of Warren at Treasury, for example, are now exceedingly slim.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 359
    I can't feeling that Team Trump holding a briefing next to p0rn shop is a apposite metaphor for him personally and his presidency.

    What a tool.

    :sunglasses:

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    Giuliano for President? I'll have a pint of whatever you are drinking.

    You'll be saying Gove has a chance of replacing Johnson, next.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    Don’t be daft.
    He’s more of a laughingstock than Trump.
    Yes, what on earth has happened to Rudy Giuliani? He used to be a serious and respected figure yet now seems content to be a comedy flunky for Donald Trump. It makes you squirm to see it. Why is he doing it? Is Trump paying him a stupid salary that's too big to refuse? Is he being blackmailed over something deeply shameful? Or has he simply gone soft in the head? Whatever, it's a sad sad spectacle.
  • kle4 said:

    I know its predicated on the situation being different, but for the same reason I thought Boris would win if he got past the MPs, I can't see Hunt winning unless it's a coronation or moderate (or at least more standard) fix. Granted, the labour membership went for the sensible option right after Corbyn, but Corbyn lost and left, Boris going would be before a GE defeat and clearly forced on him, his supporters would be livid.

    I think hes going nowhere.

    I don't agree with this because his supporters are no longer his supporters - I've been speaking to a few recently; Boris is rapidly running out of road.

    I think everyone is still focussed on fighting the last war and, like my header points out, assuming Boris's successor must be someone suitably tub-thumping and hardcore.

    Sensible Tories will see the need for competent stable Government after Boris and all the drama and uncertainty of recent years - it'll be their only chance to win in GE2024 - and remember the membership elected Cameron over Davis and (as WilliamGlenn reminded me) were more tempted by May than Johnson in 2016.
    Good article and the party could do worse than Hunt but to be fair I cannot see past Rishi at present
  • HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    Brexit will be over next year. It's then irrelevant and about the challenges of the future on which Hunt is very well placed.

    I think you're too hung up on the mistake you made in backing Boris and have a blind spot for Hunt because you think his election would somehow be a vindication of those who've criticised you for it all along.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    So, Google Surveys will do a 1 question poll for me at 11 pence per response.

    Who would like some private polling for the Georgia Run Off elections?
  • Nigelb said:

    .

    stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    First challenge is going to be getting his cabinet picks approved.
    The chances of Warren at Treasury, for example, are now exceedingly slim.
    Wouldnt it lead to another Republican senator and one less Democratic senator? Surely its zero chance on that alone
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526

    Great article. I saw Hunt at a leadership hustings event and I thought the Tories were utterly mad to choose Johnson over him. He is a very talented politician.

    You are right in that he's a more cerebral politician than Johnson, but to be fair to him, Johnson is (?was) an excellent campaigner. Would have a made a good Prescott to Hunt's Blair.
    (Is that offensive to any/all of them?)

    I suspect though that the next Tory leader isn't anyone presently obvious, unless Johnson gives up in the next 12 months, and, if Brexit is, or approaches being, a disaster we're more likely to see someone more in the centre.
    Might, just might, even see May back. Seriously.
    I probably have a blind spot with respect to Johnson, in that I am genuinely at a loss to understand his appeal. I suspect it is my Scottish upbringing - we expect our leaders to be serious people and we don't instinctively bend our knee to posh people. Clearly other people think differently, including in surprising places like County Durham. I think that in the long run my views on Johnson - that he is a psychologically damaged narcissistic liar who has no understanding of the challenges this country faces and no idea of how to overcome them - will be proven correct. But in the meantime I will continue to be bemused that he is PM.
    Quite so. It's not just Scottish majority support for Remain/SNP/Labour. I've seen the most stick in the mud, deferential-to-their-betters elderly Brexiters in Scotland utterly astounded that he is PM - 'clown' being a typical unprompted comment.
  • algarkirk said:

    oniscoid said:

    Donald Trump increased his share of the popular vote by 6M from 2016, so the views of "Biden switchers" may be less significant than the article assumes.

    Perhaps this 6 million increase is evidence o

    algarkirk said:

    Great article. I saw Hunt at a leadership hustings event and I thought the Tories were utterly mad to choose Johnson over him. He is a very talented politician.

    You are right in that he's a more cerebral politician than Johnson, but to be fair to him, Johnson is (?was) an excellent campaigner. Would have a made a good Prescott to Hunt's Blair.
    (Is that offensive to any/all of them?)

    I suspect though that the next Tory leader isn't anyone presently obvious, unless Johnson gives up in the next 12 months, and, if Brexit is, or approaches being, a disaster we're more likely to see someone more in the centre.
    Might, just might, even see May back. Seriously.
    I probably have a blind spot with respect to Johnson, in that I am genuinely at a loss to understand his appeal. I suspect it is my Scottish upbringing - we expect our leaders to be serious people and we don't instinctively bend our knee to posh people. Clearly other people think differently, including in surprising places like County Durham. I think that in the long run my views on Johnson - that he is a psychologically damaged narcissistic liar who has no understanding of the challenges this country faces and no idea of how to overcome them - will be proven correct. But in the meantime I will continue to be bemused that he is PM.
    It's not that difficult. Why is Boris PM?
    1 Because he is good at winning elections
    2 Because no-one else was available to lead the Tory party who was trusted by supporters of Brexit
    3 Because he faced opposition from a then unelectable Labour party leader at the GE
    4 Because after the Brexit referendum there was no coalescence around a plan for sensibly delivering it other than Boris's not very good one
    5 Because Labour have never had and still have not got a deliverable plan for our relationship with the EU.

    1 simply restates my point - why do people like him?
    2—4 agreed.
    5 agreed but neither do the Tories.
    I'm not sure what constitutes an answer on (1). Maybe people like him because he presents as blond, vulnerable and likeable, further he makes them laugh but not at him. He doesn't usually make your toes curl. He isn't passive aggressive. he is good at generalised uplift. He hates being bored and hated boring people. People like these things, useless though they generally are in dealing with ICT Acts and the science of virus control.

    As to 5, there is some truth in this, but Labour never got beyond either confusion
    (in? out? Ref2?) or a fantasy wish list (negotiate better for things you can't have, done by people who have no belief in the project).

    Whether the Tories have a deliverable plan is actually still unknown. As a supporter of EFTA or 'Norway for Now' I am bound to be sceptical. But at least they plan actually to deliver the Brexit verdict.

    If Labour had gone for an EFTA solution in a united way under a social democrat leader they might be running the country now.
    For me the Brexit referendum was a vote for the principle of Brexit and a mandate to negotiate Brexit. The Brexit negotiations should have been carried out by Johnson, Gove, Patel et al, ideally Farage too. Then whatever they came up with, even if it was no deal, should have been confirmed in a second referendum on Brexit in practice, versus the status quo. As it is, we are already out of the EU and about to exit the single market in a few weeks, and people still don't know what their vote in 2016 is going to actually mean in terms of the EU-UK relationship. It's absurd.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    edited November 2020

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    Brexit will be over next year. It's then irrelevant and about the challenges of the future on which Hunt is very well placed.

    I think you're too hung up on the mistake you made in backing Boris and have a blind spot for Hunt because you think his election would somehow be a vindication of those who've criticised you for it all along.
    Re Mr Hunt, has anyone raised the question of what happens if there is an inquiry into the pox which looks at his track record on related matters and decides he messed up big time while in charge of the NHS? Exercise Cygnus, and so on. Not sayi8ng he did, just that IIRC the question was raised some months back, or am I being unfair?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,042
    .

    kle4 said:

    I know its predicated on the situation being different, but for the same reason I thought Boris would win if he got past the MPs, I can't see Hunt winning unless it's a coronation or moderate (or at least more standard) fix. Granted, the labour membership went for the sensible option right after Corbyn, but Corbyn lost and left, Boris going would be before a GE defeat and clearly forced on him, his supporters would be livid.

    I think hes going nowhere.

    I don't agree with this because his supporters are no longer his supporters - I've been speaking to a few recently; Boris is rapidly running out of road.

    I think everyone is still focussed on fighting the last war and, like my header points out, assuming Boris's successor must be someone suitably tub-thumping and hardcore.

    Sensible Tories will see the need for competent stable Government after Boris and all the drama and uncertainty of recent years - it'll be their only chance to win in GE2024 - and remember the membership elected Cameron over Davis and (as WilliamGlenn reminded me) were more tempted by May than Johnson in 2016.
    It’s a good case that you make, Casino (& a very good header).
    I am just not convinced that Hunt stands that much of a chance with the Tory selectorate.
    40/1, I’d be interested.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Alistair said:

    So, Google Surveys will do a 1 question poll for me at 11 pence per response.

    Who would like some private polling for the Georgia Run Off elections?

    Will it be a 100% return for the 'mind your own business you nosey bastard' party?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498

    it's evident that Cummings is not the master tactician he thinks he is. On Brexit he seems aligned with the majority

    Nope

    He may have been able to cobble together an anti-government coalition of voters to win the referendum, but the majority are not in favour of Brexit.

    And that's before reality hits.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490
    Stocky said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    I agree. Sunak's window is closing quickly, the economy is cratering (not his fault, but he is holding the parcel of ordure when the music stops).

    Raab, Patel and Gove are making all the right noises for the faithful.

    So what of Hunt? Something of a political chameleon who has finally become very effective through the pandemic. People like me wouldn't vote for him, but would be comfortable with him as PM. That is probably a good reason why he won't succeed in the Conservative leadership battle against the likes of Sunak, Raab, Patel or Gove.
    Hunt's chances surely depend quite strongly on how swiftly the EU negotiations produce something that'll work in the long term. The right of the Tory party is mostly coalesced around Brexit issues - once that's actually in the past then there's sufficient divergences that I don't see a strong right vs left split as being certain.
    Continuing difficulties would very likely mean Hunt couldn't win.

    I've personally backed Patel as I think that assuming she steers clear of the many reefs in the Home Office then she'll have a pretty good track record to point to in early 2024 (or in my view more likely 2025).

    Sunak is too short to back.
    I`ve been on both Sunak and Hunt for months, more recently added a small bit on Patel. I can`t see past these three. I don`t rate Gove`s chances, though this needs a rethink as MarqueeMark seems to disagree.
    I'm actually somewhat red on Sunak, but he's clearly in a good position.

    Red on Starmer and Rees-Mogg too. And with less risk Caroline Lucas, a certain J Corbyn esq, and John Bercow.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, an interesting header from @Casino_Royale. Thank you. I remain of the unfashionable view that, in a Parliamentary democracy, MPs should have the final say on who is party leader.

    It feels to me that too many Tory MPs voted for Boris, despite their misgiving because they felt that the membership wanted him. They abdicated their responsibility. Much as Labour MPs did when nominating Corbyn. It has meant nothing but trouble for both parties - and the country.

    No, MPs voted for Boris so that he, as the most prominent leader, would own whatever happened with brexit. No more thought went into it than that.
  • https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1325347326475472896

    Keir will no doubt have been told continuously to do nothing even slightly contentious today. Eyes on his suit!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,875
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    The one obscure fact I always remember about Hunt, which isn’t to his credit, is that when he first saw the plans for Danny Boyle’s 2012 opening ceremony, he wanted the NHS segment scaled back or scrapped, and was so persistent about it that Boyle was forced to threaten to walk away from the whole project and take his thousands of volunteers with him, before Hunt would shut up.

    Aside from the fact that this reveals an unpleasant aspect of his ideological drive that is usually hidden, it also makes him an appalling judge of national sentiment.

    He may have just been making a point that he did not want potentially divisive politics in the opening ceremony rather than be anti NHS which is a valid point of view. Was the NHS the memorable bit of the opening ceremony anyway - to me it was one of the boring bits nobody remembers - Bond/Queen , MR Bean and the industrial revolution were the bits people remember.
    People definitely remember it, though I thought it typically saccharine.
    I remember the NHS bit and the Bond/Queen bit. Mr Bean, the industrial revolution? No. But that's OK - something like that has to include something for everyone.
    The Mr Bean bit was the absolute highlight. Well-performed, appropriate to the context, genuinely funny.
    That and the HMQ /James Bond moment: both genuine LoL moments. Plus I liked the children’s’ choirs singing from each part of the U.K. at the start.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498
    Saturday, loses to Marcus Rashford.

    Monday, Internal market bill is gutted in the Lords.

    Wednesday, grovels to Brussels to sign a deal

    how much more "winning" does BoZo have lined up this week?
  • Stocky said:

    Morning, can I ask what current thinking on AZ is? Is it still looking like Biden will carry it? I have a small bet on Trump 210-239 ECVs which I will lose if it goes red

    From the numbers I'd say "too close to call".On the other hand it looks like PA is well beyond Trump's reach:




    Thanks, can you provide a link as to where you got this from?
    https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html#
  • kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    Don’t be daft.
    He’s more of a laughingstock than Trump.
    Yes, what on earth has happened to Rudy Giuliani? He used to be a serious and respected figure yet now seems content to be a comedy flunky for Donald Trump. It makes you squirm to see it. Why is he doing it? Is Trump paying him a stupid salary that's too big to refuse? Is he being blackmailed over something deeply shameful? Or has he simply gone soft in the head? Whatever, it's a sad sad spectacle.
    I think it's a combination of factors. It's very widely rumoured that he spends an alarming amount of his time being "tired and emotional", and that his personality changed a fair bit a few years ago, which could be related to that problem or could be something else. He's also always been a "punchy" type - he was free-wheeling rather than a measured statesman.

    He may also be one of those who doesn't care about what his obituary says that much, and is having a laugh in the late autumn of his years. Certainly, he could have had a dignified retirement supporting worthy causes and it would've been "America's Mayor Dies at 90" or whatever... but where's the fun in that? He'll be dead then anyway and may well not give two sh1ts about it.
  • Perhaps the Tories should not worry about Johnson so much as Farage, who seems to be beginning to take their support again.

    Will Farage stand down in future elections? He did in 2019 but never had done before.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Saturday, loses to Marcus Rashford.

    Monday, Internal market bill is gutted in the Lords.

    Wednesday, grovels to Brussels to sign a deal

    how much more "winning" does BoZo have lined up this week?

    To be fair that would be a fantastic week, if he wins those three, stops the kleptocracy and covid incompetence he would be back on track!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    Those who voted Trump do not have "as much right to be heard" as those who voted against him. They lost and decisively so. They have a right not to be ignored, yes, but not an equal right to influence policy.

    And we'll see if the Republicans are prepared to work with Biden. I hope so but I'm less optimistic on that score. Obama post 2010 found little but obstruction.

    I hope the Dems can take both GA senate seats and thus boost their prospects for enacting meaningful change.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    So, Google Surveys will do a 1 question poll for me at 11 pence per response.

    Who would like some private polling for the Georgia Run Off elections?

    Will it be a 100% return for the 'mind your own business you nosey bastard' party?
    I was going to use it to do some comedy Scottish independence polling (open with a leading question) but to get a 2 question survey targetted down to Scotland cost a pound per response!

    If you just want a question asked over the whole USA it is a mere 8 pence per response.
  • https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1325347326475472896

    Keir will no doubt have been told continuously to do nothing even slightly contentious today. Eyes on his suit!

    Unlike Corbyn, he doesn't need to be told, its bleeding obvious.
  • Trump voters should be listened to, just like Remainers have been listened to, I mean ignored.
  • Scott_xP said:
    Not with Belgium's current COVID caseload he won't.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,991
    edited November 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This ought to be a bigger story than it is.

    Had this been occurring in my bank, there would certainly have been an investigation.

    At a minimum, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the issues arising from an actual or potential conflict of interest. What on earth were the civil servants and government lawyers doing when all this was going on?
    Well, the government's chief legal officer (Jonathan Jones) has already resigned over the IMB, and most senior civil servants with any integrity have either resigned or are keeping their heads down in the face of constant hostility and intimidation from Cummings and his acolytes. The government is getting away with blue murder in its procurement / contract-granting misdemeanours, but it would be harsh to blame the Civil Service.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,450

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    The Dems would absolutely love to be up against Giuliani in 2024.
    So would Saturday Night Live.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,827
    Hunt is as responsible for the UK’s pandemic preparedness plan as anyone in Parliament.

    How’s it going to look when the inquiry concludes mask wearing was only discouraged during the heat of the pandemic because we had ballsed up PPE provision? Or that we were never in a position to give containment more than lip service because of inadequacies in testing? Or that the Nightingale hospitals, so heroically put together in record time my military planners sat empty because of chronic underinvestment in nursing, meaning thousands of infected were instead dumped back in care homes? And that much of this was known ahead of time but buried?

    No, Hunt would be a total clusterfuck of a choice for the Tories as leader and I’d give you great odds that if picked, he would not survive long enough to contest the 2024 election.

    Rishi vs Tugenhardt would be the best contest I can think of right now but HYFUD is right, the Tories love to pick a no hoper for the run off so it might well be someone like McVey that goes against Rishi.
  • On Johnson/Cummings, I simply cannot understand how they've been forced to make the same U-turn not once, but twice, and for the same reason. Isn't the definition of madness doing the same thing again and again, but expecting a different result?

    Deeply dysfunctional. However, I do think he has a sufficient majority to go on as PM and that, if he did fall, the Conservatives would be unlikely to look back to Hunt, who is an uninspiring character whose time has passed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited November 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, an interesting header from @Casino_Royale. Thank you. I remain of the unfashionable view that, in a Parliamentary democracy, MPs should have the final say on who is party leader.

    It feels to me that too many Tory MPs voted for Boris, despite their misgiving because they felt that the membership wanted him. They abdicated their responsibility. Much as Labour MPs did when nominating Corbyn. It has meant nothing but trouble for both parties - and the country.

    Yes, I remember quite a bit of talk during the initial Corbyn contest about ensuring a wide field for the members etc, and when there were worries Boris might not make the final two (this was before there was a contest, obviously) some Boris fans making basically the same point about it being unfair for their chap not to be put to the members.

    Which seems to go against the whole point of both parties setting up methods to screen the candidates. The Tories by not even putting more than 2 to the members, after the MPs whittle it down, Labour by having a higher threshold of MP support to even get on the ballot.

    If the parties want it to be entirely up to the members then thresholds/screenings can be abandoned or reduced, but they put those options in for a reason, which was to give MPs more control. Though in Boris's case he got through the screening as they thought he would wina GE, and were proven right, so the screening worked as intended in the end. But it is still MPs guiding the contest.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,875

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    Don’t be daft.
    He’s more of a laughingstock than Trump.
    Yes, what on earth has happened to Rudy Giuliani? He used to be a serious and respected figure yet now seems content to be a comedy flunky for Donald Trump. It makes you squirm to see it. Why is he doing it? Is Trump paying him a stupid salary that's too big to refuse? Is he being blackmailed over something deeply shameful? Or has he simply gone soft in the head? Whatever, it's a sad sad spectacle.
    I think it's a combination of factors. It's very widely rumoured that he spends an alarming amount of his time being "tired and emotional", and that his personality changed a fair bit a few years ago, which could be related to that problem or could be something else. He's also always been a "punchy" type - he was free-wheeling rather than a measured statesman.

    He may also be one of those who doesn't care about what his obituary says that much, and is having a laugh in the late autumn of his years. Certainly, he could have had a dignified retirement supporting worthy causes and it would've been "America's Mayor Dies at 90" or whatever... but where's the fun in that? He'll be dead then anyway and may well not give two sh1ts about it.
    I simply do not understand how someone who made his name fighting the Mafia in NY should end his career working with members of the Ukrainian Mafia - by which I mean Dmitry Firtash, the bagman for Semion Mogilevich, a Mafioso so repellent that he was for years on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List and now living in Moscow.

    That’s not having a laugh. That’s someone who has taken his moral compass and buried it at sea. And, incidentally, put himself at risk of legal action. And for what? To be humiliated by the Trumps as he was yesterday? He could have made plenty of money on the lecture circuit as an ex-NY Mayor. Baffling.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    Don’t be daft.
    He’s more of a laughingstock than Trump.
    Yes, what on earth has happened to Rudy Giuliani? He used to be a serious and respected figure yet now seems content to be a comedy flunky for Donald Trump. It makes you squirm to see it. Why is he doing it? Is Trump paying him a stupid salary that's too big to refuse? Is he being blackmailed over something deeply shameful? Or has he simply gone soft in the head? Whatever, it's a sad sad spectacle.
    I think it's a combination of factors. It's very widely rumoured that he spends an alarming amount of his time being "tired and emotional", and that his personality changed a fair bit a few years ago, which could be related to that problem or could be something else. He's also always been a "punchy" type - he was free-wheeling rather than a measured statesman.

    He may also be one of those who doesn't care about what his obituary says that much, and is having a laugh in the late autumn of his years. Certainly, he could have had a dignified retirement supporting worthy causes and it would've been "America's Mayor Dies at 90" or whatever... but where's the fun in that? He'll be dead then anyway and may well not give two sh1ts about it.
    Ah, I see, yes. A nihilist avoiding thoughts of the grave by chasing the Crack. Yes, I can buy that. The answer to many political questions lies not in ideologies or complex strategy but in the brain chemistry and emotional needs of the players.
  • kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    Those who voted Trump do not have "as much right to be heard" as those who voted against him. They lost and decisively so. They have a right not to be ignored, yes, but not an equal right to influence policy.

    And we'll see if the Republicans are prepared to work with Biden. I hope so but I'm less optimistic on that score. Obama post 2010 found little but obstruction.

    I hope the Dems can take both GA senate seats and thus boost their prospects for enacting meaningful change.
    Agreed.
    "There are enough moderate Republicans" - Are there? A lot were in effect booted out by Trump or left of their own free will before they were (e.g Jeff Flake).
    Mitch McConnell is not exactly a compromiser, we can only hope that Susan Collins and Mitt Romney are open to reason.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498

    Perhaps the Tories should not worry about Johnson so much as Farage, who seems to be beginning to take their support again.

    Will Farage stand down in future elections? He did in 2019 but never had done before.

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1325363578279485440
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498

    On Johnson/Cummings, I simply cannot understand how they've been forced to make the same U-turn not once, but twice, and for the same reason. Isn't the definition of madness doing the same thing again and again, but expecting a different result?

    They are not actually very bright
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490
    edited November 2020

    Perhaps the Tories should not worry about Johnson so much as Farage, who seems to be beginning to take their support again.

    Will Farage stand down in future elections? He did in 2019 but never had done before.

    In 2019 Farage made the only sensible choice - not standing down risked Brexit altogether, and worse still a Corbyn government that would surely be about as anathema to Farage as any could be.

    I don't think he presents any great concern for the Tories at the moment, and only does so if the government does something truly daft. He may also be a modest threat for Labour too I guess. Probably not so much chance that the LDs voter will switch though.
  • Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    I agree. Sunak's window is closing quickly, the economy is cratering (not his fault, but he is holding the parcel of ordure when the music stops).

    Raab, Patel and Gove are making all the right noises for the faithful.

    So what of Hunt? Something of a political chameleon who has finally become very effective through the pandemic. People like me wouldn't vote for him, but would be comfortable with him as PM. That is probably a good reason why he won't succeed in the Conservative leadership battle against the likes of Sunak, Raab, Patel or Gove.
    Hunt's chances surely depend quite strongly on how swiftly the EU negotiations produce something that'll work in the long term. The right of the Tory party is mostly coalesced around Brexit issues - once that's actually in the past then there's sufficient divergences that I don't see a strong right vs left split as being certain.
    Continuing difficulties would very likely mean Hunt couldn't win.

    I've personally backed Patel as I think that assuming she steers clear of the many reefs in the Home Office then she'll have a pretty good track record to point to in early 2024 (or in my view more likely 2025).

    Sunak is too short to back.
    Good post. I think the hard right of the Tory party amount to about 50-60 MPs (tops) and about 35% of the membership.

    People extrapolate that out to the majority because of things like Brexit but I think everyone underestimates the degree to which the vast majority of the Tory party want to move on from that and heal the wounds.

    My advice would be if you're betting solely on this you're possibly letting your prejudices and perceptions of internal Tory party politics cloud your judgement.

    The Labour party and Democrats moved on to win and I see no reason why the Tories won't to win again.
  • MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, an interesting header from @Casino_Royale. Thank you. I remain of the unfashionable view that, in a Parliamentary democracy, MPs should have the final say on who is party leader.

    It feels to me that too many Tory MPs voted for Boris, despite their misgiving because they felt that the membership wanted him. They abdicated their responsibility. Much as Labour MPs did when nominating Corbyn. It has meant nothing but trouble for both parties - and the country.

    No, MPs voted for Boris so that he, as the most prominent leader, would own whatever happened with brexit. No more thought went into it than that.
    And the uncertainty about what happens with Brexit is what makes this a tricky question.
    If Brexit works, or can be sold as working, Johnson goes when he wants and is sucessor is already in the Cabinet.
    If it's as big a mess as it could be, then hold on to your hats, but Johnson's sucessor will need clean hands.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,042

    Nigelb said:

    .

    stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    First challenge is going to be getting his cabinet picks approved.
    The chances of Warren at Treasury, for example, are now exceedingly slim.
    Wouldnt it lead to another Republican senator and one less Democratic senator? Surely its zero chance on that alone
    It might well.
    But Warren is just an outside case to illustrate the point. With a likely Republican majority in the Senate, the new President is going to have to balance getting a functional administration up and running quickly against getting all his first choices for cabinet posts approved.
    McConnell has been an obstructive nihilist up until now; I don’t much expect that to change.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,875

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This ought to be a bigger story than it is.

    Had this been occurring in my bank, there would certainly have been an investigation.

    At a minimum, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the issues arising from an actual or potential conflict of interest. What on earth were the civil servants and government lawyers doing when all this was going on?
    Well, the government's chief legal officer (Jonathan Jones) has already resigned over the IMB, and most senior civil servants with any integrity have either resigned or are keeping their heads down in the face of constant hostility and intimidation from Cummings and his acolytes. The government is getting away with blue murder in its procurement / contract-granting misdemeanours, but it would be harsh to blame the Civil Service.
    I’m not blaming them. But I am assuming - perhaps wrongly - that there must be processes for addressing conflicts of interest for public appointments. So I am curious why these have not worked and how it is that civil servants and/or lawyers acted.

    Did they do as they were instructed? If so, by whom?
    Were they bypassed? Again, how and by whom?
    Or - more worryingly - did they not even realise that there might be a problem?
  • Cyclefree said:

    On topic, an interesting header from @Casino_Royale. Thank you. I remain of the unfashionable view that, in a Parliamentary democracy, MPs should have the final say on who is party leader.

    It feels to me that too many Tory MPs voted for Boris, despite their misgiving because they felt that the membership wanted him. They abdicated their responsibility. Much as Labour MPs did when nominating Corbyn. It has meant nothing but trouble for both parties - and the country.

    Agreed. I think it would work in a mass membership situation, where most of the adult population were members of a political party, but a things stand now it risks cultism (although not always).
  • Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    I agree. Sunak's window is closing quickly, the economy is cratering (not his fault, but he is holding the parcel of ordure when the music stops).

    Raab, Patel and Gove are making all the right noises for the faithful.

    So what of Hunt? Something of a political chameleon who has finally become very effective through the pandemic. People like me wouldn't vote for him, but would be comfortable with him as PM. That is probably a good reason why he won't succeed in the Conservative leadership battle against the likes of Sunak, Raab, Patel or Gove.
    Hunt's chances surely depend quite strongly on how swiftly the EU negotiations produce something that'll work in the long term. The right of the Tory party is mostly coalesced around Brexit issues - once that's actually in the past then there's sufficient divergences that I don't see a strong right vs left split as being certain.
    Continuing difficulties would very likely mean Hunt couldn't win.

    I've personally backed Patel as I think that assuming she steers clear of the many reefs in the Home Office then she'll have a pretty good track record to point to in early 2024 (or in my view more likely 2025).

    Sunak is too short to back.
    Good post. I think the hard right of the Tory party amount to about 50-60 MPs (tops) and about 35% of the membership.

    People extrapolate that out to the majority because of things like Brexit but I think everyone underestimates the degree to which the vast majority of the Tory party want to move on from that and heal the wounds.

    My advice would be if you're betting solely on this you're possibly letting your prejudices and perceptions of internal Tory party politics cloud your judgement.

    The Labour party and Democrats moved on to win and I see no reason why the Tories won't to win again.
    Are there any numbers (or even anecdotes) on whats happened to the Kipper entrants to the Tories, are they still there? Perhaps they dont turn up to meetings and are not in the same social circles but still have a lot of votes.
  • kle4 said:

    I know its predicated on the situation being different, but for the same reason I thought Boris would win if he got past the MPs, I can't see Hunt winning unless it's a coronation or moderate (or at least more standard) fix. Granted, the labour membership went for the sensible option right after Corbyn, but Corbyn lost and left, Boris going would be before a GE defeat and clearly forced on him, his supporters would be livid.

    I think hes going nowhere.

    I don't agree with this because his supporters are no longer his supporters - I've been speaking to a few recently; Boris is rapidly running out of road.

    I think everyone is still focussed on fighting the last war and, like my header points out, assuming Boris's successor must be someone suitably tub-thumping and hardcore.

    Sensible Tories will see the need for competent stable Government after Boris and all the drama and uncertainty of recent years - it'll be their only chance to win in GE2024 - and remember the membership elected Cameron over Davis and (as WilliamGlenn reminded me) were more tempted by May than Johnson in 2016.
    Good article and the party could do worse than Hunt but to be fair I cannot see past Rishi at present
    The more I think about Sunak the more doubts I have about him.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498
    Cyclefree said:

    I’m not blaming them. But I am assuming - perhaps wrongly - that there must be processes for addressing conflicts of interest for public appointments. So I am curious why these have not worked and how it is that civil servants and/or lawyers acted.

    Did they do as they were instructed? If so, by whom?
    Were they bypassed? Again, how and by whom?
    Or - more worryingly - did they not even realise that there might be a problem?

    Why would someone who appointed, and refused to sack, Cummings worry about any of that?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    The Dems would absolutely love to be up against Giuliani in 2024.
    So would Saturday Night Live.
    It's the part Peter MacNicol was born to play.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tACkUNooKtQ
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 421
    stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    Good post.

    The analogy with 2016 here is interesting. Of course, Remainers did not get a stake in the future in the end, but that was our* own fault for failing to face reality and demanding too much. The defining moment was the mostly forgotten Indicative Votes of March 2019, where many Remainers made the shameful decision to reject every compromise.

    Is there a lesson there for the defeated side this time? After all, Biden is sincerely reaching out to them, which Leavers did not to Remainers. However, the assumption is that they will see the likely Republican control of the Senate as the way to defeat him rather than work with him. That could go either way. Also, this was not a vote on an issue but on a person, and that's where the analogy starts to breaks down.

    *Actually many Remainers did want to compromise but we got drowned out.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062
    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    Those who voted Trump do not have "as much right to be heard" as those who voted against him. They lost and decisively so. They have a right not to be ignored, yes, but not an equal right to influence policy.

    And we'll see if the Republicans are prepared to work with Biden. I hope so but I'm less optimistic on that score. Obama post 2010 found little but obstruction.

    I hope the Dems can take both GA senate seats and thus boost their prospects for enacting meaningful change.
    I take the opposite view to you re the Georgia senate seats. Trump RIP is enough for me.

    We seem to be thinking that the two seats will go either R or D - is it worth entertaining the possibility that one goes R and the other D?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481

    kle4 said:

    I know its predicated on the situation being different, but for the same reason I thought Boris would win if he got past the MPs, I can't see Hunt winning unless it's a coronation or moderate (or at least more standard) fix. Granted, the labour membership went for the sensible option right after Corbyn, but Corbyn lost and left, Boris going would be before a GE defeat and clearly forced on him, his supporters would be livid.

    I think hes going nowhere.

    I don't agree with this because his supporters are no longer his supporters - I've been speaking to a few recently; Boris is rapidly running out of road.

    I think everyone is still focussed on fighting the last war and, like my header points out, assuming Boris's successor must be someone suitably tub-thumping and hardcore.

    Sensible Tories will see the need for competent stable Government after Boris and all the drama and uncertainty of recent years - it'll be their only chance to win in GE2024 - and remember the membership elected Cameron over Davis and (as WilliamGlenn reminded me) were more tempted by May than Johnson in 2016.
    Good article and the party could do worse than Hunt but to be fair I cannot see past Rishi at present
    The more I think about Sunak the more doubts I have about him.
    Sunak could beat Starmer, Hunt I think would not and would lose votes in droves to Farage, especially in the Red Wall
  • kle4 said:

    I know its predicated on the situation being different, but for the same reason I thought Boris would win if he got past the MPs, I can't see Hunt winning unless it's a coronation or moderate (or at least more standard) fix. Granted, the labour membership went for the sensible option right after Corbyn, but Corbyn lost and left, Boris going would be before a GE defeat and clearly forced on him, his supporters would be livid.

    I think hes going nowhere.

    I don't agree with this because his supporters are no longer his supporters - I've been speaking to a few recently; Boris is rapidly running out of road.

    I think everyone is still focussed on fighting the last war and, like my header points out, assuming Boris's successor must be someone suitably tub-thumping and hardcore.

    Sensible Tories will see the need for competent stable Government after Boris and all the drama and uncertainty of recent years - it'll be their only chance to win in GE2024 - and remember the membership elected Cameron over Davis and (as WilliamGlenn reminded me) were more tempted by May than Johnson in 2016.
    Good article and the party could do worse than Hunt but to be fair I cannot see past Rishi at present
    The more I think about Sunak the more doubts I have about him.
    Please explain?
  • Alistair said:

    So, Google Surveys will do a 1 question poll for me at 11 pence per response.

    Who would like some private polling for the Georgia Run Off elections?

    The Georgia run-offs will be crucial for control of the Senate and hence the viability of the Biden White House. That means Georgia in January will be ground zero for political polling (and advertising). There is no point adding to it.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    First challenge is going to be getting his cabinet picks approved.
    The chances of Warren at Treasury, for example, are now exceedingly slim.
    Wouldnt it lead to another Republican senator and one less Democratic senator? Surely its zero chance on that alone
    It might well.
    But Warren is just an outside case to illustrate the point. With a likely Republican majority in the Senate, the new President is going to have to balance getting a functional administration up and running quickly against getting all his first choices for cabinet posts approved.
    McConnell has been an obstructive nihilist up until now; I don’t much expect that to change.
    I am not convinced Biden would want Warren is his cabinet anyway. If he chose her it would have been based on political expediency based on the results, not his alignment with her beliefs and policies. So him not being able to choose her, or many of her allies, also out of political expediency isnt a big problem for him at all, and possibly a blessing.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,008
    edited November 2020
    Scott_xP said:

    Perhaps the Tories should not worry about Johnson so much as Farage, who seems to be beginning to take their support again.

    Will Farage stand down in future elections? He did in 2019 but never had done before.

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1325363578279485440
    I note that the latest YouGov poll has the Tories down to 35% and the Brexit Party up to 6%. A straw in the wind?


  • Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    So, Google Surveys will do a 1 question poll for me at 11 pence per response.

    Who would like some private polling for the Georgia Run Off elections?

    Will it be a 100% return for the 'mind your own business you nosey bastard' party?
    I was going to use it to do some comedy Scottish independence polling (open with a leading question) but to get a 2 question survey targetted down to Scotland cost a pound per response!

    If you just want a question asked over the whole USA it is a mere 8 pence per response.
    One question for Scotland please: Salmond or Sturgeon?
  • FPT
    rcs1000 said:


    But it's not just Switzerland: there are a number of developed countries that have done an excellent job in running manufacturing trade surpluses, and having extremely pro free trade policies. I might mention Germany, or Singapore, or Sweden, or Denmark. All have high labour standards, low tariffs.

    But they also have two other things in common, that the US and the UK do not:

    (1) They have educational systems with good vocational routes
    (2) They all have high domestic savings rates

    Indeed, if you want to look for a marker that correlates (without exception, as far as I can tell) with diminishing domestic manufacturing employment, it's low domestic savings rates.

    Edit to add, you can probably add South Korea to the list of low tariff, high manufacturing employment countries.

    Perhaps both a high savings rate, good vocational education and a successful manufacturing sector all come from a national mindset which values wealth creation, living within your means and investing for your future.

    Compare with the UK where the political establishment thinks it a good idea to encourage foreign holidays during a global pandemic and where the media demand the taxpayer fund whatever the week's 'deserving cause' is.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,991
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This ought to be a bigger story than it is.

    Had this been occurring in my bank, there would certainly have been an investigation.

    At a minimum, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the issues arising from an actual or potential conflict of interest. What on earth were the civil servants and government lawyers doing when all this was going on?
    Well, the government's chief legal officer (Jonathan Jones) has already resigned over the IMB, and most senior civil servants with any integrity have either resigned or are keeping their heads down in the face of constant hostility and intimidation from Cummings and his acolytes. The government is getting away with blue murder in its procurement / contract-granting misdemeanours, but it would be harsh to blame the Civil Service.
    I’m not blaming them. But I am assuming - perhaps wrongly - that there must be processes for addressing conflicts of interest for public appointments. So I am curious why these have not worked and how it is that civil servants and/or lawyers acted.

    Did they do as they were instructed? If so, by whom?
    Were they bypassed? Again, how and by whom?
    Or - more worryingly - did they not even realise that there might be a problem?
    Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were blaming the Civil Service. The problem is that the processes you refer to only work when a government accepts the fundamental principle that the Civil Service should be impartial and give advice without fear or favour (and without fear of being removed). This government has severely damaged that core principle, and so proper procedures are indeed being bypassed, to the detriment of good governance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    Brexit will be over next year. It's then irrelevant and about the challenges of the future on which Hunt is very well placed.

    I think you're too hung up on the mistake you made in backing Boris and have a blind spot for Hunt because you think his election would somehow be a vindication of those who've criticised you for it all along.
    Except I did not make a mistake backing Boris last year, Boris got an 80 seat majority landslide Hunt would not have done and then beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit
  • Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    Brexit will be over next year. It's then irrelevant and about the challenges of the future on which Hunt is very well placed.

    I think you're too hung up on the mistake you made in backing Boris and have a blind spot for Hunt because you think his election would somehow be a vindication of those who've criticised you for it all along.
    Re Mr Hunt, has anyone raised the question of what happens if there is an inquiry into the pox which looks at his track record on related matters and decides he messed up big time while in charge of the NHS? Exercise Cygnus, and so on. Not sayi8ng he did, just that IIRC the question was raised some months back, or am I being unfair?
    It's inevitable that his past will be raked over and his record in office as Health Secretary too. In fact, his opponents and the Opposition would be in dereliction of their duty if they didn't.

    I don't think anyone in the West is going to come up smelling of roses when we look into how we prepared for Covid after this is over - did any non-Asian country get it right? - and he'll always be able to argue he could have done more at the time but was boxed in by Treasury funding settlements and Government contingency planning priorities. Which is basically true.

    He'll say he's learned the lessons and will (say) come out with a five-point plan to show it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    On Johnson/Cummings, I simply cannot understand how they've been forced to make the same U-turn not once, but twice, and for the same reason. Isn't the definition of madness doing the same thing again and again, but expecting a different result?

    Because they're stupid.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062
    edited November 2020
    I`ve just noticed a recent bf change to rules regarding settlement of the Georgia Senate races. I have a very small bet on Purdue winning.

    The rules say "Which candidate will win the popular vote in the regular Georgia Senate Election 2020?"

    I therefore expected this to settle accordingly (i.e. for Purdue).

    But nine days ago there was an addendum:

    "If no candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, and a runoff election is required, this market will be settled on the winner of the runoff election".

    I placed my bet well ahead of the addendum, and haven`t got sufficient cash riding on this to be particularly bothered either way, but as a point of principle this seems out of order to me. Opinions?
  • Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Roger said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Roger said:

    p.s. is that the first time the adjective didelphine has been used on political betting? :wink::smiley:

    Probably. I've never heard it used before nor do I know what it means
    I thought you worked in advertising
    We don't use big words in advertising!
    didelphine is only barely a middle sized word
    What is the word for an obscure word used in online articles so the author can easily search for them?
    The Meaning of Liff by Douglas Adams comprises a compendium of useful words for such elusive meanings but I don't think anything there quite fits the bill.

    We will have to invent one.
    An Obscuramot.
    I was quite pleased with my use of chthonic earlier, but it seems to have slipped by unnoticed. Must be a common word down this way..
    In Nether Nether Land? Well, obviously.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,769
    Dura_Ace said:



    Brexit will be over next year.

    Mao said that the gains of revolution must be continuously defended and extended. The UK will quietly slide into EEA status within a decade unless the Brexit coalition of disaster capitalists and Antiques Roadshow viewers can be kept together and energised.
    It will be business as usual. It was about straight banana rules imposed by Brussels, it will be about us voluntarily and sovereignly signing up to straight banana rules as a condition of doing business. Nothing will have changed.
  • Good to see Starmer laying a wreath instead of Corbyn.

    Biden as POTUS
    Corbyn gone as LOTO

    2020 has not been all bad.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490
    Yes - frustrating that there's not more alignment between the UK nations. All leaders equally at fault.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,042
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    Brexit will be over next year. It's then irrelevant and about the challenges of the future on which Hunt is very well placed.

    I think you're too hung up on the mistake you made in backing Boris and have a blind spot for Hunt because you think his election would somehow be a vindication of those who've criticised you for it all along.
    Re Mr Hunt, has anyone raised the question of what happens if there is an inquiry into the pox which looks at his track record on related matters and decides he messed up big time while in charge of the NHS? Exercise Cygnus, and so on. Not saying he did, just that IIRC the question was raised some months back, or am I being unfair?
    Not unfair at all, and the lack of PPE stocks is probably the single strongest criticism.
    But the running down of public health capacity, for example, goes back a long way. Previous Labour governments included.

    To Hunt’s credit, he appears to have learned something from his mistakes. I don’t think that will help him in the leadership stakes, though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited November 2020
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    I know its predicated on the situation being different, but for the same reason I thought Boris would win if he got past the MPs, I can't see Hunt winning unless it's a coronation or moderate (or at least more standard) fix. Granted, the labour membership went for the sensible option right after Corbyn, but Corbyn lost and left, Boris going would be before a GE defeat and clearly forced on him, his supporters would be livid.

    I think hes going nowhere.

    I don't agree with this because his supporters are no longer his supporters - I've been speaking to a few recently; Boris is rapidly running out of road.

    I think everyone is still focussed on fighting the last war and, like my header points out, assuming Boris's successor must be someone suitably tub-thumping and hardcore.

    Sensible Tories will see the need for competent stable Government after Boris and all the drama and uncertainty of recent years - it'll be their only chance to win in GE2024 - and remember the membership elected Cameron over Davis and (as WilliamGlenn reminded me) were more tempted by May than Johnson in 2016.
    Good article and the party could do worse than Hunt but to be fair I cannot see past Rishi at present
    The more I think about Sunak the more doubts I have about him.
    Sunak could beat Starmer, Hunt I think would not and would lose votes in droves to Farage, especially in the Red Wall
    Actually, the key doubt I have over CR's most interesting thread header is to do with the track record of retreads.

    How many defeated US presidential candidates in the twentieth century were successful at the second attempt? One - Nixon. And even if we expand to candidates who were defeated twice, the only ones I can think of were Dewey and Stevenson.

    Similarly, how many Tory leadership candidates won the prize in their second (or beyond) leadership election? If we exclude Michael Howard, who was elected unopposed at the second attempt, you have to go all the way back to Austen Chamberlain who beat out Lord Birkenhead in 1921, having previously been in an election in 1911.

    The Tories tend to look forward, rather than back or sideways. That may be a mistake as far as Hunt is concerned, but it doesn't suggest he is in with a great chance.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,272

    Good article and agree 20/1 is value although would be a clear layer at 5/1 given there is a plausible chance the winner only comes though in ten years time still. An interesting question on these bets is betting next PM or next leader. On betfair he is 20 next PM vs 11 next Tory leader (both in small amounts so could easily move especially after this article).

    If he is more likely to be Tory leader post the GE then next leader is better (despite the worse odds), if more likely to be leader before the next election then next PM is better.

    Id lean towards backing him for Tory leader is better, his most plausible path is Johnson "resolves" Brexit, does just well enough to hang in but loses the GE, probably to a hung parliament. At this point he is the clear leader of the anti-Johnson, competent wing of the party, and there are few rivals for this spot - Javid, who generally seems overrated, is the only one still in parliament and it is hard for others to rise without being involved in government. (Sunak whilst competent, is far more tied to Johnson's success and the Brexit project).

    I don't think Johnson can or will last over three years to lead the party into the next General Election. The writing is already on the wall now.

    Of course he can't run or win on the strictly Cameroon platform of 2010, or even 2015 (politics has changed) but he can offer good, competent and measured Government which I suspect is both what Britain will want and need for the next few years.
    PMs in office tend to last longer than people expect, but there is certainly potential that he prefers leaving than battling on given a young family, recovery from covid, and probably uniquely as a modern day PM, the feeling he is not earning enough!

    But pre election the likes of Sunak & Patel better reflect the memberships views.
    The Tory membership are savvier than you think and I think it's a case of once bitten twice shy.

    The belief they're all headbanging ultra hard right wingers isn't really true. They can be led which is why it's so important he looks Prime Ministerial and does well amongst MPs.

    Sunak would be the one to beat, for now, but I have a feeling his halo won't last.
    I hope you are right about the Tory membership but didn't Ashcroft's polling have almost 60% saying they would vote for Trump?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,450
    Dura_Ace said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Guiliani link worth watching for its contradictions -often in the same paragraph- and it's sheer loopiness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSJriRbxQQ&feature=youtu.be

    Giuliani is 76 so younger than Biden, could be a longshot for 2024, has huge name recognition after 9/11, is charismatic, certainly more so than say Pence, has clearly stayed loyal enough to Trump for the Republican base to consider him and yet is also slicker and more intelligent than Trump is and certainly more so than Trump Jnr.

    If Biden did not run again in 2024 and Harris won the Democratic nomination Giuliani could have a shot of winning and beating her

    The Dems would absolutely love to be up against Giuliani in 2024.
    So would Saturday Night Live.
    It's the part Peter MacNicol was born to play.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tACkUNooKtQ
    I see what you mean. But Kate McKinnon does a pretty good job:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LmFVEi5Jd0
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    edited November 2020

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    So, Google Surveys will do a 1 question poll for me at 11 pence per response.

    Who would like some private polling for the Georgia Run Off elections?

    Will it be a 100% return for the 'mind your own business you nosey bastard' party?
    I was going to use it to do some comedy Scottish independence polling (open with a leading question) but to get a 2 question survey targetted down to Scotland cost a pound per response!

    If you just want a question asked over the whole USA it is a mere 8 pence per response.
    One question for Scotland please: Salmond or Sturgeon?
    I'm surprised you want to waste money on that question.

    Edit: not your money, of course.
  • One can now get 5% on your money on POTUS at BF.

    Incredible.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    Stocky said:

    I`ve just noticed a recent bf change to rules regarding settlement of the Georgia Senate races. I have a very small bet on Purdue winning.

    The rules say "Which candidate will win the popular vote in the regular Georgia Senate Election 2020?"

    I therefore expected this to settle accordingly (i.e. for Purdue).

    But nine days ago there was an addendum:

    "If no candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, and a runoff election is required, this market will be settled on the winner of the runoff election".

    I placed my bet well ahead of the addendum, and haven`t got sufficient cash riding on this to be particularly bothered either way, but as a point of principle this seems out of order to me. Opinions?

    Horrendous. The addendum creates a completely different market to the original bet.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    Stocky said:

    I`ve just noticed a recent bf change to rules regarding settlement of the Georgia Senate races. I have a very small bet on Purdue winning.

    The rules say "Which candidate will win the popular vote in the regular Georgia Senate Election 2020?"

    I therefore expected this to settle accordingly (i.e. for Purdue).

    But nine days ago there was an addendum:

    "If no candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, and a runoff election is required, this market will be settled on the winner of the runoff election".

    I placed my bet well ahead of the addendum, and haven`t got sufficient cash riding on this to be particularly bothered either way, but as a point of principle this seems out of order to me. Opinions?

    They're out of order. However, changing the rules during an election seems to be the American fashion.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859
    Whoever is briefing that Joe Biden will go to Brussels is having a bad day. There's no better way to piss off all of the European allies at once. A trip to Berlin makes much more sense, or do something war related in Paris where Merkel, Macron and Boris are all there. Going to Brussels won't just piss us off, Paris and Berlin will start sounding he alarms as well if the US intends to conduct diplomacy via the EU instead of directly with the nations as it has been done until now. It dilutes German and French power significantly.

    If Biden really wants to annoy the UK then a visit to Ireland and Berlin would do it.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,910

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This ought to be a bigger story than it is.

    Had this been occurring in my bank, there would certainly have been an investigation.

    At a minimum, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the issues arising from an actual or potential conflict of interest. What on earth were the civil servants and government lawyers doing when all this was going on?
    Well, the government's chief legal officer (Jonathan Jones) has already resigned over the IMB, and most senior civil servants with any integrity have either resigned or are keeping their heads down in the face of constant hostility and intimidation from Cummings and his acolytes. The government is getting away with blue murder in its procurement / contract-granting misdemeanours, but it would be harsh to blame the Civil Service.
    I’m not blaming them. But I am assuming - perhaps wrongly - that there must be processes for addressing conflicts of interest for public appointments. So I am curious why these have not worked and how it is that civil servants and/or lawyers acted.

    Did they do as they were instructed? If so, by whom?
    Were they bypassed? Again, how and by whom?
    Or - more worryingly - did they not even realise that there might be a problem?
    Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were blaming the Civil Service. The problem is that the processes you refer to only work when a government accepts the fundamental principle that the Civil Service should be impartial and give advice without fear or favour (and without fear of being removed). This government has severely damaged that core principle, and so proper procedures are indeed being bypassed, to the detriment of good governance.
    Everything in the UK is now too closely intertwined with the government - there are no independent agencies with the realistic power to challenge and expose corruption within UK Govt and administration. FFS the Govt's anti corruption "Tsar" is a Tory MP!!! Even if there are "practices" in place, they can be easily sidestepped.

    Makes one look longingly at things like the FBI and DOJ in the US (and even they've come under heavy strain).
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,875
    Scott_xP said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I’m not blaming them. But I am assuming - perhaps wrongly - that there must be processes for addressing conflicts of interest for public appointments. So I am curious why these have not worked and how it is that civil servants and/or lawyers acted.

    Did they do as they were instructed? If so, by whom?
    Were they bypassed? Again, how and by whom?
    Or - more worryingly - did they not even realise that there might be a problem?

    Why would someone who appointed, and refused to sack, Cummings worry about any of that?
    He might not. But others should. Not least because if anyone traded on any inside information received, the authorities might start asking some very awkward questions indeed.

    I say this because I was involved in any investigation in this sector with facts which were not wildly dissimilar to the ones here and a number of people got their fingers burned.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,875
    edited November 2020

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This ought to be a bigger story than it is.

    Had this been occurring in my bank, there would certainly have been an investigation.

    At a minimum, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the issues arising from an actual or potential conflict of interest. What on earth were the civil servants and government lawyers doing when all this was going on?
    Well, the government's chief legal officer (Jonathan Jones) has already resigned over the IMB, and most senior civil servants with any integrity have either resigned or are keeping their heads down in the face of constant hostility and intimidation from Cummings and his acolytes. The government is getting away with blue murder in its procurement / contract-granting misdemeanours, but it would be harsh to blame the Civil Service.
    I’m not blaming them. But I am assuming - perhaps wrongly - that there must be processes for addressing conflicts of interest for public appointments. So I am curious why these have not worked and how it is that civil servants and/or lawyers acted.

    Did they do as they were instructed? If so, by whom?
    Were they bypassed? Again, how and by whom?
    Or - more worryingly - did they not even realise that there might be a problem?
    Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were blaming the Civil Service. The problem is that the processes you refer to only work when a government accepts the fundamental principle that the Civil Service should be impartial and give advice without fear or favour (and without fear of being removed). This government has severely damaged that core principle, and so proper procedures are indeed being bypassed, to the detriment of good governance.
    Yes - one reason why this government is so damaging.

    I do wonder whether Kate Bingham’s private equity firm has a compliance officer and/or lawyer advising them and whether they have considered the legal/regulatory issues arising for the firm.
  • The Lib Dems seem to be more invisible than before, somehow.

    As others have pointed out before, the Labour rise has been mostly - but not entirely - due to Lib Dem voters folding into Labour.

    This raises an interesting point, that is it possible that Labour doesn't really need to convert many more Tory voters to deny the Tories a majority in the worst case?
  • Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hunt has as much chance of becoming the next Tory leader as Romney does of being the GOP nominee in 2024 ie zero.

    Hunt got just 24% of the votes of Tory MPs last year and 33% of the votes from Tory members, he was a Remainer so still untouchable from the party base unlike the Leave voting Sunak and his approval ratings from the public are not only lower than Sunak's but even lower than Boris'. If Boris goes, for example after terrible local election results next year, then it will only be for the now more electable Sunak who can take a pragmatic stance on Brexit while still showing loyalty to the cause and be a fresh face to work with the Biden administration.

    Personally I think Boris will still survive for the time being and the locals next year will not be that bad but if he does go then Sunak will be the alternative not Hunt, indeed I highly doubt Hunt would even get to the final 2 now amongst MPs let alone win, much of his 2019 support will have shifted to Sunak who is now the main candidate for Tory moderates and much of the Boris support would shift to Sunak too, the hard right of the party meanwhile would get behind Patel or Raab or an anti lockdown figure like McVey and Hunt would be squeezed out and not even get to the final round to contest the membership vote

    I agree. Sunak's window is closing quickly, the economy is cratering (not his fault, but he is holding the parcel of ordure when the music stops).

    Raab, Patel and Gove are making all the right noises for the faithful.

    So what of Hunt? Something of a political chameleon who has finally become very effective through the pandemic. People like me wouldn't vote for him, but would be comfortable with him as PM. That is probably a good reason why he won't succeed in the Conservative leadership battle against the likes of Sunak, Raab, Patel or Gove.
    Hunt's chances surely depend quite strongly on how swiftly the EU negotiations produce something that'll work in the long term. The right of the Tory party is mostly coalesced around Brexit issues - once that's actually in the past then there's sufficient divergences that I don't see a strong right vs left split as being certain.
    Continuing difficulties would very likely mean Hunt couldn't win.

    I've personally backed Patel as I think that assuming she steers clear of the many reefs in the Home Office then she'll have a pretty good track record to point to in early 2024 (or in my view more likely 2025).

    Sunak is too short to back.
    Good post. I think the hard right of the Tory party amount to about 50-60 MPs (tops) and about 35% of the membership.

    People extrapolate that out to the majority because of things like Brexit but I think everyone underestimates the degree to which the vast majority of the Tory party want to move on from that and heal the wounds.

    My advice would be if you're betting solely on this you're possibly letting your prejudices and perceptions of internal Tory party politics cloud your judgement.

    The Labour party and Democrats moved on to win and I see no reason why the Tories won't to win again.
    Are there any numbers (or even anecdotes) on whats happened to the Kipper entrants to the Tories, are they still there? Perhaps they dont turn up to meetings and are not in the same social circles but still have a lot of votes.
    I haven't actually met very many of these. The active members are generally the same ones who've been there for an age.

    Nevertheless this is the difficult choice some ex-members face: if they want sanity back they need to be paying subs now so they can get a vote on the leader when the time comes, which might be rather soon. Yes, you'll be giving Boris some money to play with but he won't be able to have fun with it for long and it'll mostly be for the English locals and Scottish Parliament elections next year.

    I'd recommend that some of those who quit last year over Boris consider rejoining no later than February/March next year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    MaxPB said:

    Whoever is briefing that Joe Biden will go to Brussels is having a bad day. There's no better way to piss off all of the European allies at once. A trip to Berlin makes much more sense, or do something war related in Paris where Merkel, Macron and Boris are all there. Going to Brussels won't just piss us off, Paris and Berlin will start sounding he alarms as well if the US intends to conduct diplomacy via the EU instead of directly with the nations as it has been done until now. It dilutes German and French power significantly.

    If Biden really wants to annoy the UK then a visit to Ireland and Berlin would do it.

    He would be Dublin down on his opposition to Brexit.

    Pause.

    I'll get my coat...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481
    stodge said:

    I commented last evening on the enormity of Biden's task trying to re-unite a deeply divided country. It's not 1865 by any stretch and I wouldn't want any kind of parallel with that dreadful time but the fact remains America's divisions, which have always existed (as they do in every other country), have been laid bare in the past few years.

    There's no point being triumphalist or throwing blame around or throwing in pejorative terms like "woke" and all the rest of it - none of that helps.

    Those who supported Trump, for whatever reason, have as much right to be heard and have a voice and stake in the future as those who supported Remain in 2016.

    Biden therefore has to be about reconciliation and nothing else - fortunately it seems unlikely the Democrats will enjoy the "clean sweep" for which they were hoping and it's my experience a little sensible "co-habitation" as the French call it does no one any harm.

    There are enough moderate Republicans and Democrats in both Senate and the House to work with a moderate Biden administration and marginalise the extremists n both sides of the aisle.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant challenges for an incoming Biden administration both domestically and globally. Relations with China, Israel and Russia (in that order) will be needing particular care and it will be interesting to see who replaces Pompeo at State.

    One thing that will help that is Biden will be the first incoming President since Bush Snr in 1990 not to have majorities for his party in both chambers of Congress and that will force him to compromise with the GOP Senate (though the GOP lost the Senate 6 months into Dubya's Presidency when Vermont Senator Jeffords defected to the Democrats).

    Reagan in 1980 and Nixon in 1968 also found themselves in a similar position but managed to get things done and because they could not be too radical in their first 2 years did not see as big a backlash in their first midterms as Clinton and Obama did in 1994 and 2010 or Trump did in 2018.
  • kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, an interesting header from @Casino_Royale. Thank you. I remain of the unfashionable view that, in a Parliamentary democracy, MPs should have the final say on who is party leader.

    It feels to me that too many Tory MPs voted for Boris, despite their misgiving because they felt that the membership wanted him. They abdicated their responsibility. Much as Labour MPs did when nominating Corbyn. It has meant nothing but trouble for both parties - and the country.

    Yes, I remember quite a bit of talk during the initial Corbyn contest about ensuring a wide field for the members etc, and when there were worries Boris might not make the final two (this was before there was a contest, obviously) some Boris fans making basically the same point about it being unfair for their chap not to be put to the members.

    Which seems to go against the whole point of both parties setting up methods to screen the candidates. The Tories by not even putting more than 2 to the members, after the MPs whittle it down, Labour by having a higher threshold of MP support to even get on the ballot.

    If the parties want it to be entirely up to the members then thresholds/screenings can be abandoned or reduced, but they put those options in for a reason, which was to give MPs more control. Though in Boris's case he got through the screening as they thought he would wina GE, and were proven right, so the screening worked as intended in the end. But it is still MPs guiding the contest.
    But to be fair to Labour , they had been scarred by the coronation of Gordon Brown.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 421
    Public trust and ability to plan are hugely important in this. I think the "firebreak" wasn't presented right in the first place. From where we are, ending it as planned but being clear that another will probably be necessary in January and naming a date would be best.
This discussion has been closed.