We are headed for a new Elizabethan era – politicalbetting.com
We are headed for a new Elizabethan era – politicalbetting.com
Chart from Betdata.io
0
This discussion has been closed.
We are headed for a new Elizabethan era – politicalbetting.com
Comments
Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
Author of article rightly disqualified.
The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.
I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.
If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.
I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.
1.32 Liz Truss 76%
4.1 Rishi Sunak 24%
Next Conservative leader
1.3 Liz Truss 77%
4.1 Rishi Sunak 24%
Lock up your daughters.
That's it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjVfm0jZRw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPamKOPabFc
LAB: 43% (+2)
CON: 28% (-4)
LDEM: 12% (+1)
GRN: 4% (+1)
Truss will almost certainly reach 50% of votes of the likely turnout not long after the ballots are sent out, and yet the phony contest will stagger on.
I'm impatient for the next steps in the story. Who will be the Chancellor who gets to announce all the extra borrowing tax cuts? Does Priti Patel survive? What jobs can Trust safely give to the inept Boris loyalists? Will Zahawi's name ever be spoken again?
2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent
Leadership election.
Election of Leader
3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to
the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for
deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall
be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be
declared Leader of the Party.
5 Only those Party Members and Scottish Party Members who were members of the Party from the time
of the call for nominations by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee for the election of the Leader and
have been members for at least three months immediately prior to the close of the ballot for the election
of the Leader shall be entitled to vote.
6 A candidate achieving more than 50% of the vote among the Party Membership shall be declared elected
Leader of the Party.
7 In the event of there being only one valid nomination at the close of nominations prior to the first ballot
being held by the Parliamentary Party for the election of the new Leader, the election of the nominee
may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members and Scottish Party Members
to be held within one month of the close of nomination.
8 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the rules for the conduct of the ballot or ballots of Party
Members and Scottish Party Members shall be agreed by the Board and the Executive Committee of the
1922 Committee.
9 The Chairman of the 1922 Committee, acting on behalf of the Party, shall act as Returning Officer for all
stages of the election.
Sir Graham Brady needs to tell Lord Cruddas to fuck off.
What does Lab even stand for now?
If no was he unfairly excluded from the rule 3 selection process? If yes: case. The rules are the basis of a contract between party and member, who can sue for breach of them.
He hasn't got that issue now.
But it has surely accelerated in recent years and will hasten the institution's decline.
It was just about justifiable when it was a retirement home for ex-cabinet ministers who knew about running a department, genuine members of the Great and Good, and a smattering of bishops. The hereditary peers were always very odd, but at least there's an element of the lottery of birth.
But it's now packed with oddballs whose presence is entirely bought and paid for, both in cash donations and slavish loyalty to an appointing individual.
No.
There should be a publicly-owned competitor. Nationalising all of the big companies is cloud cuckoo land stuff
There's zero way I'd vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party.
(This is where you tell me Labour doesn't need my vote...)
In 2017 they had the largest increase in vote since WW2 and the Tories lost their majority.
Without diverting funds from winnable marginals to no hope anti Corbyn seats it would have been an even better result in 2017
What is the mechanism for this? Is there one? In writing?
It may be that the "decent chap" issue arises again.
The job of Labour is to win seats, to win power and make change. Vote counts are irrelevant
Starting to think Rishi Sunak, or his team, have made a genuinely catastrophic error on campaign strategy, misreading the situation. They decided way to get Truss was on inflation, tax and economy (even though he was Chancellor until a few weeks ago)... But...
Wouldn't he have been far better aiming high? To be ultra-Prime Ministerial, endless contrasts with Johnson, emphasise his ability to listen and create order, which is going to be needed considering what's coming this winter. Instead he seems quite inflexible and even angry.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1551865462908194819
Labour's purpose is to win power and make positive change. Without that, we are nothing.
"Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile." Keir Starmer is the only Labour leader to have understood this since Blair.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19315851/britain-drought-hosepipe-bans/
But, regrettably, legal action is no longer seen by some people as about resolving genuine disputes of fact and law, but as a form of campaigning where it isn't the judgment that matters but the perception.
A friend formerly in the Government Legal Service recounts cases where ministers have been advised that their legal case is hopeless, but they pursue it anyway. They actively prefer to be blocked by the courts (even at substantial cost to the taxpayer, and with the delay and inconvenience essentially vexatious cases bring) than to get the policy right as one might hope if one gives a sh1t about the rule of law.
Governments have always lost cases at court of course, but there's a world of difference between losing on balance with a reasonable legal and factual argument and wasting court time - between unsuccessful litigants and vexatious ones.
The reaction to losses has also changed massively. There was a fairly standard response of, "We thank the judge for their careful consideration, and will read the judgment in detail before deciding next steps". Now they turn their fire on the judges - witness Johnson's parting shot at Baroness Hale (a swipe given an air of casual sexism as well given Hale was just one of nine judges who unanimously found against Johnson's illegal prorogation).
"Antisemitism was used for factional purposes" and the fact right wing staffers "diverted funds away from winnable Marginals" to other Right Wing Candidates in non marginal seats for factional purposes
What changes is Labour offering now?
Subway union bosses ‘cynically targeting’ Rangers fans with matchday strikes
Union members have voted to walk out on Saturday, August 6 when Gers host Kilmarnock then on Tuesday, August 9, when the club’s Champions League qualifier against Belgian side Union Saint-Gilloise take place.
The third is on Saturday, August 13, when the Ibrox side play St Johnstone in the league followed by Saturday August 27, when they host Ross County in the Premiership.
Making clear the move was aimed at footie disruption, Unite announced “the first Rangers home game of the season against Kilmarnock” is “set to be hit by the walkout”.
*) Neither of the Conservative candidates appear to be offering what I want for the country.
*) Starmer seems an empty vessel atm.
*) Davey is invisible.
But the big difference id that I am finding the Tories positively repellent at the moment. Mordaunt would have been better. Badenoch would have been interesting. Tugendhat would have been boringly competent.
Sunak appears out of touch and clueless.
Truss appears a little mad.
I doubt either of them could persuade me to vote for them.
We’ll put up a blue plaque for fizzy Lizzy in Paisley to remind us of what we’ve lost.
He offered and delivered huge investment in Public Services
SKS offers nothing
The Forde Report says that the factionalism was just as bad as on the left, as on the right. The party was a shit-show, as is evident from anyone who followed it. Of course you didn't mention 2019 when all those hated staffers had been sacked and we lost in our worst defeat since 1935. So the idea it made a huge difference in 2017 has clearly been debunked.
Labour is currently as much as 11 points ahead. When Corbyn left Labour was 26 points behind. That's a change and a good one.
But you see I actually like winning elections. You sit on losing election results and try to make out they're better than when we win. That is a route to opposition for life - and then how do we do anything for anyone?
I think Truss has a better chance of persuading me than Sunak, as most of what we "know" about her is not really much more than characterisation of her by her opponents.
It is now clearly the will of the parliamentary conservative party that there should be a new leader of that party
and therefore a new Prime Minister
and I have agreed with Sir Graham Brady
the chairman of our backbench MPs
that the process of choosing that new leader should begin now
and the timetable will be announced next week
and I have today appointed a cabinet to serve - as I will - until a new leader is in place
blah..."
NO "I have resigned."
The only way that Sir Graham could start a leadership election is by accepting a resignation.
To group A - “I really wanted to pander to your idiocy but the Supreme Court. Damn the lawyers.”
To group B - “I used played a game where I got a law/regulation in front of the SC who have now created a ruling. So you’ve got what you wanted, set in legal precedent.”
EDIT: very much so on the use of law suits as campaigns - to bear a fox etc…
The other thing is the casual, American style of suing everyone, almost as a default.
A relative, who runs a building business had some fun - a couple of high end clients sued, to try and reduce their bills via bullshit and law fare. Being idiots, they hadn’t actually read their contracts. Which included a binding arbitration setup for disputes. So, by going straight to law, they had flagrantly broken the contract….
Who is the PM, right now?
It was right wing Labour staffers in 2017 that wanted Labour to lose, and diverted funds away from winnable seats not me. I presume you approve?
Anti Semitism was exaggerated the disciplinary process on it slowed down by right wing staffers for factional purposes
The issue is the British Constitution, whereby the PM is the person capable of forming a Government with the confidence of the House of Commons. That doesn't have to be the de jure leader of the majority party... indeed the Government has just won a confidence vote held after Johnson ceased to be leader of the Conservative Party.
Cruddas is faffing about with the legality of 1922 Committee rules. As you say, his case looks weak there. But even if it didn't, it makes no difference as 1922 Committee rules are about electing a party leader, not a PM. You will struggle to find a single Tory MP who would say the winner of the members' ballot between Truss and Sunak should not become PM and that they would not have confidence in the Government formed.
So even if, by some miracle, Cruddas showed the Conservative Party rules were defective and the winner is not technically Conservative leader, it would make no difference as they'd be able to form a Government with the confidence of the Commons, and Johnson wouldn't.
I would add, I am not sure this leadership election will damage the tories as much as people think.
Voters are seeing senior politicians having to grapple with the issues that concern them instead of grandstanding with peers at summits or grabbing Ukraine photo opportunities.
That might not actually play that badly.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-port-chaos-is-the-price-of-brexit-french-mp-says-c8dlxkfhf
It was inevitable when it came out and it wasn't the "smoking gun" Wankbox said it would be, we'd move onto lies and mis-representation.
What it actually said was there was factionalism on the left and the right, the two sides hated each other and worked against each other. That clearly had an impact. But the left is not all virtuous in this, they were just as bad.
Anti-Semitism was not exaggerated and the report does not say that. It says the party's processes were not setup to deal with it properly, which I said at the time. That wasn't entirely Corbyn's fault - but he was a moron with his stupid statement after the EHRC report
There is no rule in the British Constitution that the PM must be the leader of any political party merely that they are able to form a Government with the confidence of the House of Commons. Johnson has in his caretaker administration (albeit on the basis it is a caretaker) - indeed they've just won a confidence vote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57doBGQTNY
Still sticking to the 'bad advisors' theory, despite BoZo burning through 3 sets so far with no apparent change in results
Who is the leader of the Tory Party, today?