Having bet on Sunak for next PM in November 2019 at 250/1 Ladbrokes this is a market I follow closely and if it comes up my £20 wager will be my biggest ever political betting win. It will outdo the £4,300 I made on the LDs in the June Chesham & Amersham by-election.
The most likely chance after an election is if the Tories lose or come first so badly they can't form a government, or (unlikely) can only form one if anyone but Boris is the leader and Sunak is acceptable to some currently non existent friends.
The odds (IMHO) of a Tory win under Boris and NOM after the next election are fairly close - about 47% each. If NOM wins the likelihood of Sunak being PM is slight, as SKS will be PM instead and Tories have no friends.
There is no reason really to think Sunak will become leader before the next election. Boris is not a quitter, and a debacle which sees Boris off could see off the whole team.
So the figure which is egregiously wrong is SKS's chances of being next PM. All he has to do is stick around - which he will - and his chance of being next PM is 47% minus what you take off for him being replaced meanwhile, what you take off for Boris being replaced meanwhile, and what you take off for SKS not being PM after a NOM election. None of those figures are large.
SKS's chance of being next PM is more like 35%, not 19%.
If we end up with “5 more years of Boris” on top of the 2/3 already in the bank, isn’t that a tad unlikely?
It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.
Whither the Germans? God knows.
At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
A fifth of all Chancellors in recent decades have gone on to become PM and Sunak is clearly ambitious to go for it.
By tying ourselves inextricably to the USA we are hitching our future to that of a superpower in relative decline, which is showing signs of total madness
However the comment beneath it gives the correct counter-argument. What choice do we have? For all of America's many faults, it is still a democracy, it does not indulge in genocide. It is increasingly impossible to stay neutral on China just so as to benefit from the trade. China is a hostile, expansive, malign, autocratic, imperialist power, and it bullies anyone it can (eg Australia) and annexes territories at will
Hooking up with the Yanks is our only real option, even if they are bit psycho, at the moment
As I recall, Trump was going to abandon Europe in favour of America First though he did have an entirely valid point about levels of defence spending among some of the NATO countries.
And yet NATO endures - AUKUS makes no real difference.
The European Union countries (not all in NATO) and those NATO countries not in the EU won't need to create a pan-European Army or anything like that. As long as America remains committed to Europe's defence, NATO will continue to exist.
The maximum that will be expected of SKS will be to lead the party that is the largest group in the next government. For that the Tories need to lose 45-50 seats or more to Lab, LD, Green and SNP combined. That is not remotely unlikely.
If SKS does well enough that Labour lead a government after an election in 2023/4, however unstable, he will be next PM even if only for a short time. That is the basis of my suggestion that he has a much better than 19% chance of being next PM.
When the editor was doing the same job for MoS, it was regular headlines of how awful Brexit would be.
Aukus is part of that. Trump and Biden are on the same page here. By creating Aukus Biden is sending a clear signal to the EU - we're focused on the Indo-Pacific and China, as our main rival, you are not relevant any more, and you have enough money to defend yourselves. Indeed, humiliating the French so spectacularly might just be part of this: as it motivates the French to focus on European alternatives to American defence
Why should average Americans continue to pay for, and die for, Europeans who have a nicer life than them, yet refuse to spend more on their own defence?
It's an inarguable point. America is not going to defend wealthy Germany forever
She is planning to get the horse worm tablets apparently.
"Loomer also claimed the virus to be the 'biggest hoax of our lives besides the 2020 election' "
Unless the Mail has realised how much damage it has done to the country!
I really wonder
I am not sure how people are struggling to notice that Dacre isn't there anymore and new management has a different take. This changed several years ago.
Edit - Greig took over in 2018.
Still interesting I think that the paper of record for Jonathon Coe's Middle England is putting the blame on Brexit.
All too late now of course.
If however Boris loses the next general election then Patel would certainly come into the fray too as the party would likely shift further right in opposition. In which case Sunak, like David Miliband, may find he missed his best chance to become PM when his party was still in power and ends up missing out on even becoming party leader when the party goes into opposition
I don't know if this was true of American forces but the West Germans paid for the BAOR and we maintained forces in West Germany for years after the Wall fell because the Germans paying for the upkeep of our military was a better option than us having to. The argument for "spending on defence" wasn't as simple as Trump and those of his ilk portrayed it.
After 1989, the Europeans took the advantage of Soviet collapse to enjoy a "Peace Dividend" and you can rightly argue the weakness of Europe's efforts in bringing about a resolution to Yugoslavia's dreadful conflict illustrated the paucity of its military.
30 years on and the inevitable movement of American interest from the Atlantic to the Pacific has moved another step. If Europe is now having to defend itself, some sharp questions need to be asked - should the British and French nuclear deterrents be extended to the defence of Riga and Tallinn? Are they our concern or should we tell them they will need to reach some form of accommodation with Putin?
Not any more, I don't think
How would France react now if we tried to rejoin the EU? A big fat Non, that's how
We are hooked into the Anglosphere for good now. We've chosen our team. We are a senior member, 2nd in command, but not the captain. Other members will come along.
At least the guardian are vaguely consistent and actually really focused more of their fire on things like the dodgy contracts, with some acknowledgement its a tough gig this covid lark.
The Mail it has literally been government wrong about everything ever. Greig was never worried about the readership views when he MoS.editor, where it was Brexit end of the world stuff most weeks. This is just a continuation.
The EU is perfectly capable of defending itself, it is an enormous economy of 450m people that dwarfs Russia. The German economy alone is massively bigger than Russia
It is insane the EU is unable to organise a proper army and navy to deter Putin
Perhaps, if and when NATO collapses, they will finally grow the nads to do it
Germany runs the EU economy and France may end up running EU military, security and foreign policy
But a huge amount depends on when this contest takes place. Johnson has apparently been musing about ten more years, in which case, who the feck knows? Could be someone who is not even in Parliament.
There was a period of time when it was a absolutely in our interest to ensure Europe was protected from Soviet/Russian aggression. Now it should be up to them.
Historically a fifth of Chancellors have gone on to become PM so his odds are basically bang on the historical average.
In my view Sunak should be a touch more likely than that average, he's clearly ambitious and interested in the job and the Tories don't look like losing to Labour any time soon. I don't see why he should be rated below the historical average.
I'd take that bet now.
FWIW I think that a serious attack on NATO territory by a nuclear power would soon descend into a nuclear exchange, rather than some endless ground and air war. Again, this is something no-one at all can know. NATO exists to preserve peace in its territory. So far it has. No-one can prove cause and effect, but I wouldn't chance it.
1. an Anglophone alliance of Aukus, Five Eyes and some associated Asian members, India, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, aiming to contain China
2. the EU, or an evolution of NATO, which must surely now step up and grow an army and navy, which secures western interests in Europe and against MENA/Putin
A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
OGH Mr Ford Focus !
Thanks for the header.
A new Subway ad, trolling the French
The other occasions were peculiar. Lloyd George was a backbencher, having just resigned as Secretary of State for War, but the government had in effect collapsed. Similarly with Bonar Law in 1922. In 1935 Baldwin had been in effect the co-Prime Minister and in any case led the largest party in the coalition. In 1940 the Foreign Secretary was in the Lords, the Chancellor was leader of a minor party and only Churchill commanded the confidence of the country at large.
Which is why the last two failures to be Chancellor or FS taking over is a sign that historical precedent has broken down.
They're just hacked off and globally embarrassed that it's been done, spectacularly, to them. Like having your trousers pulled down in a crowded pub. Awks.
A lot of the blame was being pinned to Biden and the Yanks of course.
From that point of view Baldwin is an awkward one because he had more than one term - one of three to do so since 1902 if memory serves, along with Macdonald and Wilson. So he was Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Lord President at different tImes.
Whilst the French use the Sword.
(For what it matters. Of course you do, being a man of the world interested in subs. )
We may see a splintering with Germany remaining neutral, while the likes of Poland aligning closely with the US on its policy on China out of fear that a future US (let’s face it, Republican President) could weaken its NATO commitment.
It all feels to me like one step closer to Cold War II.
German whining about fracturing of western unity today is laughable. They fractured it by bowing to the mighty Chinese yuan.
Jonathan Van-Tam made the extraordinary proposal after months of uncertainty for the 19,000 volunteers who are effectively unable to travel to Europe to see family, work or go on holiday because they took part in trials of Novavax and Valneva.
Because neither treatment has yet been approved by medical regulators, people who received vaccines during the trials are faced with a catch-22. They have had two doses, so they are not allowed other vaccines through the NHS. But since their trial vaccines were unlicensed, they cannot prove their vaccination status outside the UK, which means that many countries require them to quarantine.
Does someone with a handle on these thing know when is the next G7 summit is and who will be hosting it? Trying to get my head round it.
Last time UK did it before 2021 was 2013, and 2014 was hosted by .. er .. the European Union. Though there was some complexity with Russia's presence just having caused the G8 to finish.
Tory PMs have often got on well with Democratic Presidents eg Churchill and FDR, Macmillan and JFK, Cameron and Obama and now it seems Boris and Biden. Sometimes better than Tory PMs have got on with GOP Presidents eg Eden and IKE. The only Tory PMs who had a really close relationship with a GOP President were Thatcher and Reagan and Major and Bush 41 and of course it was Labour PM Blair who had the close relationship with GOP President George W Bush
The role as host, also known as the G7 presidency, rotates annually among member countries in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada. The European Union is not part of the rotation.