Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next Prime Minister: Gus O’Donnell at 250/1?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next Prime Minister: Gus O’Donnell at 250/1?
The last few years have seen a profusion of long-odds political bets come in. When they have, it’s been because the bookies, the punters or both have misread the electorate, the candidate(s) or the process. I think there’s another outside opportunity now.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Wellington parallel is also inexact. Wellington was asked by the King to form a government himself as the acknowledged overall Leader of the Opposition, but refused - he did however recommend Peel and said he would look after things until Peel arrived back from a holiday in Italy.
If it gets really tense the other possibility that David overlooks is the most senior non-party figure in the Commons could head an interim government (which was also considered in 1832 and 1834) - but let us hope John Bercow is never called on in that capacity.
Theresa May would have the holding successor lined up before setting this mechanical exercise in motion. Wouldn't it be more likely to be a Conservative grandee? Lord Howard perhaps? Or someone who has advocated an early election already - Baron Hague of Richmond?
Yet another demonstration why the FTPA is not fit for purpose in a Parliamentary democracy though.
We've had a Canadian born U.K. PM before.
The FTPA really screws things up, doesn't it.
It seems the Curse of Morris Dancer extends to rugby
On-topic: 250/1 shots never come in. I cannot see a Lord being acceptable as PM.
BOO - Not a Scottish peer -
HUZZAH - A most entertaining thread leader -
BOO - Ladbrokes don't list Viscount Malcomg of Ayrshire as a contender -
If TM's government lost a vote of confidence there would be soundings. Could anyone even attempt to form a government ? The leader of the SNP in the Commons would have the best chance at about 1%. Neither Corbyn nor Farron could manage that. Each of these would be asked INFORMALLY if they had any prospect of forming a government - self-evidently they wouldn't.
TM would then suggest they work collectively though the minefield of the FTPA to seek a dissolution. After huffing and puffing this would be agreed.
We will see a lot next week - just how stupid are the LD peers ?
https://youtu.be/n-ABXvbMSc4
Mr. Putney, o, happy day
The last 30-40 laps or so were quite tense.
I agree that there are other possibilities, though I find Bercow even less likely. The advantage of a genuine technocrat is, apart from ability and experience, that they won't be in the way afterwards.
Bercow is a thousand times more likely than GoD, and he is most unlikely. And surely a further advantage of him would be he would be forced to quit as Speaker?
Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.
It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.
The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.
However, if May had lost a vote of No Confidence, even on purpose, she wouldn't be in a strong position to determine wht happened next. Corbyn would certainly be asked. Would May have already resigned / been dismissed at this point? We can't know in advance: it's uncharted territory. But if so, my guess would be that to appoint a new Conservative government after the two-week deadline was up would look odd and go dow badly in the media.
Of course, the whole thing would look odd but the public would be more likely to accept a solution that had both been trailed in advance and which appeared fair and neutral.
It shold also go without saying that you'll be able to get juicy odds on Howard or Hague, if that's your thinking.
1. *why* don't we do technocratic governments?, and
2. If not GOD, then who?
We shouldn't be paying at all, of course, given past promises. But if we have to pay I would far rather avoid the often very lengthy queues for the booths that used to be the curse of the crossing before the new autopay system came in. Sometimes the traffic stretched back for miles on each side.
What do you think is wrong with it?
Another fine mess that Osborne and Clegg have left us with.
2. I tend to agree with TSE that if we ever did go down this road someone like Mark Carney would be a better option. Without googling it bankers seems to have been quite popular in Italy too.
The better parallel, as ydoether mentions, is John Anderson. He might also have mentioned the precedent of James Grigg.
It's worse if, like my parents, they've just gone away on holiday and have no Internet access where they are. They have to phone me up and I have to go online and fight the demons that live in their system.
Worse, they incorrectly detect licence numbers and charge people fines who have not crossed the bridge.
Meanwhile non-UK residents are frequently getting away without paying the toll.
It would be better if the public had got a better deal over the toll extension. But all we got was a crummy variable speed limit scheme on part of the M25 along with the hard-shoulder-as-a-lane madness.
(rant mode off)
There are many ways it could be improved. Allowing a period of a week or a month before being fined, allowing both journeys on a holiday to be counted. Allowing you to find out how many trips you had made without having an account (although there would be privacy issues with that). Catching and fining more foreign drivers, etc, etc. But they prefer just to rake the money in ...
Edit: oh, and inadequate signage to tell people what the f is going on. At least in the early days (haven't been over it in five months).
In fairness, that's true of most constitutional tinkering in this country, including Blair's badly-thought-through reforms of the House of Lords and the Law Lords and the fudged devolution settlements to Labour-supporting areas.
A few years back I travelled along it on a trip back from Scotland, and there were signs on pieces of cardboard stating that the price had gone up ...
As as road user, that's great. As a model for future investment in infrastructure, it doesn't look good.
You raise an interesting point re Cromwell though, as he offers us several alternatives.
Direct military rule, a parliament of saints, or a new constitutional settlement that restores a lot of the trappings of the old one, take your pick.
Mr. Fishing, I think that analogy's a little over the top. However, I agree entirely that constitutional tinkering for short-term needs/advantage has only ever buggered things up (yet one more reason to be dubious of those who think regional English assemblies a good thing).
It would have been easier and cheaper for everyone - frequent users, infrequent users, locals, foreigners, etc - if the crossing had just given out back to the public as they were due to after 20 years, or even in 2002 when the debts had been paid off.
The system is designed to benefit the owner's coffers, not the public. If you wanted to help the public it would have been made toll-free.
Dartford I found more irritating as a very occasional user. We were on holiday in England and frankly had a lot better things to do than trying to make internet payments at some unknown website. We got a letter and paid it after we got home. I can see the very considerable attraction for locals but for visitors it is not great.
The question remains, if May wouldn't form a government, in order to provoke an election, and no-one else could, and one is needed, who gets the gig?
https://www.m6toll.co.uk/about-us/traffic-figures/latest-reports/october-december-2016/
I would expect the M6 itself to have much higher figures, but my google-fu is failing me. The target was apparently 75,000 vehicles per day.
That it is not designed to deal with one party seeking to abuse it for their own advantage is not a flaw of the act. That it is in fact complicated to try to manipulate it for partisan advantage might be seen, in fact, as an advantage.
If there's consensus for a new election no problem. If there is a time the nation, not a party, genuinely needs a new election, do we think so little of other parties to think enough would not play ball? Even if their leadership were obstructive?
There's a lot of things people list as problems with the act which, intentionally or otherwise, seem like features not bugs.
In fairness I think the question you raise, though improve and the options not being much value, is an interesting one. It is conceivable.
I love the coastal A1 through Northumberland, but it's a bit of a hassle to drive. The northern M6 and A74(M) is wonderful. Is there a better motorway or dual carriageway in the UK?
"The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!"
S. Johnson
Raikkonen's 11. May be worth a look at each way (fifth the odds, top three) if you believe Ferrari are tasty. I think he's roughly on a par with Bottas. Better car gets the Finn top 3 (if Red Bull aren't up there).
the history of UK IT projects is littered with disaster. Look up Gordon Brown for examples especially HMRC
I only put a tiny sum on Bottas each way.
I have not really followed the arguments around the FTPA so was wondering about something.
Is it not possible to simply repeal the act with a simple majority in Parliament?
Snag - May doesn't have a majority in one House of Parliament.