Hunt now a clear third place in Johnson successor betting – politicalbetting.com

MrEd said:

edmundintokyo said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

MrEd said:

Cookie said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

I think Sunak is a very worthy fav. Morduant is my speculative pick if it's not him.

Speaking of speculative, my tip/bet on MICHELLE OBAMA for POTUS24 at 100 is on the roll! Into 40 now.

Can we imagine? ... Yes We Can.

You can imagine all you want, the way things are going, it is looking more like it will be Hillary Clinton.

Are there really so few potential candidates that we are having to retread for first ladies?
It didn't exactly work out well last time that gambit was tried.

Well, yes. There is a very good chance 2024 could be a rematch of 2016. There is an increasing view that Biden won't run again and Harris is not up to it. The other candidates are not seen as viable. HRC has also making more noises about the Democrats needing to be centrist - likely to appeal if the Dems get hammered in November.

For Trump, the dynamics are a little bit different. Most of the 'rising stars' on the Republican side are young enough to wait 4 years (DeSantis, Scott, Cruz if you want to include him). Far better to not p1ss Trump off, let him run again and hope for the VP pick, which puts you in pole position for 2028.

There is not a 'very good chance' at all – that is ludicrous. What price would you give this 'very good chance'?

Take a look at what has been happening with Hillary over the past few weeks.

Price at the moment, I would probably give 8/1.

So an 11% chance then?

The betting price and the chance of it happening are not the same given the nomination is away, she is old and she has age issues.

But, if you want a probably of it happening right now, I would say conservatively around 25%. If the Democrats get hammered in November, that rises. She is positioning herself as the candidate to push the Democrats back to the centre and there is no other possible candidate who is coming out with that at the moment, in part because they are locked into the messaging of the Democrats' agenda because they hold various official posts.

I don't understand how that's supposed to win her the primary. The only reason the Dems would nominate a candidate who said that Joe Biden was too left-wing would be if they thought it was going to win them the election and keep out Trump. But when it comes to a candidate who can sell the message "I can beat Donald Trump", Hillary Clinton is literally the *worst person in the world*.

True but there are signs a good bit of the Democrat establishment is getting behind her and her message will be that "I told you so" about Trump. Biden's polling ratings are awful (he's down to just over 30% approval in Quinnipac) and, when you get the NYT and WSJ both suggesting in different ways that Harris shouldn't be the 2024 pick, it's a sign the establishment has given up on her.

PS don't mention Buttigeig - he will get crushed. Did nothing as Mayor and, as one commentator put it, he is only seen as a candidate because he is gay - he has no other features that would recommend him for the job.

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson’s net favourability has dropped to another all-time low of -52

Favourable: 20% (-4%)
Unfavourable: 73% (+7%)

(Changes from 8-9 Dec)

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/01/14/boris-johnsons-net-favourability-drops-another-all

-53

It's a sobering thought that even among those who still rate him favourably, about three quarters of them think he's a liar.

MrEd said:

edmundintokyo said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

MrEd said:

Cookie said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

I think Sunak is a very worthy fav. Morduant is my speculative pick if it's not him.

Speaking of speculative, my tip/bet on MICHELLE OBAMA for POTUS24 at 100 is on the roll! Into 40 now.

Can we imagine? ... Yes We Can.

You can imagine all you want, the way things are going, it is looking more like it will be Hillary Clinton.

Are there really so few potential candidates that we are having to retread for first ladies?
It didn't exactly work out well last time that gambit was tried.

Well, yes. There is a very good chance 2024 could be a rematch of 2016. There is an increasing view that Biden won't run again and Harris is not up to it. The other candidates are not seen as viable. HRC has also making more noises about the Democrats needing to be centrist - likely to appeal if the Dems get hammered in November.

For Trump, the dynamics are a little bit different. Most of the 'rising stars' on the Republican side are young enough to wait 4 years (DeSantis, Scott, Cruz if you want to include him). Far better to not p1ss Trump off, let him run again and hope for the VP pick, which puts you in pole position for 2028.

There is not a 'very good chance' at all – that is ludicrous. What price would you give this 'very good chance'?

Take a look at what has been happening with Hillary over the past few weeks.

Price at the moment, I would probably give 8/1.

So an 11% chance then?

The betting price and the chance of it happening are not the same given the nomination is away, she is old and she has age issues.

But, if you want a probably of it happening right now, I would say conservatively around 25%. If the Democrats get hammered in November, that rises. She is positioning herself as the candidate to push the Democrats back to the centre and there is no other possible candidate who is coming out with that at the moment, in part because they are locked into the messaging of the Democrats' agenda because they hold various official posts.

I don't understand how that's supposed to win her the primary. The only reason the Dems would nominate a candidate who said that Joe Biden was too left-wing would be if they thought it was going to win them the election and keep out Trump. But when it comes to a candidate who can sell the message "I can beat Donald Trump", Hillary Clinton is literally the *worst person in the world*.

True but there are signs a good bit of the Democrat establishment is getting behind her and her message will be that "I told you so" about Trump. Biden's polling ratings are awful (he's down to just over 30% approval in Quinnipac) and, when you get the NYT and WSJ both suggesting in different ways that Harris shouldn't be the 2024 pick, it's a sign the establishment has given up on her.

PS don't mention Buttigeig - he will get crushed. Did nothing as Mayor and, as one commentator put it, he is only seen as a candidate because he is gay - he has no other features that would recommend him for the job.

edmundintokyo said:

On the GOP side, good thing on Tulsi Gabbard: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/americas/north-america/us/2022/01/is-tulsi-gabbard-the-gops-dark-horse

I reckon Trump-Gabbard could be the ticket, he's losing the conspiracy wing over vaccines and it's not like 2016 when he needed a VP to placate the GOP mainstream.

dixiedean said:

Cookie said:

dixiedean said:

MrEd said:

MaxPB said:

MrEd said:

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I thought the Tories were mad to pick Johnson over Hunt - the difference in quality between the two is huge. Their 2019 red wall victory says I was wrong, but recent events, where Johnson's (lack of) character has at last cut through with voters, suggest otherwise. Hunt would be a sensible choice I think. The Tories' dilemma is the red wall where Johnson had a unique (and to me mystifying) attractiveness that has now disappeared. Not obvious that any of his potential successors could match it.
I increasingly think Johnson will go soon. I looked again at the photo of HMQ grieving her husband alone and found myself welling up. I think a lot of folk will have a similar reaction. A line has been crossed now, there's no way back.

The problem with Hunt is that he would have got the two big unlockdown decisions wrong. We wouldn't have fully unlocked in July and we would currently be in a Netherlands style lockdown trying to contain Omicron. He would have got the earlier pandemic decisions more correct than the government, but there's also a worry that he'd have signed us up to the EU purchase schemes which worked out very poorly for the first 6 months of the vaccination programme.

Hunt is the blank sheet of paper for anti-Brexit Tories. A closer look at what he did and didn't achieve shows he's a bit rubbish and depending on one's perspective his support for remain may or may not be an electoral asset for the leadership.

The players here are Rishi, Liz and someone from the CRG/ERG if neither of those two can come to a deal with them for support. I think Rishi specifically will work very hard to get the ERG/CRG on board and cut a deal with Hunt while Liz Truss will struggle with the Hunt wing of the party and isn't fully trusted by the ERG not to water down Brexit.

Even with the majority of MPs lining up behind Rishi I think a final two of Rishi vs Liz will be too close to call. Hunt won't get close to the final two this time.

If the clown is forced to go early - as looks increasingly likely - I think the MPs will keep it away from the members. The public argument of the ongoing pandemic crisis and the private argument that they can't let Tory members f**k up again will be persuasive.

The same applies if the pandemic is still ongoing in May, or we're perceived to be heading into economic crisis.

The question therefore is who MPs will choose.

If it's up to MPs then Rishi has it, I think.

Nope, Rishi is not a natural RW backer and his decision to cut back on rail infrastructure will be used to hammer him in those seats. Take a look at the MP base and where it comes from. Radically different from 2019.

Competence will be the key driver in the next selection. That plus not Boris will get the Tories back into the high 30s with the public which is enough to hold onto a working majority. Liz Truss suffers from a credibility gap for the top job.

That might be true but he probably loses those 2019 RW MPs their seats whilst preserving the Tories' traditional constituencies. He's a publicly-school educated, Oxford PPE graduate who worked at a hedge fund and is married to the daughter of a billionare. And his policies (bar furlough) have not been RW friendly.

Again, why would those MPs vote for a candidate who will probably lose them their seats?

As for competence, that is possible but BJ's not out over competence (in the bigger picture, the UK has done very well as you flagged). We are shifting towards cultural values driving votes and Rishi doesn't fit well with where the Tories are positioning themselves.

There is another point, which I hesitate to raise, but I'm sure others have thought about, too.
And that is the unknown percentage who simply will not vote for, and will go out of their way to vote against, someone not white.
Now. It isn't right and shouldn't happen, but, it will.
In a close election it might make all the difference.

I'd say that is such a small minority it is effectively balanced by those who will be motivated to vote for someone who is non-white.

You would? OK maybe.
I was thinking of some of my relatives. It certainly wouldn't be balanced there.

MrEd said:

edmundintokyo said:

On the GOP side, good thing on Tulsi Gabbard: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/americas/north-america/us/2022/01/is-tulsi-gabbard-the-gops-dark-horse

I reckon Trump-Gabbard could be the ticket, he's losing the conspiracy wing over vaccines and it's not like 2016 when he needed a VP to placate the GOP mainstream.

I like Gabbard, she 's come across as smart and with it. Also loved her takedown of Harris.

The issue with her as VP is that it might put other candidates' noses out of joint as she would then be in pole position for 2028.

LostPassword said:

MikeSmithson said:

rkrkrk said:

El_Capitano said:

This is good: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2022/01/the-situation-for-the-tories-is-worse-than-you-think

"What should worry the Tories now is that the Johnsonian advantage in the marginal seats is now in tatters. Voters are angry everywhere, but they’re especially so in the marginals that matter. That’s what makes this situation far more worrisome for the Tories than the national polls would imply. In the seats that Labour lost in 2019, the Labour lead is larger than in the national polls. Similarly, Johnson’s favourability numbers are now worse in the marginals than the country at large."

What worries me is that not many voters seem to be shifting to Labour.
Tories staying home makes the polls look good, but in practice, won't Tory supporting papers find some tax bombshell headline and get people motivated to vote again?

Tory supporting papers have a fraction of the circulations they once had

Not needed now anyway. Message can be sent out through adverts on social media from temporary astroturf groups.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 100, I wonder how much of that was caused by releasing the game on so many different platforms at once.

A shame, though I care far less for sci-fi dystopia than fantasy so, even though I really liked The Witcher 3, I didn't pre-order Cyberpunk.

Mr. kle4, well, it worked for Boris Johnson.

Cookie said:

dixiedean said:

Cookie said:

dixiedean said:

MrEd said:

MaxPB said:

MrEd said:

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I thought the Tories were mad to pick Johnson over Hunt - the difference in quality between the two is huge. Their 2019 red wall victory says I was wrong, but recent events, where Johnson's (lack of) character has at last cut through with voters, suggest otherwise. Hunt would be a sensible choice I think. The Tories' dilemma is the red wall where Johnson had a unique (and to me mystifying) attractiveness that has now disappeared. Not obvious that any of his potential successors could match it.
I increasingly think Johnson will go soon. I looked again at the photo of HMQ grieving her husband alone and found myself welling up. I think a lot of folk will have a similar reaction. A line has been crossed now, there's no way back.

The problem with Hunt is that he would have got the two big unlockdown decisions wrong. We wouldn't have fully unlocked in July and we would currently be in a Netherlands style lockdown trying to contain Omicron. He would have got the earlier pandemic decisions more correct than the government, but there's also a worry that he'd have signed us up to the EU purchase schemes which worked out very poorly for the first 6 months of the vaccination programme.

Hunt is the blank sheet of paper for anti-Brexit Tories. A closer look at what he did and didn't achieve shows he's a bit rubbish and depending on one's perspective his support for remain may or may not be an electoral asset for the leadership.

The players here are Rishi, Liz and someone from the CRG/ERG if neither of those two can come to a deal with them for support. I think Rishi specifically will work very hard to get the ERG/CRG on board and cut a deal with Hunt while Liz Truss will struggle with the Hunt wing of the party and isn't fully trusted by the ERG not to water down Brexit.

Even with the majority of MPs lining up behind Rishi I think a final two of Rishi vs Liz will be too close to call. Hunt won't get close to the final two this time.

If the clown is forced to go early - as looks increasingly likely - I think the MPs will keep it away from the members. The public argument of the ongoing pandemic crisis and the private argument that they can't let Tory members f**k up again will be persuasive.

The same applies if the pandemic is still ongoing in May, or we're perceived to be heading into economic crisis.

The question therefore is who MPs will choose.

If it's up to MPs then Rishi has it, I think.

Nope, Rishi is not a natural RW backer and his decision to cut back on rail infrastructure will be used to hammer him in those seats. Take a look at the MP base and where it comes from. Radically different from 2019.

Competence will be the key driver in the next selection. That plus not Boris will get the Tories back into the high 30s with the public which is enough to hold onto a working majority. Liz Truss suffers from a credibility gap for the top job.

That might be true but he probably loses those 2019 RW MPs their seats whilst preserving the Tories' traditional constituencies. He's a publicly-school educated, Oxford PPE graduate who worked at a hedge fund and is married to the daughter of a billionare. And his policies (bar furlough) have not been RW friendly.

Again, why would those MPs vote for a candidate who will probably lose them their seats?

As for competence, that is possible but BJ's not out over competence (in the bigger picture, the UK has done very well as you flagged). We are shifting towards cultural values driving votes and Rishi doesn't fit well with where the Tories are positioning themselves.

There is another point, which I hesitate to raise, but I'm sure others have thought about, too.
And that is the unknown percentage who simply will not vote for, and will go out of their way to vote against, someone not white.
Now. It isn't right and shouldn't happen, but, it will.
In a close election it might make all the difference.

I'd say that is such a small minority it is effectively balanced by those who will be motivated to vote for someone who is non-white.

You would? OK maybe.
I was thinking of some of my relatives. It certainly wouldn't be balanced there.

Well, I don't know. I'm generalising from people I know, I suppose - who might not be letting on their true feelings. But I honestly don't think it's a factor apart from a tiny minority of cases, and there are probably also votes which will swing the other way. Barack Obama did ok, and the USA is much more riven by racial issues than the UK.
My belief is that if someone looks and behaves British - which Rishi very much does - British people barely notice the colour of his skin. There is probably more prejudice against someone dressed, for example, in traditional Pakistani dress - but I'd argue that cultural prejudice is a bigger thing than racial prejudice.
I wonder if there are any Muslim votes to be lost by having a Hindu leader?

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I thought the Tories were mad to pick Johnson over Hunt - the difference in quality between the two is huge. Their 2019 red wall victory says I was wrong, but recent events, where Johnson's (lack of) character has at last cut through with voters, suggest otherwise. Hunt would be a sensible choice I think. The Tories' dilemma is the red wall where Johnson had a unique (and to me mystifying) attractiveness that has now disappeared. Not obvious that any of his potential successors could match it.
I increasingly think Johnson will go soon. I looked again at the photo of HMQ grieving her husband alone and found myself welling up. I think a lot of folk will have a similar reaction. A line has been crossed now, there's no way back.

I hope you're right - it's just 'wrong' to have this man as PM - but I'm finding it hard to be confident he's going. It will be an amazing fall if it happens. Just 2 years after winning the best Con majority since Thatcher, only a few months since Hartlepool and looking stronger than ever, and with the pandemic that's been the only domestic story for so long on its way out, he gets the chop. It would be quite a thing. And it's when I look at it this way, the impressionistic big picture rather than the febrile daily developments, that I veer towards him surviving.

solarflare said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kinabalu said:

Things are getting so strange, though, don't people think? Djokovic is kicked out of Oz by an Immigration Minister called Hawke. Downing St parties breaking all the Covid rules are thrown by a man called Slack. I've never been a buyer of the avant garde theory that the world we think we see is actually a simulation being run for the amusement of a higher being but I'm starting to wonder.

You missed the bit about the world no1 tennis player being a suspected antivaxxer named Novak. I am surprised The Sun hasn't had a headline "No-vax Novak has no visa "

One wonders if the man does any hoovering.

mickydroy said:

LostPassword said:

MikeSmithson said:

rkrkrk said:

El_Capitano said:

This is good: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2022/01/the-situation-for-the-tories-is-worse-than-you-think

"What should worry the Tories now is that the Johnsonian advantage in the marginal seats is now in tatters. Voters are angry everywhere, but they’re especially so in the marginals that matter. That’s what makes this situation far more worrisome for the Tories than the national polls would imply. In the seats that Labour lost in 2019, the Labour lead is larger than in the national polls. Similarly, Johnson’s favourability numbers are now worse in the marginals than the country at large."

What worries me is that not many voters seem to be shifting to Labour.
Tories staying home makes the polls look good, but in practice, won't Tory supporting papers find some tax bombshell headline and get people motivated to vote again?

Tory supporting papers have a fraction of the circulations they once had

Not needed now anyway. Message can be sent out through adverts on social media from temporary astroturf groups.

Since 1979, no one has been elected as PM, without the backing of the Murdoch Empire, until that happens, I am fairly sure, that the Sun in particular, carries a lot of influence

Cookie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cookie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

boulay said:

In many ways Hunt and Sunak are cut from the same cloth.

Both public school, Oxford PPE, independently wealthy with successful careers pre politics. Neither as far as we know have any personal scandals or interesting relationship situations going on or to be dug up.

Neither have so far really presented or needed to present any sort of vision for their brand of govt.

The key differences are as far as I can see that Hunt is more part of the old guard - beneficial as less tainted by Boris, maybe appears more matured, associated in some minds with Cameron govt which is looking better as time passes but bad in that he has a track record in govt that parts of can be used against him whilst also making people ask “what did he actually do if any interest or value”.

Sunak is more of the new guard - beneficial as younger more dynamic style, good communicator with social media etc, aspirational even, Indian heritage, more down with the youth maybe but bad in that even though he’s holding the second most powerful role he might be seen as inexperienced by virtue of relative youth and also clearly a major part of the Boris govt.

If both were to stand I think ultimately a lot would ride on their “vision” for what they want to do. I also think there will be an element that Tory MPs will look at Hunt and look at Starmer and find them rather too similar and uninspiring - like a pair of boring wooden bookends and Sunak might have that bit of stardust necessary to cut through and refresh the party image.

This of course could all be rubbish!

Heightism is the last permissible prejudice and Hunt is about twice as tall as Sunak.

I know Sunak is short (in height), but I thought Hunt was also quite short - I'd have had him at about 5' 10'' at most. Turns out he's 6' 2''.
Isn't the internet weird? Imagine if I'd told you 40 years ago that you could, if you so chose, break off briefly from work to speculate about the height of the third-favourite in a battle for the leadership of the conservative party which has not yet been announced, and not only find it within 15 seconds of the question occurring to you but find out in such a way that confirms other people have been asking the same question in various forms.

Heightism is insidious. 5'10" is not really "quite short". It is around or just over average height.

So I understand. But does this average include old men who have shrunk? Because it seems quite short to me.
I am six foot, and of the cohort of friends I have from school who I still hang around with - 10 of us - I am the shortest. I can't think of any of my male friends who are shorter than 5' 10''.

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

Who gives a shit how tall Rishi Sunak is? What an absolutely ludicrous discussion.

Voters.

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

MrEd said:

Cookie said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

I think Sunak is a very worthy fav. Morduant is my speculative pick if it's not him.

Speaking of speculative, my tip/bet on MICHELLE OBAMA for POTUS24 at 100 is on the roll! Into 40 now.

Can we imagine? ... Yes We Can.

You can imagine all you want, the way things are going, it is looking more like it will be Hillary Clinton.

Are there really so few potential candidates that we are having to retread for first ladies?
It didn't exactly work out well last time that gambit was tried.

Well, yes. There is a very good chance 2024 could be a rematch of 2016. There is an increasing view that Biden won't run again and Harris is not up to it. The other candidates are not seen as viable. HRC has also making more noises about the Democrats needing to be centrist - likely to appeal if the Dems get hammered in November.

For Trump, the dynamics are a little bit different. Most of the 'rising stars' on the Republican side are young enough to wait 4 years (DeSantis, Scott, Cruz if you want to include him). Far better to not p1ss Trump off, let him run again and hope for the VP pick, which puts you in pole position for 2028.

There is not a 'very good chance' at all – that is ludicrous. What price would you give this 'very good chance'?

Take a look at what has been happening with Hillary over the past few weeks.

Price at the moment, I would probably give 8/1.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Court orders Djokovic to be detained from 8am local time tomorrow

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

Who gives a shit how tall Rishi Sunak is? What an absolutely ludicrous discussion.

Voters.

Do they? Is there any evidence for that?

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I thought the Tories were mad to pick Johnson over Hunt - the difference in quality between the two is huge. Their 2019 red wall victory says I was wrong, but recent events, where Johnson's (lack of) character has at last cut through with voters, suggest otherwise. Hunt would be a sensible choice I think. The Tories' dilemma is the red wall where Johnson had a unique (and to me mystifying) attractiveness that has now disappeared. Not obvious that any of his potential successors could match it.
I increasingly think Johnson will go soon. I looked again at the photo of HMQ grieving her husband alone and found myself welling up. I think a lot of folk will have a similar reaction. A line has been crossed now, there's no way back.

I hope you're right - it's just 'wrong' to have this man as PM - but I'm finding it hard to be confident he's going. It will be an amazing fall if it happens. Just 2 years after winning the best Con majority since Thatcher, only a few months since Hartlepool and looking stronger than ever, and with the pandemic that's been the only domestic story for so long on its way out, he gets the chop. It would be quite a thing. And it's when I look at it this way, the impressionistic big picture rather than the febrile daily developments, that I veer towards him surviving.

I think belief in him is like belief in Father Christmas - not something you return to

The story arc is exactly as predicted by his enemies like Max Hastings from the start - you realise that the bumbling is an act, and the man is a shit who shafts you.

TimS said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Cookie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Boris has to go, but it does raise questions about Whitehall's civil service drinks and party culture which is bound to see some civil servants in hot water but will it also see a change to employment rules relating to alcohol consumption

That would be a shame. Part of the attraction of working in the civil service is presumably the sociability of it.
The problem wasn't that there was drinking going on - I have worked in places with drinking cultures in the past which have been perfectly functional. The problem was that there socialising going on at the same time as people were being told not to socialise.

Yes, the toxicity arises out of he fact that at the same time people were all being required to make very real sacrifices. But those sacrifices went far beyond just being told not to socialise, and we can all contrast our experiences and personal sacrifices with the boozy party culture going on amongst the hypocrites at No 10.

For my part, while I supported the lockdowns in general, it did rankle that I was prevented even from hitting a golf ball around my local course even on my own for five months in total over the three successive lockdowns, a punitive and unnecessary restriction which made things far harder to cope with. In the light of these subsequent revelations my anger at that is through the scale now. But that is still fairly mundane in the scale of things, and goodness knows what someone who was deprived of the chance to say goodbye to their nearest and dearest must now be thinking.

I think the parties have for once united the libertarians and puritans in anger. That's why the story is so powerful. That's why hypocrisy stories are always so powerful.

For those who thought the lockdown rules were state overreach and would have loved to be partying and getting out and about, these reports just rub in the unfairness of it all. For those who disapprove of any kind of fun and would like us locked down indefinitely, there is moral outrage at the decadence.

Twitter is full of equally contemptuous comments from both ends of the spectrum.

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I thought the Tories were mad to pick Johnson over Hunt - the difference in quality between the two is huge. Their 2019 red wall victory says I was wrong, but recent events, where Johnson's (lack of) character has at last cut through with voters, suggest otherwise. Hunt would be a sensible choice I think. The Tories' dilemma is the red wall where Johnson had a unique (and to me mystifying) attractiveness that has now disappeared. Not obvious that any of his potential successors could match it.
I increasingly think Johnson will go soon. I looked again at the photo of HMQ grieving her husband alone and found myself welling up. I think a lot of folk will have a similar reaction. A line has been crossed now, there's no way back.

I hope you're right - it's just 'wrong' to have this man as PM - but I'm finding it hard to be confident he's going. It will be an amazing fall if it happens. Just 2 years after winning the best Con majority since Thatcher, only a few months since Hartlepool and looking stronger than ever, and with the pandemic that's been the only domestic story for so long on its way out, he gets the chop. It would be quite a thing. And it's when I look at it this way, the impressionistic big picture rather than the febrile daily developments, that I veer towards him surviving.

But the big picture is that he no longer has a purpose.
Why did he get elected (either to the Conservative leadership or as PM)? To deliver Brexit and to defeat Corbyn. We can argue about the relative importance of each, but most of us agree it was these two. Boris was best placed to Get Brexit Done, Boris was the man to beat Corbyn. You may not like it, but it's far from obvious there was someone better to do either.
Brexit is now delivered. You can argue about whether it was the right sort of Brexit - but the question is not now whether or not we Brexit, it's what the future looks like. It's picking over detail, for years. Is this anything that anyone, even Boris's firmest backers, think Boris is the ideal choice for?
Similarly, Corbyn is now defeated.

So what we are left with is levelling up. I give Boris some credit for this, in a high-level big-picture type way - but levelling up after the 2019 election is now a long slog of detail. Again, not obvious that Boris is the best man for the job.
Oh, and the war on woke. But whatever Boris says about this it's becoming less and less clear he actually intends to do anything. If war on woke is your priority, is Boris the man to fight it? Possibly as a journalist. Probably not as a politican.
Plus all the other issues which have sprang up in the past two years - covid recovery, Russia, China, energy. Issues for Boris? Possibly not.

If the answer to all of these questions was still Boris, partygate wouldn't bring him down. Unpopularity didn't bring Thatcher down (until it did) because her backers still believed in her. But I don't see any more that anyone still needs Boris.

rottenborough said:

Voting rights bill in US wont pass now. Sinema effectively blocks it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/sinema-voting-rights-bill.html

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I thought the Tories were mad to pick Johnson over Hunt - the difference in quality between the two is huge. Their 2019 red wall victory says I was wrong, but recent events, where Johnson's (lack of) character has at last cut through with voters, suggest otherwise. Hunt would be a sensible choice I think. The Tories' dilemma is the red wall where Johnson had a unique (and to me mystifying) attractiveness that has now disappeared. Not obvious that any of his potential successors could match it.
I increasingly think Johnson will go soon. I looked again at the photo of HMQ grieving her husband alone and found myself welling up. I think a lot of folk will have a similar reaction. A line has been crossed now, there's no way back.

I hope you're right - it's just 'wrong' to have this man as PM - but I'm finding it hard to be confident he's going. It will be an amazing fall if it happens. Just 2 years after winning the best Con majority since Thatcher, only a few months since Hartlepool and looking stronger than ever, and with the pandemic that's been the only domestic story for so long on its way out, he gets the chop. It would be quite a thing. And it's when I look at it this way, the impressionistic big picture rather than the febrile daily developments, that I veer towards him surviving.

MrEd said:

edmundintokyo said:

On the GOP side, good thing on Tulsi Gabbard: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/americas/north-america/us/2022/01/is-tulsi-gabbard-the-gops-dark-horse

I reckon Trump-Gabbard could be the ticket, he's losing the conspiracy wing over vaccines and it's not like 2016 when he needed a VP to placate the GOP mainstream.

I like Gabbard, she 's come across as smart and with it. Also loved her takedown of Harris.

The issue with her as VP is that it might put other candidates' noses out of joint as she would then be in pole position for 2028.

dixiedean said:

IshmaelZ said:

Sandpit said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

Leadsom for leader.

Roooth!

A ridiculous 25/1 with PP.

Are we past the days of having peers as PMs, in the sense of it being even legally possible? Though Lord Home got himself a safe seat as a MP pdq if I recall the recent discussion here. I'm sure someone could be persuaded to apply to the Chiltern Hundreds if need be, in a nice safe seat.

Nothing that legally says the PM cannot be in the Lords - although I imagine that there would be no such thing as a safe seat for a by-election these days, if a party tried to force one in such circumstances.

Halifax turned down PMship in 1940 on account of being a Lord

Is that so? I'd always assumed Labour wouldn't support him.

Alistair said:

Tweets that have aged well, an on going series

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1444875013828452353

Stuartinromford said:

Chris said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

Who gives a shit how tall Rishi Sunak is? What an absolutely ludicrous discussion.

Voters

If so, things have changed since Victorian times. Both Disraeli and Gladstone were unusually short, as this sketch illustrates.

Though in those days, most voters wouldn't have seen the actual heights of their leaders.

The key thing about Rishi's dinkiness is that he (or his image consultant) clearly gives a shit about it, hence the bizzaro group photos doing their best to break the laws of perspective;

Stuartinromford said:

Chris said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

Who gives a shit how tall Rishi Sunak is? What an absolutely ludicrous discussion.

Voters

If so, things have changed since Victorian times. Both Disraeli and Gladstone were unusually short, as this sketch illustrates.

Though in those days, most voters wouldn't have seen the actual heights of their leaders.

The key thing about Rishi's dinkiness is that he (or his image consultant) clearly gives a shit about it, hence the bizzaro group photos doing their best to break the laws of perspective;

edmundintokyo said:

MrEd said:

edmundintokyo said:

MrEd said:

edmundintokyo said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

MrEd said:

Cookie said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

I think Sunak is a very worthy fav. Morduant is my speculative pick if it's not him.

Speaking of speculative, my tip/bet on MICHELLE OBAMA for POTUS24 at 100 is on the roll! Into 40 now.

Can we imagine? ... Yes We Can.

You can imagine all you want, the way things are going, it is looking more like it will be Hillary Clinton.

Are there really so few potential candidates that we are having to retread for first ladies?
It didn't exactly work out well last time that gambit was tried.

Well, yes. There is a very good chance 2024 could be a rematch of 2016. There is an increasing view that Biden won't run again and Harris is not up to it. The other candidates are not seen as viable. HRC has also making more noises about the Democrats needing to be centrist - likely to appeal if the Dems get hammered in November.

For Trump, the dynamics are a little bit different. Most of the 'rising stars' on the Republican side are young enough to wait 4 years (DeSantis, Scott, Cruz if you want to include him). Far better to not p1ss Trump off, let him run again and hope for the VP pick, which puts you in pole position for 2028.

There is not a 'very good chance' at all – that is ludicrous. What price would you give this 'very good chance'?

Take a look at what has been happening with Hillary over the past few weeks.

Price at the moment, I would probably give 8/1.

So an 11% chance then?

The betting price and the chance of it happening are not the same given the nomination is away, she is old and she has age issues.

But, if you want a probably of it happening right now, I would say conservatively around 25%. If the Democrats get hammered in November, that rises. She is positioning herself as the candidate to push the Democrats back to the centre and there is no other possible candidate who is coming out with that at the moment, in part because they are locked into the messaging of the Democrats' agenda because they hold various official posts.

I don't understand how that's supposed to win her the primary. The only reason the Dems would nominate a candidate who said that Joe Biden was too left-wing would be if they thought it was going to win them the election and keep out Trump. But when it comes to a candidate who can sell the message "I can beat Donald Trump", Hillary Clinton is literally the *worst person in the world*.

True but there are signs a good bit of the Democrat establishment is getting behind her and her message will be that "I told you so" about Trump. Biden's polling ratings are awful (he's down to just over 30% approval in Quinnipac) and, when you get the NYT and WSJ both suggesting in different ways that Harris shouldn't be the 2024 pick, it's a sign the establishment has given up on her.

PS don't mention Buttigeig - he will get crushed. Did nothing as Mayor and, as one commentator put it, he is only seen as a candidate because he is gay - he has no other features that would recommend him for the job.

Not saying you're wrong but what are the signs that the Dem establishment is getting behind her? If you're thinking of the editorial in the Wall Street Journal, that's not where the the Dem establishment lives.

The WSJ aren't but the two who wrote the op-ed are very much in that world:

"Mr. Schoen is founder and partner in Schoen Cooperman Research, a polling and consulting firm whose past clients include Bill Clinton and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Mr. Stein is a former New York City Council president, Manhattan borough president and state assemblyman."

This kind of makes my point for me, the connected and well-funded machine that held the presidency for two terms decides to get their name back into contention and all they can find to push it is a minor figure from local politics and somebody who helped separate Bloomberg from his money in his laughably doomed primary run. This is not showing support from the Democratic Establishment. This is showing a complete lack of support from the Democratic Establishment.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Downing Street apologises to the Queen over the parties

He cannot survive this

It is excruciating

Nigelb said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

MrEd said:

Cookie said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

I think Sunak is a very worthy fav. Morduant is my speculative pick if it's not him.

Speaking of speculative, my tip/bet on MICHELLE OBAMA for POTUS24 at 100 is on the roll! Into 40 now.

Can we imagine? ... Yes We Can.

You can imagine all you want, the way things are going, it is looking more like it will be Hillary Clinton.

Are there really so few potential candidates that we are having to retread for first ladies?
It didn't exactly work out well last time that gambit was tried.

Well, yes. There is a very good chance 2024 could be a rematch of 2016. There is an increasing view that Biden won't run again and Harris is not up to it. The other candidates are not seen as viable. HRC has also making more noises about the Democrats needing to be centrist - likely to appeal if the Dems get hammered in November.

For Trump, the dynamics are a little bit different. Most of the 'rising stars' on the Republican side are young enough to wait 4 years (DeSantis, Scott, Cruz if you want to include him). Far better to not p1ss Trump off, let him run again and hope for the VP pick, which puts you in pole position for 2028.

There is not a 'very good chance' at all – that is ludicrous. What price would you give this 'very good chance'?

Take a look at what has been happening with Hillary over the past few weeks.

Price at the moment, I would probably give 8/1.

She will be 77 in 2024.
Not going to happen.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I thought the Tories were mad to pick Johnson over Hunt - the difference in quality between the two is huge. Their 2019 red wall victory says I was wrong, but recent events, where Johnson's (lack of) character has at last cut through with voters, suggest otherwise. Hunt would be a sensible choice I think. The Tories' dilemma is the red wall where Johnson had a unique (and to me mystifying) attractiveness that has now disappeared. Not obvious that any of his potential successors could match it.
I increasingly think Johnson will go soon. I looked again at the photo of HMQ grieving her husband alone and found myself welling up. I think a lot of folk will have a similar reaction. A line has been crossed now, there's no way back.

I hope you're right - it's just 'wrong' to have this man as PM - but I'm finding it hard to be confident he's going. It will be an amazing fall if it happens. Just 2 years after winning the best Con majority since Thatcher, only a few months since Hartlepool and looking stronger than ever, and with the pandemic that's been the only domestic story for so long on its way out, he gets the chop. It would be quite a thing. And it's when I look at it this way, the impressionistic big picture rather than the febrile daily developments, that I veer towards him surviving.

I think he'll go very soon. He is utterly toxic, more so even than Thatcher was in the days leading up to her demise, and the longer this farce lasts, the more the Conservative Party as a whole will be damaged by prolonging it. On Thatcher, I overestimated her resilience and it was a surprise at the time when the Conservatives moved so decisively to depose her. Nowadays it doesn't even require a rival candidate to put their head above the parapet.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Greens take seat off conservatives

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1481961611531374600?t=g44HjK3T2PxCEQ5NbVqhXw&s=19

eek said:

https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1481929255714017280

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

One of the most distasteful elements (for me) of both the No10 party story and the Djokovic story is the arrogance. Both smack of "rules are for little people". Djokovic clearly thinks he is so important that he can behave by a different set of rules to others and so does Johnson.

He clearly lied on his visa application. And now almost every border guard in the world knows he lied on his visa application. He's not going to have a fun time travelling...

Stuartinromford said:

Chris said:

MrEd said:

Anabobazina said:

Who gives a shit how tall Rishi Sunak is? What an absolutely ludicrous discussion.

Voters

If so, things have changed since Victorian times. Both Disraeli and Gladstone were unusually short, as this sketch illustrates.

Though in those days, most voters wouldn't have seen the actual heights of their leaders.

The key thing about Rishi's dinkiness is that he (or his image consultant) clearly gives a shit about it, hence the bizzaro group photos doing their best to break the laws of perspective;

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Downing Street apologises to the Queen over the parties

He cannot survive this

It is excruciating

Your chaps picked a man with no shame, he won't be leaving voluntarily, and it seems none of the cabinet are willing to play Brutus as they know it will wreck their own careers to do so. So as absurd as it is, he may well survive.

DavidL said:

Chris said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

One of the most distasteful elements (for me) of both the No10 party story and the Djokovic story is the arrogance. Both smack of "rules are for little people".

What has Rishi done to deserve this continual propaganda about his height?

Very little so far as I can see.

Chris said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

One of the most distasteful elements (for me) of both the No10 party story and the Djokovic story is the arrogance. Both smack of "rules are for little people".

What has Rishi done to deserve this continual propaganda about his height?

rottenborough said:

Paul Brand
@PaulBrandITV
·
8m
BREAKING: Downing Street has apologised to the Queen for parties held on the eve of her husband’s funeral.

It does not get much more painful than that.


Paul Brand
@PaulBrandITV
·
7m
This also seems to be yet another admission that parties did indeed take place. Will
@metpoliceuk investigate this time?

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

One of the most distasteful elements (for me) of both the No10 party story and the Djokovic story is the arrogance. Both smack of "rules are for little people". Djokovic clearly thinks he is so important that he can behave by a different set of rules to others and so does Johnson.

He clearly lied on his visa application. And now almost every border guard in the world knows he lied on his visa application. He's not going to have a fun time travelling...

What was the lie on his visa application.

solarflare said:

CarlottaVance said:

What the PM's spokesman did say however was that "No10" has written to Buckingham Palace to apologise for the event that took place during period of national mourning.
BUT sounds like officials wrote the letter not the PM himself.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1481963283892490242?s=20

Hopefully JRM didn't write it, he'd probably have suggested that perhaps the rules on what could be allowed at the funeral were "maybe too harsh".

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

One of the most distasteful elements (for me) of both the No10 party story and the Djokovic story is the arrogance. Both smack of "rules are for little people". Djokovic clearly thinks he is so important that he can behave by a different set of rules to others and so does Johnson.

He clearly lied on his visa application. And now almost every border guard in the world knows he lied on his visa application. He's not going to have a fun time travelling...

What was the lie on his visa application.