Thursday, October 20, 2022

Who do the betting markets say will be the next Prime Minister?

The entire premise of my previous post was rendered redundant by the fact that I'd misconstrued the voting system for the upcoming Tory leadership election - which I see Wikipedia are calling the "October 2022 Conservative leadership election" to helpfully distinguish it from the "Summer 2022 Conservative leadership election".  We're making progress, because apparently Tory leadership elections can now be safely named after months rather than seasons.

The immediate cause of my schoolboy blunder was that - weirdly - I spent the afternoon watching the Alec Guinness version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy rather than hanging on Graham Brady's every word.  Political nerd I may be, but you can tell that even my enthusiasm is flagging a bit after four months of this circus. Anyway, maybe the betting markets can make it simple for us and tell us who the new Prime Minister will be...

Rishi Sunak: 1.91
Boris Johnson: 3.55
Penny Mordaunt: 6.6

That implies a slightly greater than 50% probability that Sunak will win.  I think that's about right, or may even underestimate Sunak's chances.  Now that I actually understand the rules (I think), there are two ways that a winner can be declared: a) if only one candidate is nominated by at least 100 MPs, or b) the outcome of a members' run-off if more than one candidate is nominated.  If the first scenario occurs it would be bound to be Sunak, and in the second scenario Sunak is still the most probable victor, because in contrast to the early stages of the summer contest, there's no particular evidence to suggest that the members prefer Mordaunt.  There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest the members prefer Johnson to Sunak - but presumably the minimum nomination threshold has been set where it is because sums have been done to ensure Johnson cannot reach the ballot.

So probably the value on those odds would be to lay Johnson, or to back Mordaunt and then close out after Johnson is eliminated.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.

9 comments:

  1. The rational and sensible choice would be Sunak but as I don't think the Tories are rational I think Johnston will prevail.

    Of more interest is that the chance of an early general election keeps increasing and Sturgeon will be faced with a decision re a de facto referendum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will she aye? ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      Delete
    2. Anonymous - you obviously stayed up too late - your parents should ensure you get to bed earlier.

      Delete
  2. On a previous thread Paul Wright posted " How on earth would such a franchise be collated." I assume he is referring to me saying I would like a 5- 10 year residency qualification for voting on Scottish independence voting. I have just read Iain Lawson's blog. In the article entitled Population Migration...... a ticking time bomb for Scotland Iain says this: -

    " Getting a fair franchise is of crucial importance to a fair referendum and we need our franchise to reflect the common practice within all other European countries of having a residential qualification measured in five to 10 years being required before being granted a vote on the constitutional future of the country they have chosen to live in."

    Assuming Iain is correct then my recommendation does not seem outlandish and if other countries can "collate it" then Paul surely it would not be beyond Scotland to do so. Perhaps Paul can ask Iain how other countries do it.

    As I said before it is all academic as the SNP do not debate such matters and Sturgeon will just do what she wants - which is usually zero when it comes to independence. A UK GE has the worst franchise for a yes vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those "other countries" that impose discriminatory franchises all have one thing in common: they're already independent with unrestricted ability to do whatever they want. As I said yesterday, what is the point of allowing part of our movement to be tarred as racist just to indulge these pipe-dreams of a dodgy franchise that in the real world we can't actually introduce?

      Delete
    2. James, you make a fair point but why does the SNP not say the Britnats are racist for not allowing EU citizens to vote in UK General elections or indeed in the EU refrerendum which clearly is a constitutional vote. Where is the outcry about the dodgy UK franchise that Sturgeon declared she may use for a de facto referendum. Using your logic is Sturgeon not being racist by wanting to use the UK GE as a de facto referendum as it discriminates against EU citizens. Strange since the SNP strongly want to rejoin the EU but are happy to discriminate against its citizens. The very people who as you quite rightly said are more likely to vote yes this time compared to 2014. Indeed the logic can be extended to say any political party taking part in a UK GE is being racist.

      A UK GE has the worse franchise for a yes vote.

      Delete
    3. "why does the SNP not say the Britnats are racist for not allowing EU citizens to vote in UK General elections or indeed in the EU referendum"

      Well, they've introduced an almost universal franchise for the elections they control, which I presume can be taken as a strong indication that they think that's the appropriate franchise for all elections.

      Delete
  3. What happens if no candidate gets 100 nominations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably they say "oops" and introduce yet another new rule mid-process.

      Delete