Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ497 | |
| 2 | Ṁ83 | |
| 3 | Ṁ45 | |
| 4 | Ṁ44 | |
| 5 | Ṁ28 |
Wikipedia says he left office on July 22. It doesn't say that's when he resigned.
I previously asked the @mods to resolve NA and they refused.
Josh, I respectfully disagree. Throughout this disagreement I have maintained the same approach - if the facts change, I'll change my opinion.
Wikipedia doesn't say he resigned on July 22nd.
I have shared numerous newspapers and websites that say he resigned on July 5th.
I posted the question on Reddit, but got no replies.
https://www.reddit.com/r/tories/comments/1e6efp3/has_rishi_resigned_as_leader_of_the_conservative/
I'm sorry you're unhappy with how this was resolved, but I feel that I've been constantly patient and fair.
I'd be grateful if you could find a way to let this one go.
I am also going to respectfully disagree - I do not think you have maintained the same approach through this disagreement.
However, I'm happy not post further on this unless new information comes to light that seems so incontrovertible that I in good faith think you would want to see it (I may still seek this information out!)
The mods clearly agree/accept your resolution. While I still don't agree, it is well past time to give up on this.
However saying
"Wikipedia says he left office on July 22. It doesn't say that's when he resigned."
surely needs a response.
It says "Sunak announced his pending resignation as Conservative leader on 22 July 2024, and will remain party leader until a successor is elected. [2]"
I think this clearly means that
1 He announced only his 'intention to resign' on 5th July
2 He formally resigned on (or given lack of clarity on this date elsewhere perhaps about) 22 July with a future effective stepping down date of when successor is appointed.
I would say he is still 'the leader but has resigned with a future effective stepping down date'. Other media seem to use interim leader or acting leader for this which I think have different meanings but that is just irrelevant semantics.
This 'formally resigned on or about 22 July' was a clear possibility from the 5th July statement by Sunak.
As indicated above, I am not expecting anything to happen with the resolution. But in the spirit of trying to suggest that lessons should be learnt / understood, I hope you will forgive this further extra long message suggesting:
1. Ideally the title should carefully consider and use the right terms. If it was meant to be announce intention to resign rather than actually resign then this should be stated in title or in description. This is easy to say with hindsight, mistakes and lack of foresight can easily happen.
2. When the issue of a difference between resigning and 'announcing intention to resign' is pointed out, it is better to address this clearly rather than pretending the issue does not exist. i.e. it seems a bad idea to effectively say show me evidence that something different has happened then later appear to change to saying the question was always about date of announcing intention to resign rather than the date of resignation.
3 Further incorrect statements seem likely to do little other than wind people up, so care should be taken to try to avoid this. Examples include "Wikipedia says he left office on July 22" and "He resigned on July 5th. He is no longer the leader of the conservative party".
I appreciate the effort being taken here to work towards improving markets like these in the future. I backed the resolution as it seems totally acceptable to me that someone announcing a resignation could be seen as the same as actually resigning.
I can't imagine any circumstances where they resign and then 'withdraw' (???) the resignation, and it isn't clear (from my perspective) the "official" process to resign. If you tell your boss you quit, have you resigned? Do you need to give them a letter? Do you need to sign out of your contract formally, or ... etc.
I think it's important for future markets that we specify, but I think upon announcement is the simplest reading of this. Perhaps most importantly: I believe if we were to force everyone to specify, they would reword their criteria to be "on announcement", and the creator here would have done so as well.
It's not perfect, but it's acceptable. Hopefully avoided in future.
Again, I appreciate the effort and thought put behind this. It has been a good thought exercise and preparation for future cases.
With hindsight, it might have been better for the wording of the market to be when will he announce his resignation.
However, the vast majority of people involved had no issues with the original wording. It's a normal interpretation of the English language to say "he resigned" is the same as "he announced his resignation". (Source: English language newspapers and websites)
It's a cliche to say i announce my resignation "effective immediately". He announced his resignation on July 5th - he resigned, but just not "effective immediately".
The date he leaves office, or becomes interim leader, or anything else is irrelevant.
If the market said "when will rishi leave office according to Wikipedia" then that link would be relevant.
I personally think changing the wording of a market after people have placed their mana is never a good idea. It is likely to piss off more people.
The only reason we're still talking about it nearly a month later is due to one person being pedantic over the standard use of a phrase in the English.
>"I can't imagine any circumstances where they resign and then 'withdraw' (???) the resignation"
Fair enough.
However in "If you tell your boss you quit, have you resigned?", I would distinguish
You tell your boss you quit and you disappear/stop working without providing a formal letter, then absolutely yes you have resigned.
You tell your boss you are going to quit but stay in the position doing the work and no letter is written then you have threatened to quit but not actually resigned.
Clearly two differences between these and this case is the same as or nearer the latter in both respects, but I would admit that with a high political office it is less likely for someone to threaten to quit and not actually do so and announcing you are going to quit in the near future is more than just threat to do so.
I am going to reply because you have directly referred to me (the "pendant")
All of your arguments prior to July 22 were based on your perception that he had resigned formally. You even stated that you thought he had become interim leader and that he had submitted his letter to the 1922 Committee.
You are now arguing full-throatedly that none of this matters because he announced his intention to resign on July 5.
I don't think it's "pedantic" for me to be unhappy that in the first instance you said this market was about his formal resignation and in the second you said it was not.
@Gen thank you for also engaging on this - I find it hard to imagine you are enthusiastic to do so 🤣
I would point out that from what I said above which is what Gordan said below, when asked to specify (after resolution), he didn't say on announcement. He made it clear he thought Sunak had already gone. Otherwise I'd be unhappy but have no legs to stand on.
As it is:
Hadn't seen that before now. It Indeed appears that, while he announced his resignation on July 5th, Rishi didn't submit his letter of resignation until 22nd July.
In light of this information, I'd be grateful if @mods could resolve this as NA.
I don't think it would be appropriate to resolve as "Other" considering the national newspapers considered his speech was equivalent to him resigning.
Congratulations Mr Wilkes - your "victory" here is indeed reminiscent of 2003 military Operation Red Dawn, which led to the capture of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. 🫡
Definitely not 100% confident (we haven't seen a letter), but I'm updating much more to "he didn't formally resign on July 5" after yesterday's news
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-steps-down-as-tory-leader-b1172210.html
>"we haven't seen a letter"
I am thinking seeing this is unlikely as I cannot find previous resignation letters to 1922 committee.
Shame there is no date given, but this is exactly what we were expecting when rules announced and which @GordanKnott seemed to think couldn't happen as follows.
>"He's already resigned. How can he resign again? Even if he states that he has resigned, it doesn't somehow undo the past"
It could become clear that 5th July he announced his ***intention to*** resign but actually formerly resigned somewhere around 22 July when the rules were proposed (to be agreed today) pretty much exactly like he said on 5th July that he was not resigning immediately but when the rules were in place.
This question seems to be about when he resigns not about when he announces his intention to resign and appears wrongly resolved. If he resigned on 5July why are we seeing articles 22July to 24th July saying he has formally resigned?
It is true that it would be better if we could find one saying he formally resigned in the last few days, Proof would be ideal but proof is for maths. The balance of evidence is I believe clearly suggesting the resignation is recent.
I agree, the spirit of the market was, when will rishi announce he is resigning. In most people's minds, this is equivalent to resigning.
The @mods have already said this was resolved satisfactorily.
You seemed to be unwilling to let go of this - how much did you lose?
Do you have a suggestion for how to move forward, other than to NA the whole thing (which would inevitably upset others)?
I bet that he would resign on July 6th so my mana is gone regardless.
My opinion is that the correct resolution should be 'Other'.
At this point I think looking at all the information we have, that is the most correct answer.
Given that it was resolved already, I would usually argue that there needs to be a more dramatic shift in the evidence and I don't necessarily see that. If we could see the letter or we could get some authoritative source to say when he resigned I would argue that it should be resolved. For now I think not changing it is still justifiable, even though I suspect it was initially resolved wrongly.
I'd like to make two additional points to @GordanKnott :
1) below you gave a very specific condition that showed you thought this market was about the formal resignation. So honestly I don't think it's acceptable to now say that this is actually about the spirit of the market ie when he announced his resignation. You're moving the goalposts.
2) the reason I'm not letting this go is because, frankly, I've been really disappointed with how you handled this. I think that Christopher and I made good faith arguments about why we thought this might be misresolved, and instead of engaging with those ideas you've been completely dismissive of the possibility you might be wrong about this.
I appreciate that this comes across as aggressive and over the top considering how low the stakes are here, but I cordially think that you should change how you approach situations like this.
If that comes across in the wrong way and you feel I'm being a dick about this, I'm happy to leave it there.
... except that, I will be back if we get hard evidence either way 😮
Since you ask, I bet 50 mana on other with a payout of 564, so it makes a difference of 564 mana to me whether 'other' resolves no or yes. An N/A would return 50 mana which probably isn't worth the effort needed.
Incidently
>" It's already resolved. He resigned on July 5th. He is no longer the leader of the conservative party - at that moment he became 'interim leader'.
That is wrong.
Per
https://conservativehome.com/2024/07/22/1922-committee-proposes-rules-and-timeline-for-the-conservative-leadership-contest/
"There will be no interim leader whilst the contest takes place. Rishi Sunak will remain in post until the new leader is announced in November."
So Rishi will still be leader and never interim leader, probably even up until ~2 Nov. Not that this matters at all to this market but perhaps more casual and wrong information from you is unlikely to do anything other than wind us up some more.
BTW, The BBC also said interim leader. I emailed about factual errors mainly hoping/asking for date of resignation. They have changed the interim leader to acting leader but no other changes or reply that I can see.