Who will be first to be sacked/resign in 2007?
January 2nd, 2007
Where should your money go?
It has become almost a New Year custom for one of the bookmakers to open a betting market on which minister will be first to be sacked/resign during that year.
For 2007 everything is very much up in the air as we wait for the dramatic announcement from Tony Blair about his departure plans. But is he worth his favourite status? The price looks a bit tight to me.
Is it possible that there could be ructions before Blair’s departure and which minister could it involve?
Normally you would always say that whoever was Home Secretary was the most vulnerable. Punters made a killing on David Blunkett at the end of 2004 and, of course, Charles Clarke was the first to get the boot during 2006.
But John Reid has a look of permanence about him and even the 18/1 does not look tempting.
What’s happening, of course, is that with Blair’s power declining by the day ministers are becoming more bold in what they do. Could we see Tony having to make an example of somebody just to show that he is in charge? That’s possible.
Could the first casulalty be a Brownite loyalist who has to be made an example of - Douglas Alexander for instance at 28/1.
Good betting during 2007.
The PBC POLITICAL FORECASTER OF THE YEAR COMPETITION. Entries have to be posted by 2359 GMT tomorrow night.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Peter Hain at 50-1 must be tempting, given the NI scandal, nicht wahr? Also Falconer at 100-1…close ally of Blair, bright enough to see he will probably have no role in the new post-Bliar dispension…
When’s Patricia Hewitt supposed to be resigning for failing to balance the NHS budget?
1. Everything has gone quiet on the old Hain front but it is a slow burning fuse.
Interesting suggestions so far,. I like Hewit for the role to regain the NHS agenda from us Conservatives.
Ms Blears stuck her head very definitely above the parapet by campaigning against her own government’s policy. If this becomes embarrassing to the govt, might her position very quickly become untenable, and therefore might 50/1 represent an attractive price?
Nobody is going to resign or be sacked before Blair goes because:
a) Blair is now far too weak to sack anyone
b) None of the present cabinet will want to be outside of the cabinet at the time of the handover
Basically cabinet ministers now have complete free licence to do/say whatever they want between now and Blair going - with no need to fear any consequences.
Does anyone see Prescott getting sacked? I assumed his job is pretty safe bearing in mind his “negotiating position”.
Are there any markets on the other party leaders?
O/T - I note I’m one of only two to predict DC as PM by the end of next year. Does that make me chippy?
6 “Basically cabinet ministers now have complete free licence to do/say whatever they want between now and Blair going - with no need to fear any consequences.” Think you are correct with that statement Steven.
Blair is far too weak to sack anyone, but it doesn’t mean someone won’t go before Blair. I think Blair will last longer than people think.
Apropos of not very much, I like the entry in the table for “Amos, B” - as if her first name is ‘Baroness’!
8. No it means you are ignoring everything know about GB’s character.
10. So you think the Loans thing has gone away then.
BTW what is the law on Elections do they have to be heldevery 5 years from the day of the previous one i.e. 5th May 2005 so by 5th May 2010 at the latest or only Called by the 5th May 2010, so GB could in theory call it by then and hold it six months or six years later. What are the precise rules.
Shame no Lord Goldsmith on that list…would have thought he was a good outside bet…conflicts of interest etc…
12,As I recall,Parliament automatically dissolves on the 5th anniversary of it first having sat-under UK statute,the campaign is 17 days,excluding weekends and Bank Holidays-as far I can calcualate,the last legal date for the next general elction would be June 3rd (possibly 10th),2010-these criteria are set out in the 1949 Representation of The People Act-as far as I recall:;)
14 - yes indeed. As it happened, the 1992 and 1997 elections were 5 years and a little under a month apart.
12 - Not sure Patrick is quite correct. Wikipedia has it as:
“Originally there was no fixed limit on the length of a Parliament, but the Triennial Act 1694 set the maximum duration at three years. As the frequent elections were deemed inconvenient, the Septennial Act 1716 extended the maximum to seven years, but the Parliament Act 1911 reduced it to five. During the Second World War, the term was temporarily extended to ten years by Acts of Parliament. Since the end of the war the maximum has remained five years. Modern Parliaments, however, rarely continue for the maximum duration; normally, they are dissolved earlier.”
I also seem to recall that there is a provision to extend parliament longer than 5 years during a time of war, but also seem to recall that it can only be extended for a month or some similarly short date.
Where is Andrea when you need him??!!
Interesting 92/97 went the whole hog, when a Tory government though they might lose. Do you think such knowledge will prevent Tory posters calling for a GE early: no neither do I.
12/14 I also don’t think that there is a statutory length to GE campaigns. T
here is a statutory minimum length, which I think is 17 working days (hence a “normal” election campaign is 3 weeks or so). However, the campaign can be longer, as we saw in 1997 with John Major opting for a 6 week campaign in the hope that Labour would implode/run out of cash/get exposed on some policy weakness.
I guess the only criterion is that the actual date of the GE does not exceed the 5 years set down by the 1911 Parliament Act. I suppose the soverign could also refuse a GE date that was too long after the prorogation, but unless extremely excessive, I can’t see her intervening.
I even wonder if she would have the power to refuse a dissolution request from TB, if it were to be his parting (suicidal) gift…
Blair has a 60+ majority in the Commons; he is still popular in the country, he is on good terms with the US administration, no-one cares what terms the UK is on with the EU (and if they did, Blair’s representative there is wholly competent and reliably Blairite). Blair has said good bye to the Labour Party and that is a problem for them not for him unless the PLP votes him down in a confidence vote in the House. Will they? All of them? And what would he recommend to the Queen? Only Yates can really cause trouble, and he can cause no more trouble for Blair than for Brown. Since Gaitskell’s time there has been a strong ‘PLP should choose who leads them in the Commons’ strand, and it has just as much precedent legitimacy as parachuting Brown into Blair’s majority because Blair no longer wishes to lead the mass party.
19 - on what basis did you suggest Blair “is still popular in the country”?
I hate to break it to you, but it certainly ain’t *this* country!!
Admittedly he may be more popular than Brown according to a number of recent polls, but that doesn’t count for a great deal…
18 John Major was still within the last legal date,22nd May 1997,that that year’s GE was held-I forget where I read about the length of campaign- we should not forget,that once the election is called,a few days normally elapse before formal dissolution,during which the manifestos may be launched-I do recall the source quoting 17 dyays excluding weekends/Bank Holidays was authoritative
18 - She could, and she would…
Prescott is elderly. He is overweight. He is diabetic. When there were odds this time last year, he was a rank outsider at about 30-1, but I thought he was a good bet to go early for health reasons.
Can he resign as Deputy PM? Or is he in place until the next Labour deputy leader is elected? Could we get an acting Deputy PM?
(I believe Beckett was favourite to go first this time last year, and now she holds one of the great offices of state - funny old world!)
23. He us tipped for the Lords in Blair’s last “honours” list. Get those By-Election machines revving Lib Dems!
18. “I even wonder if she would have the power to refuse a dissolution request from TB, if it were to be his parting (suicidal) gift…” An interesting scenario Robin. Would it be the ultimate ending to the Romeo and Juliet tragedy with Blair and Brown in the leading roles.
21 - You’re right about the 17 days - in that it is the minimum length of campaign, but not a prescribed length of every campaign. As far as I know there is no prescribed maximum, but I suspect John major was pushing it with is six weeks.
It allows for outstanding bills to be ditched or completed and given Royal Assent and for the business of prorogation to take place.
22 - I agree she has the power to refuse a dissolution (she would in practice seek out another person (Brown) to see if he could command a government before agreeing to a dissolution). I was just wondering if she actually would refuse, or whether she (like most of us) would be happy to see the back of this lot? I guess she would (as always) play it straight, but it must be tempting… especially if Yates has turned up something by then that implicates both Blair and Brown.
23 - I can’t see anything other than really serious health problems causing Prescott to resign before Blair’s chosen date. If he does go early, it would make it impossible for Blair not to go at the same time, and both campaigns to be held simultaneously.
23. Beckett’s apparent reversal of fortune is a rather telling indicator of the degeneration of Blair’s administration.
People forget that NuLab are untouchable - they can’t be sacked or hounded out by the press. Only the military can really force them out now.
28 Leave the irony to Sean T, franc; he’s better at it.
29 - PtP; it was worth it just for a fleeting moment to consider the tanks rolling down Whitehall with Hesletine and Thatcher in one each!
Besides, the way that top-brass seem at every opportunity to be openly and publicly criticising the government’s political, strategic, and operational control of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, there may be a little truth in francis’ suggestion - albeit that the end would not come by force of arms, but by further nailing the coffin of this government’s lousy reputation for competence.
Gosh - never thought I’d find much to agree with francis on! How many more times francis, before I reach the 32nd level or whatever it is?
LOL! Hilarious, RW!
Yes, it’s a great image, but somehow I can’t see it happening anywhere but in Mystic Moon’s imagination.
Re-pasted from previous thread for InnocAbr and Mr Smithson:
8. I would not bet against a Tory clean sweep in Kent. So many seats there on just a few hundred votes held. Labour’s best hope is Dover. After that things, well I can’t see where else they might possibly cling on.
by Punter January 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
22. Mr Smithson may I suggest you focus on as case studies Islington South and Manchester Withington. Also those seats where the Lib Dems have roared or nearly roared into second with largeish Tory votes but where they have not been in contention for many decades if ever. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this is what I believe the Lib Dems are up to with their “Libertarian” agenda, and why they’ll surprise a few if indeed they are successful. The Local Council bases will in classic fashion eg Sheffield, Cardiff, Swansea see them eat into the Labour vote, while a ruthless squeeze on Tories in these seats will put them over the top. The best value bet next Election, Lib Dem vote share down, Lib Dem MP numbes up a la 1997.
by Punter January 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Sorry that is Mr Smithson at 26.
by Punter January 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
[32] I agree with you as far as Kent goes.
33. Would you even give them Dover…..
BTW Any view on the other theorem..
O/T - Question for PB experts - Surely this can’t be legal?
A BNP councillor used some of his council allowance to send Christmas cards to the elderly in his ward. Each card contained a £5 note!!!!
http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/news/tibnews/display.var.1098648.0.row_over_bnp_mans_5_gifts.php
BB
36. At least the BNP care for the elderly unlike this Anglophobic NuLab scumbag government.
35. I would have thought that might contravene one of the Corrupt Practices Acts.
2007 opens with the people of the United Kingdom bearing the highest tax burden ever. All the people, not just those in economic activity, but children and the old, and the variously economically inactive others, whatever the reason, between those ages are bearing at least indirect taxes. Almost half of the United Kingdom Gross Domestic Product goes forcibly to the Treasury for redistribution as the Treasury decrees.
Certainly there are state expenditures we all support: the defence of the realm; the maintenance of civil peace; the provision of a system of justice and its enforcement; a minimal state administration; social response to natural disaster; the succour of the indigent within our range of decision. After that everything is up for discussion. After that, all choices are political not moral.
What should the electorate of the United Kingdom do to end the confiscation of half their incomes, year after year, to be spent on sustaining Gordon’s amour propre, his heartland tax-funded jobs and welfare voter - base, his unearned life-style ? Poll after poll makes it clear he’s unacceptable.
Does anyone really think Blair will give him 3 free years before he gets his full-scale, general election come uppance? Blair will advise the Queen to call on someone else if he cannot advise a dissolution; and as Blair is still leader of all the bits of the Labour Party for months to come, it’s his call.
Gordon Brown is in the way; he’s always been in the way; only his acolytes have anything to lose if he’s moved out of the way - and the Conservatives, who have moved into the enormous political vacuum he has finally succeeded in opening up by so grotesquely undermining Blair’s 10 years in office.
Blair’s foreign policies have been a political and moral disaster, but he shares all the domestic instincts of a large majority of the UK electorate; so Blair will hardly yield the domestic political game to Cameron to give Brown his so-called ‘turn’.
36 - Oh francis - and we were getting along so well tonight. I guess to be generous to you, I can agree with your final 3 words.
Not that anyone will take betting tips from me, 5/2 on Blair being first to go seems decent value. He hasn’t any reshuffles left, so barring events, it should be him. And the most likely event seems to be Yates finding gold, which would be straight back onto Blair.
40 Well I agree with you, tpfkar, at least as far as the odds go. There’s no point in any reshuffles so unless there’s some unexpected ‘accident’, he must be the first to go - with or without Yates intervening.
I won’t be betting myself - I tend to look for longer shots - but if I were, it would be Blair for me. I think there is some value in the 5/2.
35,36 & 37 Councillors Allowance are surely theirs to do whatever they like with once received (tax and NI paid) I deplore the BNP but the Bradford Tories really are doing them a favour by attacking them over this gesture and giving them what they must crave most - good publicity - giving legitimately a personal gift of money to pensioners. The extra good publicity must be worth quite a few votes in May. There are manys ways of opposing the BNP - this ain’t one of them
8. Tabman: “I note I’m one of only two to predict DC as PM by the end of next year. Does that make me chippy?”
No, not at all, after all look at the meteoric rise to obscurity of Sean Woodward after he flipped his lid, I mean defected. You are just obviously such a keen fan of Chameweon that you think he can both defect to Bloo Labor and win the leadership selection within a year as the obvious policyless replacement for Blair as the last standing socialist kisses the old red rose groupie gang goodbye. And who is to say that you’re wrong?
Are the dozens backing Alex Salmond as first minister in the competition falling into the same trap as those wasting their moeny on Arnold Schwarzenegger for the US presidency. I seem to be the only one plumping for Ms Sturgeon. Is Alex Salmond going to stand?
38 - do you think posting such loony polemics on this site earns you anything other than derision? I am afraid the political debate simply isn’t on those terms. And no one uses “succour” or “indigent” anymore.
40&41. I won’t give PtP any betting tips after admitting my last major success was 20 odd years ago! But I do think we are at the point where the next member of the cabinet to walk the plank voluntarily or not is Tony Blair.
I think that if there are any charges brought against anyone connected with Downing Street his position will be untenable. Even if he tried to ride out the storm, so that he could be seen to go according to his own timetable. The ongoing damage it might inflict on a new government formed by Brown will be too great for the parliamentary party to allow him to stay.
Armando Ianucci - genius.
43 - why Sturgeon - are you saying you don’t think Salmond will win his seat in the ScotParl?
47 - it’s highly probable that Samond won’t win Gordon - the question is will the Nats do sufficiently badly in other constituencies to get him in on the NE list.
Sturgeon will be there - but like Salmond she is by no means a cert for Govan.
The other point why are the odds on Prescott different to Blair? He is on record as saying he will go at the same time as Blair - does a joint resignation (which this implies) mean a payout on both Blair and Prescott?
re 12. The date of the dissolution is determined by the date of the first meeting of the current parliament. AFAIK parliament would be dissolved automatically on the passage of 5 years without the government doing anything. A general election campaign would then ensue and there’s no fixed length. The procedure followed in the second world war to extend parliament was: in 1940 amend the relavent section of the 1911 Parliament Act by substituting the provisions of the Septennial Act 1715; in 1942 amend the Septennial Act 1715 by sustituting the word “eight” for “seven” in the duration of a parliament; in 1943 amend SA 1715 again by sustituting “nine” for “eight” etc.
So even in those dark times parliament still took time out to enact a bill changing the length of the HoC each year.
46. The man who helped give us the opening salvo of a certain sports reporter called Alan Partridge who once did a horse racing commentary involving such great names as Immaculate Pasta & Smalltown Gypsy Massacre (which won the race easily). As for his boxing commentary, I can’t describe it here but it was legend.
Reading through, the Prescott thing is interesting, if his health is ropey. I heard an interview with him on Radio 4 this morning (what a wake up that was over my cup of tea) where the journo said he wouldnt be doing such an interview in a years time because he was going. What I found most interesting was Prescott was just silent on it, no quip, nothing. There were stories in the media that he was planning to a big redemption job before he left (woman botherer that he is)but that seems to have died a death. We’d assume he would hang on until a new Deputy is selected in parallel with a new leader but maybe not. Wouldn’t put money on that hypothesis mind you.
You know we shouldn’t have a go at Francis from earlier, the Labour government are very aware of the threat of the military, thats why they have been sending them on overseas adventures and cutting their budgets…..
I enjoyed a flutter on this market last year - it was then described as “the first cabinet minister to resign” - and I just noticed my account with stan james still has these bets dowm as open. I was wondering if this meant that they considered that still no Minister has resigned (I took the bets out last march). I think this could be right because charles clarke (the first cabinet minister to go last year) admitted that he had been sacked, and I don’t recall anyone else going of their own volition (hoon and mccartney were demoted). Anyone else in this position?
I’ve put in money on the wild cards this time. Amos and Falconer at 100/1 has to be good. Also bagged hain at 50 and darling at 66. These markets are nonsense at these prices.
I also had a flutter on cameron being pm in december 2007 at an incredible 50 to 1. Fine its unlikely, but the possibility of brown calling an early election and then losing (albeit marginally) is not 50 to 10, more like 3 or 4…
Rough
I notice only one competition entrant has suggested Tony Blair will be PM on 25.12.07
There must be a non-trivial probability that this will be the outcome, based upon a number of scenarios:
i) A serious terrorist outrage shortly before TB’s intended date of resignation. “Y’know, it just wouldn’t be right to leave now.”
ii) A sudden economic shock (eg house prices unexpectedly start to dive; oil prices shoot up), again giving TB the opportunity to play the ’stability’ card. Especially true if GB is somehow blamed for the problem.
iii) Personal tragedy strikes GB - serious illness/accident afflicting him or family, and TB decides to wait and see who emerges as an alternative successor.
iv) GB’s poll ratings vs Cameron slump, and TB decides it would be in the best interests of the party and country for someone other than GB to inherit. He stays on to try and hatch an alternative plan.
I think there is more chance of TB being PM on 25.12.07 than Cameron, which a number of posters have suggested.
52 - Definitely agree with the last paragraph Chris. But shouldn’t you be behind the stumps at the Sydney Cricket Ground right now?
35. A right row there on that Bradford website to which I’ve added a more sensible contribution.
Alex (2) has hit the nail on the head. Patricia Hewitt said she would resign if she failed to balance the NHS budget, and she has failed to balance it. This is going to become Labour’s most embarrassing policy-related story during 2007, and Hewitt looks pretty good value to me at 18-1.
Last possible day for an election. Two things - firstly there are exactly 17 working days from the proclamation calling a General Election until polling day. This cannot be changed or altered except by statute - though of course, the campaign can last longer than the 17 days, it an be announced and then the formal proclamation can happen a bit later (as John Major did in 1997).
Once the 17 days have begun the only thing that can delay the election are “days appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning” (for which there is no statutory definition), which don’t count towards the 17 days, or the death of the monarch which delays the election by 14 days.
There might or might not be an actual last day for an election. The Septennial Act 1715 as amended says that the maximum length of a Parliament is 5 years, after which it expires. No modern Parliament has been allowed to expire, and it can be argued that there is a convention that the proclamation for the next election must be issued within the 5 year period. In that case, the last possible date for an election would be 5 years and 17 working days after the current Parliament was first summoned to meet.
If there is not such a convention, then there is no statutory trigger to automatically start an election once the current Parliament expires. It would simply expire, and the government would be unable to pass any legislation without calling an election to get a fresh Parliament. In practical political terms this would obviously have to be pretty damn quickly afterwards, and in any sense it would be necessary to have a new Parliament relatively quickly to avoid the power to levy taxation from lapsing.
56 et al, What’s Brown’s view of Patsy? might she do an “Estelle” (I’m not up to the job so I resign) when the books don’t balance, safe in the knowledge that she’ll be back in cabinet in a few months? I can see the cynical PR advantage in this, although doubt GB would want to bring a self-declared loser.
45 - HH is clearly a loon, however “succour” is a great word - I used it on this site only a few days ago
:
“I do disagree on your prediction for Cameron this year. As soon as the policies start to flow (”real grit”) I have no doubt that all wings of the party will find succour and comfort, and that the polling gap between us and Labour will consolidate and extend. I have always predicted a dead-cat bounce for Brown and have seen nothing in the past 6 months to alter that opinion.
by Robin Wiggs December 30th, 2006 at 4:18 pm”