politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » When will Dave depart ?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » When will Dave depart ?
In his late March interview, David Cameron announced that he would not serve out a third term. Here I take a look at when he may leave and some associated odds:
0
Comments
It would indeed be a great bargain for the person who gets it right, but it's fraught with risk.
If her (CB's) birth was not registered, how did she get a passport? How did she open a bank account? How did she get a visa to come to this country? This does not smell right.
It is also quite convenient because it helps bat away questions about some, ahem, irregularities about the age she was when she was studying for various qualifications and when she was at the various colleges she says she was at.
Re Pride and Ego: these could be added to the list. TBH both are encompassed by Complacency and Hubris and Greed. Greed doesn't have to be for money. Often it isn't but for Status, Titles, a Bigger Job etc etc.
The excuses and rationalisations which Mark Hopkins listed are all there - and plenty more besides.
1 Tory MEP
15 Tory MSPs
115 Tory councillors
"2020: 7-1 Sky Bet (Cease to be PM)
This can win in one of two ways (Excluding the ever present actuarial method) - first the Conservative leadership contest takes place around Spring Conference, although the timeframe from that to the GE is VERY short indeed. Second, Dave decides to take on the GE as PM and loses - it is possible that this happens despite Labour's current woes - indeed Labour don't even need most seats to force the Conservatives out of office. It looks like a slam dunk for the Tories right now, but 5 years is a long time and all that.
2021: 12-1 Sky Bet (Cease to be PM)
Dave reverses his intention to stand down and goes on to win a third term. He probably won't, but at 12-1 it is coverable.
If I had to pick one bet it would probably be 2019 : 7-2, but there simply MUST be value in at least one or more of the options - it's hard to envisage a scenario where Dave isn't both PM and Tory leader either, seeing as we're in majority Gov't, indeed a late 2018 handover could be a 'double winner' - but this is unlikely..."
Was the original end
With all the press he's getting, the public must now be forming a view of him. All the lefties I know are in paroxysms of excitement at the thought he might win, and I'm beginning to fear he won't just coalesce the disparate Left but might do rather well winning over many generally politically uncommitted voters with his populist rabble-rousing and bashing of the rich/greedy bankers and utility companies etc.
My immediate reaction is that 2016 and 2017 are the two bets of value. Essentially this is a bet on an Out result in the referendum - whatever he says now, in reality Cameron would certainly stand down (or be pushed out) if we've voted to leave the EU. Quite apart from anything else, the overwhelming issue for the government would immediately switch to negotiating our exit, and only someone (Owen Paterson?) who'd campaigned on the Out side, and developed the economic arguments to go with it, could credibly run the country, and the Conservative Party, in those circumstances.
The only issue is that we don't yet know the referendum date, but on the other hand for 2017 at least you also get a free bet that Cameron might leave reasonably quickly after a Stay In result. On balance, therefore, 16/1 on 2017 looks pretty good, for anyone Mr Hill will honour by laying a bet.
I'm glad Labour took Bury South so much for granted that they didn't even bother doing any canvassing before the GE, I might have excluded myself from this fun little contest otherwise....
So either 2017 or he's going pretty much the distance I'd say. I cannot see him staying on past 2020, as even if he wished to or the party looked in a poor state and he might be their best bet, I think having announced it and it being expected for some time, those waiting in the wings would see to it he could not remain somehow, and he doesn't want to go too early, so may actually try to attempt a new leader being elected while remaining as PM until the end.
Surely Philip Hammond or Michael Gove would be likely to resign if they thought a no vote was a possibility, because it would imply a failure of renegotiations? Not a huge fan of Gove either, but Hammond would do under such circumstances.
Sky Bet have 2017 as PM departure date at 9-4.
This is the cause of alot of the value on other years...
I watched Jade Dernbach live yesterday at the Oval.
Thank goodness for Fantasy Football to raise the spirits....
I'll repost those links for anyone still interested before Saturday morning's first game.
FPT @cyclefree on charities/companies
As well as being a registered charity, Kids Company is a company limited by guarantee (no. 03442083 at Companies House). Where a charity has legal personality, the presumption is that any charitable gift is a gift to the company beneficially, rather than a public purpose trust. Should the company enter liquidation, its assets will go to its general creditors rather than being applied cy-près (Re Arms (Multiple Sclerosis Research) Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 877 (Neuberger J))...
My whiskey would be on Feb/March 2018. If anyone fancies a bottle of Islay ....
That to me is why predicting the referendum date is tricky, its tied it with Cameron's place in history.
Except people made similar predictions of the Scottish referendum: explaining why, in either outcome, Cameron would have to go.
It's also quite hard to see, given the EU's history of 'neverendums', that a No vote could be taken as anything other than final, with exit to follow quite quickly. A 'Yes' vote could be considered by the losers as a temporary aberration that will be put right later - but defying the will of the people and trying to stay in? That would be dodgy.
For those reasons I think 2016 is probably slightly more likely, although the counter argument that 2016 doesn't leave enough time for renegotiation is also strong.
It was said - and people believed this at the time - that Cameron had given away too much with the "vow" and the English would be unhappy with this and it would mean he would have to resign even if he won.
Go back and read the threads from the time if you don't believe me.
So far as I can see, the current best price on Out winning the EU referendum is 7/2 with Ladbrokes. On that basis you could treat this market as a proxy for that one, whether or not you believe (as I do) that David Cameron would choose victory in an EU referendum as an appropriate time to ascend into the Primum Mobile.
We also still need to restore purdah so this is a free and fair elections.
IF Dave does stick to his promise to not seek a third term, I can't see him hanging on until 2020. The whole thing would become very messy as they seek to elect and install a new leader and PM in the immediate few months before an election.
Next latest option would be to have a contest in Summer 2019 with the reigns being handed over at the Conference in the Autumn. Quite possible, but doesn't give the new PM much time to do very much before we're into campaign mode.
Autumn 2018 looks the best bet in terms of timing between a referendum and the election.
Once a country has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw, the withdrawal agreement is negotiated between the departing state and the Council of Ministers. The Commission submits recommendations to the Council, which then nominates the head of Union's negotiating team. The final agreement requires the consent of the European Parliament, the leaving member state, and a qualified majority of the Council of Ministers. The UK is disqualified in matters concerning its exit from both the European Council and the Council of Ministers (see article 50 TEU and article 218(3) of TFEU).
An OUT vote would of course open up a whole can of worms about what to do next unless the alternative was framed in the referendum. The best way to get a NO is to link it to joining the EEA. In the end I don't think the renegotiated terms and joining the EEA will be much different.
Early days yet, as nobody has any idea of what Mr Cameron is trying to do (except paper over the cracks in the Tory Party).
It was a strong meme on here (I forget who); after the vow and before the results were known.
Anyway why should Cameron leave after winning the EU referendum - there's even less reason than after the indyref?
2016 @ 15
2017 @ 17
2018 @ 11
2019 @ 4.5
2020 @ 8
2021 or later @ 11
can't you produce a 50% return in the next 5 years?
Edit: I see this is largely the produce of SkyBet offering 9 for 2020 (PM) and William Hill 1.62... (Leader) ! Am I missing something?
If you are unrestricted with Hills and SkyBet... this is a goldmine.
"Anti-austerity unpopular with voters, finds inquiry into Labour's election loss
Independent review shows abiding concern over economic deficit, and may fuel doubt about policies of Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/anti-austerity-voters-poll-jeremy-corbyn-labour
Certainly, EEA membership has much in common with EU membership. The four fundamental freedoms are kept, including freedom of movement of labour. For that reason alone, "No" would be foolish to campaign for it. The common policy on competition and state aids and some of the internal market acquis would remain. That said, in the EEA we would have a veto on the adoption of new secondary legislation, would be outside the supervisory remit of the Commission and the Court of Justice. Nor is there any concept of the supremacy or direct effect of the EEA agreement. Nor do the EEA institutions have legislative powers. CAP and the CFP do not apply.
More importantly still, however, none of the main political political union provisions apply in the EEA (common citizenship, CFSP, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, AFSJ etc.). Since Cameron's renegotiation is not going to achieve anything substantial, it is idle to pretend renegotiated terms would be similar to the EEA. They would be miles apart.
You lose if Dave ceases to be PM from 2016-2018, but remains as Tory leader once he is no longer PM. Given we are in a majority Government situation it is tough to see how this comes about.
I wacked my £66 on (well... one part will have to wait until tomorrow, for daily deposit reasons). Will return £100 at some point in the next 5 years...
It would also probably require most activists to have voted no, which would certainly cause ructions in the PCP. So I agree with you that Cameron would have to go.
He may do even if he wins, feeling that it's a good moment to go, or even simply being tired after 7-8 years as PM and a gruelling campaign. But he wouldn't necessarily have to.
Leadership was told by its pollsters and focus groups that is was regarded as being on the side of the workshy and undeserving, leaked memo shows"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/05/labour-pollsters-advised-party-to-change-on-immigration-and-welfare-in-2010
So, I disagree with some on here.
The problem is, though, that they haven't got anything else that they can agree to campaign on. As I've said many times, I think they've already left it too late to formulate a coherent alternative.
[As an aside, I'm not sure that the EEA route would even work. We're be so much the dominant non-EU member, and our financial services sector so overwhelming, that I can't see an off-the-peg EEA solution being practical. We'd need our own specifically-negotiated package, I think. Of course the EEA deal could be a possible starting point for that.]
Still a huge rick.
After an exit vote, the UK is disqualified by article 50(4) TEU from participating in negotiations with itself over its exit terms, choosing the lead negotiator etc. True, as it stands, the Presidency of the Council would be held by us on a rotating basis under article 16(9) TEU. However, article 236 TFEU allows the European Council to adopt a decision by QMV on the configurations of the Presidency of the Council. The current configuration is determined by Council Decision 2007/5/EC. There is no reason why this configuration could not be changed by a new decision of the European Council.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1325944-stephen-daisley-on-labour-the-snp-and-jeremy-corbyn-for-leader/
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1325944-stephen-daisley-on-labour-the-snp-and-jeremy-corbyn-for-leader/
I just read above post from one , a closet SNP'r mind you.
The futile56 are the irrelevant ones
Ask for £200 !
The end result was a Tory majority, despite Miliband constantly trying what these pollsters told him were the "centrist" positions.
"No" should campaign on the basis a vote for it is simply to reject Cameron's renegotation. Article 50 TEU allows a withdrawal agreement to be negotiated in two years which prima facie would bind the whole EU, which does not require ratification by the member states, and is agreed by QMV with the Parliament's consent. Admittedly this would involve the risk of leaving in two years with nothing agreed, but it is manifestly easier to get a workable agreement in the necessary time than by joining EFTA and then the EEA or renegotiating our membership from within (both of which require unanimity and ratification). If the UK does not want to be in either the EU or the EEA, but wants something more than the WTO rules, then it has to reach some sort of bespoke agreement with the EU. Article 50 offers the best means of getting it and getting it quickly.
In fact I seem to remember Labour complaining about how heartless the Tories were for the whole 5 years on welfare and immigration.
Given the dearth of leadership on the Out side, I strongly expect that the campaign will be chaotic and inconsistent, and the In side will ruthlessly, and successfully, exploit this.
Which would seem to be a very smart strategy - making In the irrevocable choice.
Heh!
Burnham: fairly good
Corbyn: moderately bad
I for one salute Labour's decision to make the process as drawn out as possible. We've already taken a lot more money on this than we did on the whole of the last Labour race.
For me the answer is almost certainly not. So I ought to vote NO. This does not mean that I favoour of what Mr Farage would llike to see. That is not being debated.
In short, a very stupid question. And I am surprised that Mr Cameron and his highly paid team of SPADS did not recognise that long ago.
I expect there are just one or two people with a few quid who really don't fancy Corbyn skewing the market a bit.
There's been no new data, only a panicky looking polling announcement on the railways which looks like it could well be the result of piss poor private polling.