politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Michael Gove is thinking of the leadership then he’s mil

Oh and George Toxic Osborne has a better net rating that Ed Miliband.

Excuse me whilst I damage a rib laughing.

I'm so glad I backed Sri Lanka today at 12/1.

England are collapsing like the Carthiginians at Zama

England returning to normal service in the cricket.

GeoffM said:

corporeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There's only one politician with a net positive rating.

Boris as next Tory leader......

Because a lot of people don't really see him as a politician.

One of the problems for Labour is that a lot of people don't really see Ed as a politician either.

I'd say the opposite, that they see him as the stereotypical politician.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh and George Toxic Osborne has a better net rating that Ed Miliband. Excuse me whilst I damage a rib laughing.

GE election strategy at CCHQ.
Put Miliband and Clegg's faces on every leaflet?

TheScreamingEagles said:

corporeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There's only one politician with a net positive rating.

Boris as next Tory leader......

Because a lot of people don't really see him as a politician.

The squillions of people that voted him of Mayor, what did they think we were electing?

A politician surely ?

Not Ken Livingstone.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Gove will never make a decent leader.
And being even more unpopular than GO should really seal the deal.
It would have been like electing Keith Joseph as Tory leader in the 70's
A clever chap to be sure, but leader?
Nah.

Iirc Joseph was favourite to win before he made some ill-advised comments in a speech.

But for that, who knows.

corporeal said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Gove will never make a decent leader.
And being even more unpopular than GO should really seal the deal.
It would have been like electing Keith Joseph as Tory leader in the 70's
A clever chap to be sure, but leader?
Nah.

Iirc Joseph was favourite to win before he made some ill-advised comments in a speech.

But for that, who knows.

But they're not people that the public would ever warm to.
That is the essence of a leader that can win elections.

Gove surely drops out of the running completely in the case of a Yes vote.

Doesn't the 'anti-UKIP vote' theory require Mr Farage to have higher negatives that the other party leaders?

Mr Cameron -46
Mr Clegg -54
Mr Farage -44
Mr Miliband -49

SouthamObserver said:

Gove surely drops out of the running completely in the case of a Yes vote.

Are you suggesting that the Tory party is run by ethnic nationalists? Why should anyone representing an rUK constituency be excluded from consideration (other than for being no bloody good, which would rule Gove out, whichever way the referendum goes.)

Ninoinoz said:

corporeal said:

Ninoinoz said:

OK, I have a problem with this article.

For while it’s possible to think that X is doing his/her job “badly” (YouGov) or the respondent is “dissatisfied” (Ipsos-MORI) you can still have a favourable view of them. That, I’d suggest, is more likely to be a better guide to voting intentions.

And

Clegg has the largest negative net numbers while Gove has the lowest on favourability. Farage sees the biggest drop in net numbers since April.

Remind me, who's won a national election in May?

The point is valid as far as Clegg and the LibDems are concerned, though.

The Euros are different to a GE.
No sh1t, Sherlock.

Mike did not specify GEs.

I think a little more respect for voters' decisions is required from you, corporeal.

And your abuse always exceeds your insight.

I'm respecting, or at least paying attention to the number of voters who decided they didn't care enough to vote at the Euros.

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

When was the last time the rest of the EU overrode Germany's position on a major policy?

A recent one would be the ECB's bond buying program.

Socrates said:

When was the last time the UK got its way without Germany?

Hard to say because the Council of Ministers isn't very transparent - the member states seem to like to game out who could win under QMV, then the losers join the winning side and produce unanimity.

Can you answer that question substituting - say - Italy?

No, I can't. Thats my point. Countries like Italy and the UK have very little influence. The fact that the system is hugely intransparent and unaccountable is not an argument in the EU's favour.

I mean the other way around, can you give me an example of the UK getting what it wants without Italy, which is what you asked me for for Germany to prove the Merkel Runs Everything theory.

Council of Ministers stitch-ups lack of transparency argues for:
a) Normal democracy (EU parliament picks com pres etc)
b) BOO
c) Trust your national government, they know best!

Are there perhaps some international trade issues, where Italy can be protectionist at times?

In terms of option a) can you give me an example of where the UK has got its way in the European parliament, without the backing of the German bloc?

There isn't a UK bloc and a German bloc in the European Parliament silly, that's the whole point.

Delegation, then. You know what I meant. When have a majority of UK MEPs voted the opposite direction to the majority of German MEPs in a winning measure?

I'm not being funny, they're not national delegations. They mostly vote on political lines, not national lines. If the socialists are typically a majority of German MEPs then you'll want to look for a case where the socialists lost a vote to the conservatives, etc.

corporeal said:

Ninoinoz said:

oldnat said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gove surely drops out of the running completely in the case of a Yes vote.

Are you suggesting that the Tory party is run by ethnic nationalists? Why should anyone representing an rUK constituency be excluded from consideration (other than for being no bloody good, which would rule Gove out, whichever way the referendum goes.)

Would you list the ethnic minority Prime Ministers of the UK, please?

Disraeli and Callaghan, Jewish.

Bonar Law, Scots-Irish, but Canadian.

Any more?

Depends how you define minority.

I think Ninoiz is following Hitler's line that Judaism is a race, not a religion.

Socrates said:

oldnat said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gove surely drops out of the running completely in the case of a Yes vote.

Are you suggesting that the Tory party is run by ethnic nationalists? Why should anyone representing an rUK constituency be excluded from consideration (other than for being no bloody good, which would rule Gove out, whichever way the referendum goes.)

Gove is one of the few high performing ministers at the moment.

Not least

SouthamObserver said:

Gove surely drops out of the running completely in the case of a Yes vote.

Ninoinoz said:

oldnat said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gove surely drops out of the running completely in the case of a Yes vote.

Are you suggesting that the Tory party is run by ethnic nationalists? Why should anyone representing an rUK constituency be excluded from consideration (other than for being no bloody good, which would rule Gove out, whichever way the referendum goes.)

Would you list the ethnic minority Prime Ministers of the UK, please?

Disraeli and Callaghan, Jewish.

Bonar Law, Scots-Irish, but Canadian.

Any more?

Mr Blair. Mr Brown. Mr Lloyd George. And so on and so forth.

W had a similar discussion some time back in which some felt that Mr D. Alexander should be banned from being head of the LDs in the future in the event of a No vote. I inquired - even if he was a MP for an EWNI constituency? I don't recall getting any answer.

Mr Gove may be Scottish born but in the event of a Yes vote it is entirely up to him (and to EWNI, of course) whether he becomes an EWNIish subject (as well as taking up his Scottish citizenship).

MikeL said:

It's noteworthy how well Hague scores - far better than May or Osborne.

Surely Cameron should try to make Hague much more prominent in the run-up to the GE.

I guess it's difficult as his job means he is abroad a lot. But whenever he is in the UK he should be, by far, the 2nd most prominent Conservative in the media after Cameron.

Hague has been a very effective Foreign Secretary. Compare to the woeful Milband Senior.

Ninoinoz said:

Remind me, who's won a national election in May?

These numbers probably tell us more about the level of contempt the Euro elections are generally held in. Joke elections require a joke winner.....

Flightpath said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I don't think there's any point in denying that the campaign against Farage has damaged his standing. It may have energised confirmed UKIP supporters, but it has put off a lot of casuals -anecdotally, when I speak to people who could be expected to be broadly sympathetic, there is a slight reticence there, a slight uncertainty, even distaste.

Press and other comments about Farage are based on what he and other UKIP MEPs and candidates have said and done and are saying and doing.
A classic example for Farage was that on the eve of the by election he was not even in the country and irrespective of who he was with and why, he was not only not campaigning for his party at a vital time he was out partying til 4 in the morning. He staggered home to give a grossly misleading account of his party's expectations.
This is perfectly true reporting. As is the situation where one of it leading winning MEPs was employing loads of cheap foreign labour and had charged them 50 quid a week for linving in bunkhouses. Are you telling me this is in line with UKIP policy?

Farage has lower ratings because he deserves them.

Farage's ratings compare favourably with most of the others on the list.

rcs1000 said:

Wasn't there a line in Mein Kampf that said - and I'm paraphrasing as I was about 18 when I read it - that the greatest trick the Jews ever did was to convince the world that Judaism was a religion rather than a race.

A vast amount of money has been spend in Israel over the last 40 years looking to find 'the Jewish gene'. Unfortunately, it turns out no such genes exist. And - from a DNA perspective - Jews are indistinguishable from Palestinians.

Fashionable "social science" holds that race is socially constructed, and thus has no scientific foundation at all. On that basis, Jews are a race if widely conceived and/or accepted as such.

Life_ina_market_town said:

rcs1000 said:

Wasn't there a line in Mein Kampf that said - and I'm paraphrasing as I was about 18 when I read it - that the greatest trick the Jews ever did was to convince the world that Judaism was a religion rather than a race.

A vast amount of money has been spend in Israel over the last 40 years looking to find 'the Jewish gene'. Unfortunately, it turns out no such genes exist. And - from a DNA perspective - Jews are indistinguishable from Palestinians.

Fashionable "social science" holds that race is socially constructed, and thus has no scientific foundation at all. On that basis, Jews are a race if widely conceived and/or accepted as such.

If you go to a Jewish wedding, they talk about continuing the 'tradition'. I think that's a nice way of thinking about Judaism.

peter_from_putney said:

Boris will NEVER be leader of the Tory party. He only comes top of these polls because he is a recognisable face "off the telly".
It should be remembered that the average member of the public can probably only name around half a dozen politicians or fewer.
Also, the general public doesn't elect the Tory leader - this is undertaken firstly by the party's MPs and then by its members. He's not even currently an MP so wouldn't even qualify as a candidate.
Let's get real about this once and for all.

Louise Mensch said Mr Johnson would be unacceptable to Conservative MPs because he's seen as too pro-EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10772851/Boris-Johnson-an-epic-Europhile-claims-Louise-Mensch.html

(I found that a little odd, as most of the parliamentary Conservative Party including the current leadership appear to be strongly pro-EU.)

These polls only comfirm what we know already.
There hasn't been any major change from the euros apart than the LD are still digging deeper and the antiUKIP media campaign has an effect only on tactical voting but not those who vote UKIP.

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

Wasn't there a line in Mein Kampf that said - and I'm paraphrasing as I was about 18 when I read it - that the greatest trick the Jews ever did was to convince the world that Judaism was a religion rather than a race.

A vast amount of money has been spend in Israel over the last 40 years looking to find 'the Jewish gene'. Unfortunately, it turns out no such genes exist. And - from a DNA perspective - Jews are indistinguishable from Palestinians.

Weren't you one of the people claiming that the Germans were a race separate from the Romanians, and thus Farage was being racist when he raised concerns over Romanians?

The problem is that all these terms are murky. My preferred definition would be that race is just a biological thing (albeit with no clear borders between them) and that an ethnic group is the social construct. By that logic, I'd say that the Jews are an ethnic group and not a race. But still, Disraeli would count as an ethnic minority leader.

True its an ethnic group, it is more that just a religion because its so isolated and nuclear than other religions (you don't see convertions from either side) and quite militant, so its almost the same tribes of people that were jewish thousands of years ago minus perhaps those who converted to christianity around the time of the Apostles.

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

Well if we look at the case of Juncker, the German delegations of both right and left are voting in favour, while the UK delegations of both right and left are voting against. Labour often sit uncomfortably with the PES, while the UK Tories and UKIP are both in different groupings to the CDU-CSU.

That's an unusual case caused by the fact that Labour and UK Tories knew the winner was going to get a lot of criticism from the UK tabloids. Lab, Lib and Green all fit into their groupings fine.

Con are a bit lost right now - they probably mostly agree with the EPP, except that they disagree with them on constitutional issues. That shouldn't matter because the European Parliament doesn't really deal with constitutional issues, but you can understand why they didn't feel comfortable as the stuff they disagree on is very important to them. This puts them in weird positions like having a party like the AfD who would be quite a good fit for their group, but not wanting to let them in for fear of upsetting somebody whose group they've already symbolically left because they disagree with it. In the long run it should sort itself out - the non-EPP right is now quite diverse, and sooner or later they should get aligned with some natural allies.

On the level of the european parliament it looks like a typical eurozone bailout country, where both the right and the left have squeezed the center parties into grand coalitions that are very unhealty for the junior partner.
The socialists have the greatest problems since the austerity and bailout programs run contrary to everything they stand for. On the other side the christian democrats and other center parties dont have the same problem since they are happy with the austerity agenda and they are not in favour of the free market, so they are the natural parties of the eurozone.

On the long term the socialists will disappear in the eurozone and the christian democrats will become the natural liberal parties confronted by a populist opposition of left and right.
The Conservatives in Britain can't realistically join a liberal EPP without abandoning its support for free markets, something impossible as long as London is booming, so they can join the populist right, but they can't because of UKIP in that camp, so they have to make their own camp by splitting the populist right.
Labour will have no camp to join on the long term.

I'm in the camp that europe is just one recession away from disintergrating politically, so i'm not an optimist.

Speedy said:

These polls only comfirm what we know already.
There hasn't been any major change from the euros apart than the LD are still digging deeper and the antiUKIP media campaign haews an effect only on tactical voting but not those who vote UKIP.

Wrong. Ukip was polling in the late 30s at the end of April. By election day that had dropped to 27%.


In the locals Ukip saw a drop of 6% on its NEV of 2013. They were about a quarter down.

Socrates said:

Speedy said:

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

Wasn't there a line in Mein Kampf that said - and I'm paraphrasing as I was about 18 when I read it - that the greatest trick the Jews ever did was to convince the world that Judaism was a religion rather than a race.

A vast amount of money has been spend in Israel over the last 40 years looking to find 'the Jewish gene'. Unfortunately, it turns out no such genes exist. And - from a DNA perspective - Jews are indistinguishable from Palestinians.

Weren't you one of the people claiming that the Germans were a race separate from the Romanians, and thus Farage was being racist when he raised concerns over Romanians?

The problem is that all these terms are murky. My preferred definition would be that race is just a biological thing (albeit with no clear borders between them) and that an ethnic group is the social construct. By that logic, I'd say that the Jews are an ethnic group and not a race. But still, Disraeli would count as an ethnic minority leader.

True its an ethnic group, it is more that just a religion because its so isolated and nuclear than other religions (you don't see convertions from either side) and quite militant, so its almost the same tribes of people that were jewish thousands of years ago minus perhaps those who converted to christianity around the time of the Apostles.

Give how different Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews look to each other, I think most Jews are the descendants of people that have converted over the last couple thousand years. The Milibands don't look particularly Middle Eastern, for example.

Make his skin tanned and put a beard on him and you will look that he is not that different than most people in the middle east. In fact most jews living in Israel don't look different from the palestinians.
The are though black jews in ethiopia, but their existence is a product of the ties of ancient axum with the jews.

MikeSmithson said:

Speedy said:

These polls only comfirm what we know already.
There hasn't been any major change from the euros apart than the LD are still digging deeper and the antiUKIP media campaign haews an effect only on tactical voting but not those who vote UKIP.

Wrong. Ukip was polling in the late 30s at the end of April. By election day that had dropped to 27%.


In the locals Ukip saw a drop of 6% on its NEV of 2013. They were about a quarter down.

Ahemm.
From the end of April to the by election how many UKIP negative stories were on the papers and on TV?
Second, did the tactical vote changed by euro election day?
Third, was there a change in the tactical vote in the published by election polls as time went by?

I will repeat it, the polls after the euros have not told us something that we haven't seen on the euro election and in Newark.
The LD are going down further (they are down in the polls), and UKIP has only been effected from tactical voting from the media campaign (see stable poll ratings, newark by election and the favourable ratings).

Socrates said:

Cameron writing a very good column in the Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2658171/DAVID-CAMERON-British-values-arent-optional-theyre-vital-Thats-I-promote-EVERY-school-As-row-rages-Trojan-Horse-takeover-classrooms-Prime-Minister-delivers-uncompromising-pledge.html

I often think whether I could be won back to the Tories by the general election. Sometimes I think it's a possibility - I could even ignore the guy's Europhilia if he's promising us a referendum and it looks like he could get into power. But I find his illiberal nature on individual privacy and mass state surveillance something I just can't stomach. That is a large infringement on British values, in my opinion.

I agree with you on Cameron and mass state surveillance.

Question is. Which leader if any would be any better?
For my money, even if Farage became PM he would rapidly go native once the civil service got into him.
I had some hopes for the Tories after the election. To hear of the encrypted email service that had to close down because Theresa May couldn't resist trying to serve a RIPA warrant on them was thoroughly depressing.

Socrates said:

Speedy said:

Remember the great Big Society? Don't be fooled by empty slogans, he's saying it because the polls say that he has to say it.

Probably true, but we can't be too ambitious when it comes to politicians.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

I agree with you on Cameron and mass state surveillance.

Question is. Which leader if any would be any better?
For my money, even if Farage became PM he would rapidly go native once the civil service got into him.
I had some hopes for the Tories after the election. To hear of the encrypted email service that had to close down because Theresa May couldn't resist trying to serve a RIPA warrant on them was thoroughly depressing.

Two stuck out for me. One for me was the way they were getting round British law by getting the email content of UK civilians from the Americans. It's appalling that they can just look up emails between any two individuals who've done nothing wrong.

The other one was that they grabbed screenshots of webcam conversations. The idea that a wife could give her husband a virtual strip tease when one of them is away on a business trip and then some GCHQ agent can see that is just a huge intrusion into people's personal lives.

What was awful was that Cameron didn't just support these powers - he openly mocked those that thought it was a problem.

They can't understand what the fuss is about as long as one of them hasn't been the victim of such practices. Look at the German government, they take it much more seriously because Angela Merkel was a victim too.
Wonder if MPs or ministers have been a victim of such spying by the americans (there are always rumours that Downing Street is full of american bugs) and what will their reaction be if they find out.

Socrates said:

Speedy said:

Remember the great Big Society? Don't be fooled by empty slogans, he's saying it because the polls say that he has to say it.

Probably true, but we can't be too ambitious when it comes to politicians.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

I agree with you on Cameron and mass state surveillance.

Question is. Which leader if any would be any better?
For my money, even if Farage became PM he would rapidly go native once the civil service got into him.
I had some hopes for the Tories after the election. To hear of the encrypted email service that had to close down because Theresa May couldn't resist trying to serve a RIPA warrant on them was thoroughly depressing.

Two stuck out for me. One for me was the way they were getting round British law by getting the email content of UK civilians from the Americans. It's appalling that they can just look up emails between any two individuals who've done nothing wrong.

The other one was that they grabbed screenshots of webcam conversations. The idea that a wife could give her husband a virtual strip tease when one of them is away on a business trip and then some GCHQ agent can see that is just a huge intrusion into people's personal lives.

What was awful was that Cameron didn't just support these powers - he openly mocked those that thought it was a problem.

We should be thankful to Ed Snowden for blowing this wide open.
ISTR reading a few years ago, that Ebay didn't even require a warrant. A request on police headed paper was sufficient for them to reveal a users entire history or bids, sales and searches etc

Speedy said:

By the way if I have to give advise on British values I would start with history classes.
....
So for Britain it should be King Arthur, Robin Hood, the war of the roses, Elizabeth, the exploration era, the enlightment, Napoleon, the Empire, WW1 and WW2 somewhere in british values.

The first two never existed.

Life_ina_market_town said:

Speedy said:

By the way if I have to give advise on British values I would start with history classes.
The americans are even more flimsy on what are american values but they all have 1776, the civil war, the american west, WW2 and civil rights somewhere in them.

So for Britain it should be King Arthur, Robin Hood, the war of the roses, Elizabeth, the exploration era, the enlightment, Napoleon, the Empire, WW1 and WW2 somewhere in british values.

Unless one subscribes to the classical view that history is a species of epideictic rhetoric, providing moral instruction by way of example rather than precept, it is difficult to conceive of how teaching history can inculcate anyone with "British values". It should be noted that an overwhelming proportion of academic historians are opposed to the notion that their discipline can or should have a moral didactic function.

Damn straight.

Flightpath said:

Speedy said:

By the way if I have to give advise on British values I would start with history classes.
....
So for Britain it should be King Arthur, Robin Hood, the war of the roses, Elizabeth, the exploration era, the enlightment, Napoleon, the Empire, WW1 and WW2 somewhere in british values.

The first two never existed.

And the next two weren't "British".

Group D Qualifiers

I don't know whether it's me but as things stand England have 0 points and a goal difference of minus 1. Costa Rica on the other hand have 3 points and a goal difference of plus 2. To be sure of qualification therefore, England must win both their remaining games (big ask), whereas need to win one of their two games. In either case a tally of 4 points might suffice, with the outcome perhaps resting on goal difference, where Costa Rica clearly has the edge currently.
In such circumstances, all things being equal (including their respective opposition), Costa Rica appear to have a better chance than England.
Yet their respective odds with Betfair of doing do: England 2.04 (0.99/1 net in old money), Costa Rica 2.48 (1.41/1 net). I know which I'd rather be backing, but DYOR.

corporeal said:

GeoffM said:

corporeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There's only one politician with a net positive rating.

Boris as next Tory leader......

Because a lot of people don't really see him as a politician.

One of the problems for Labour is that a lot of people don't really see Ed as a politician either.

I'd say the opposite, that they see him as the stereotypical politician.

Exactly. Ed's big problem is that people perceive him as TRYING to be the typical, insincere, smooth politician, except that he's not doing it well. If he was just himself rather than continually doing these ridiculous stunts, then people would see him as weird and geeky but atleast would see him as more straightforward and authentic than other politicians. But, just like so many aspects of his leadership, his attempts to try and ape the New Labour playbook just mean he ends up creating an even bigger mess.

An update on the mess of mesopotamia:
This guy wanted to blow up Iran for years

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/209409-graham-urges-obama-to-work-with-iran-to-save-iraq

Neocons are now Iran's best friends.

Evening all.

Some really good discussion today. The morning post got me reflecting further on constitutional reform and even prompted me to write a blog post for the first time in nearly a year - http://goo.gl/GUs89M. Any comments welcome!