Future Leaders of Foreign Countries

[clarence]

I am aiming to follow foreign politics more but am having trouble determing who the future leaders are... for example in Canada I see Harper is the Prime Minister- would Thomas Mulcair as Leader of the Opposition likely succeed him or is there a deputy in the Conservative Party who would more likely do so?

I'd like to see every one's opinions on who the next leaders of the following countries could be- feel free to discuss other countries as well

Canada
UK
France
Germany
Israel
Australia

[Tender Branson]

In Austria, it is likely that the SPÖ wins again next year - which means that Faymann will remain as Chancellor. At least for another few years. But who will follow him, I cannot really say. Speaker of Parliament Barbara Prammer is more likely to run for President in 2016 against Erwin Pröll, who is the powerful ÖVP governor from Lower Austria. Maybe the governor of my state Salzburg, Gabriele Burgstaller, could be a future SPÖ Chancellor candidate if Faymann decides to step down or is pushed to retire after an election loss. Or Styria's Governor Franz Voves.

It's almost impossible that FPÖ's Strache will ever be our Chancellor. And I also don't see ÖVP's Spindelegger as Chancellor - ever.

[RogueBeaver]

In Australia Tony Abbott is all but certain to comfortably defeat Labor next year and succeed Julia Gillard as Prime Minister.

Canada: It depends on who forms Opposition after 2015.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Canada: At this point I'd say Mulcair is somewhat likely to be the next Prime Minister, but it's possible (although it'd be kind of a horrible possibility in my opinion) that the Tories regain their welcome in the next three years and win again, in which case I would hope for Alison Redford, but I'm certainly not holding my breath. Maybe that Kenney person or whatever his name is?

UK: Miliband or whoever succeeds him as Leader of the Labour Party.

France: Well, we're in for either five or ten years of Hollande, and that's long enough in French politics that I really don't know, especially considering that France has a semipresidential system where there's not always someone obvious 'in waiting' for the opposition. It's entirely possible that the French right will reconstitute itself in a major way post-Sarkozy, probably not for the better.

Germany: Who's the SDP leader these days? Wikipedia tells me it's still Frank-Walter Steinmeier. I'd expect Hannelore Kraft would be more likely than him to beat out Merkel, but my perspective might be skewed by being on this side of the Atlantic.

Israel: Unfortunately, Bibi probably has leadership of this country for as long as he wants it. In the event that he retires at the next election, probably some other Likudnik. I can't see the Israeli center or left retaking power any time soon.

Australia: Abbott. God have mercy.

[Vasall des Midas]

Germany: Who's the SDP leader these days? Wikipedia tells me it's still Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Chair of the parliamentary party. He's very much the number three within the de-facto troika of potential chancellor candidates (behind party chair Sigmar Gabriel and... uh... what's his current position again?) Peer Steinbrück.  Anyways we'll most likely get another Merkel-led grand coalition after the next elections.

[Gary J]

Who will climb to the top of the greasy pole, by becoming a national leade,r is not always easy to predict.

So far as the UK is concerned, unless there is more change to the party system than has been seen since the Second World War, the next Prime Minister will be either the then Conservative leader or the Labour leader. During the current coalition there may be some slight chance of Nick Clegg becoming a caretaker Prime Minister, for a few weeks until a new Conservative leader is elected, if Cameron was to leave office with immediate effect rather than when his successor was available. The UK tradition is to select from members of the cabinet or shadow cabinet. There is no history of outsiders being parachuted into the premiership.

It is more difficult than ever to identify future leaders, as the modern trend has been to select younger and less experienced leaders and to change them more frequently, than was the mid-twentieth century practice.

The current Labour option is Ed Milliband. He might get lucky, if the electorate in 2015 decides it is time for a change, but Ed seems more like a transitional leader than one who will lead his party to power. I very much doubt Ed Milliband could survive a defeat.

The other options in the Labour Party are either not yet well known or not noticeably popular. The Blair/Brown years did not enhance anyone else's claims to lead the party. There are figures like David Milliband and Ed Balls (or his wife Yvette Cooper) who might put themselves forward again, but I suspect Labour would prefer to skip a generation and choose its next leader from those not in Parliament (or who were too junior to be noticed) during the Blair/Brown years.

The next Conservative leader is equally uncertain. None of the Tory cabinet members have emerged as a clear heir. If the Conservatives lose the next election or Cameron falls under the proverbial bus, presumably one of them will be chosen leader. If Cameron wins the 2015 election he will probably stay on for another five years at least. It may be that his eventual replacement is someone we would not now think of. When Mrs Thatcher became Conservative leader in 1975, her successor (John Major) was four years away from winning a Parliamentary seat.

[You kip if you want to...]

The next Conservative leader is equally uncertain. None of the Tory cabinet members have emerged as a clear heir. If the Conservatives lose the next election or Cameron falls under the proverbial bus, presumably one of them will be chosen leader. If Cameron wins the 2015 election he will probably stay on for another five years at least. It may be that his eventual replacement is someone we would not now think of. When Mrs Thatcher became Conservative leader in 1975, her successor (John Major) was four years away from winning a Parliamentary seat.

Word is that Cameron's looking at leaving around 2018, should they win in 2015 (although, I wouldn't hold my breath). Osborne's already making soundings with the parliamentary party, but he's more unpopular than swill in the country and even among party members. It seems a lot of MPs are holding him  and Nick Clegg personally responsible for the train wreck that the government has become this year.

Boris Johnson's an option, should he return to parliament, but it's unlikely. I don't even think he thinks it's likely, but the Tory Party would give him the leadership in a heartbeat if he wanted it.

Michael Gove would be the guy to excite the base, which is what matters in a leadership election. Of course, he'd never find popularity in the country.

Liam Fox could easy be the guy who tries to knife Cameron, but that's unlikely to succeed. Very politically convenient that he ended up being struck down.

There isn't really anyone else high up enough in the party, who's seriously interested, with enough support from the parliamentary Tories to be viable.

[Talleyrand]

Australia- Tony Abbott will win a robust majority for the Liberal/National Coalition next year and he will probably be around for about three terms.

U.K.- I think there will be a hung parliament in the 2015 election, with Labour the largest party, but the Liberal Democrats (though substantially reduced in number, holding the balance of power). I think Ed Miliband will become PM, but his political position will be weak.

Germany- While the polls are close, I fully expect Merkel's popularity will seal the deal for her CDU/CSU party to remain in power for another four years. I think Hannelore Kraft will wait until 2017 to bid for the Chancellorship and then likely win narrowly.

Canada- There will either be another Tory majority or hung parliament. In the latter scenario, I expect Thomas Mulcair to take over the Prime Ministership. I'm not sure who'd succeed Harper in the 2015-2019 parliament as PM if he won a majority though.

France- I think Hollande will lose in a similar manner to Sarkozy this year. Potential UMP Presidents  include Jean-Francois Cope and Christine Lagarde.

Israel- The person who said Bibi will be PM as long as he wants it is probably right.

I'm not that well-versed German, French, and Israeli politics, so my predictions could be very wrong, but I expect my predictions in the other three nations to be correct.

[Smid]

Here in Australia, Tony Abbott should be able to form a comfortable majority, but unforeseen things can always happen to change the dynamic. Incumbent governments and members can establish themselves in their communities and can sometimes resist swings - it all comes down to the marginal seat campaign... just see the results of Labor's very effective marginal seats campaign in the last South Australian state election. Distributing votes to the 2PP level (rather than 2CP level - ie, removing the influence of the independents), the seats fell 27 vs 20 in favour of Labor, however the vote was 51.6% vs 48.4% in favour of the Liberals. Additionally, look at the seat of Robertson last election - the first-term MP holding the seat quitting amid scandal, but Labor still won, against the odds. Anyway, I would expect Abbott to win, but you never know.

If you're wanting to follow foreign politics more, how much do you know about the Australian system? We're Parliamentary, so in some ways, the Prime Minister is similar to the House Majority Leader. Our Senate is elected, with Senators serving longer than MPs, and with half the Senators from each state elected at each election (plus all the Territory Senators), and the other half being elected at the following election - which is a little like your Senate having different terms to the House and Presidency, and not all Senators elected at the same election.

Our MPs represent districts, like your local Congressional Representative, and they're elected through preferential voting/IRV, much like Atlasian presidential elections, but without write-ins, and where you have to put a sequential preference mark against every candidate (technically, you can leave the last square blank, because that's deemed to be your final preference, but for the sake of argument, you have to give a preference to each candidate).

Our Senate is elected much like Atlaisan At-Large Senators, through STV. There are two Senators for the Northern Territory, and two for the Australian Capital Territory, and they are elected at every election, however each State has twelve Senators, with six being elected at each election (unless it's a Double Dissolution, in which case they're all up). There are so many Senate candidates that although voters are able to vote for each candidate (like in Atlasia - this is called "below-the-line" voting), most (by which I mean 90-95%) vote "above-the-line" which means they just vote "1" against the party (what this means is that they agree for their preferences to be allocated according to the preferences recommended by that party - therefore it ends up behaving more like a List Model of PR, than STV).

The Constitution sets out that, as near as practicable, the House should be twice the size of the Senate(s24). This is a subtle way of reinforcing that in disputes between the Houses, it is the Reps, not the Senate, which is dominant... When there is a dispute between the Houses, which is defined in s57 of the Constitution, there is a Double Dissolution. This is when one House passes a Bill, and the other House rejects it or moves amendments that are unacceptable to the original House, and then the original House passes the Bill a second time, and the same thing happens. Following the DD, the House can again move the Bill, and if it's blocked again by the Senate, there is a joint sitting of the House and Senate, and of course, as mentioned, there are twice as many MPs as Senators, thereby reinforcing that the House is dominant over the Senate.

At the Double Dissolution, all Senators are up for election, not just the half that would be up next. Since there are twelve Senators running for election in each state, rather than just six, the quota to be elected to the Senate is reduced (from 1/7th to 1/13th - I assume you understand quotas under STV). Obviously a lower quota makes it easier for minor parties to be elected at a Double Dissolution, than at a normal General Election. The six Senators from each state who were elected last are the ones who will be up for re-election at the next General Election, while the six who were elected first will serve a full term.

The Cabinet is formed by Members of the House and Senate. If a Cabinet Minister is not a Member of Parliament, or a Senator, they have three months to become a Senator or MP (s64 of the Constitution).

Edit: Due to the manner in which Senators are elected, the Government doesn't tend to get a majority in that House, and therefore must deal with the other parties to ensure the passage of legislation. The House of Reps also currently has a minority parliament situation, which is exceptionally infrequent.

Redistributions are carried out at different times in different states - after the election, the Electoral Commission determines if any states gain or lose seats, and if so, a redistribution commences in those seats. Additionally, if the variance in population in seats within a state is too great, one will commence in that state - with no change to the number of seats in that state, obviously. Likewise, if a certain number of years have elapsed since the last redistribution occurred in a state, that state will also have a redistribution (again, with no change to the number of seats). Since the 2010 election, redistributions have been finalised in Victoria and South Australia.

The following 2CP map incorporates the changed boundaries in those states and all electorates are shaded according to estimates of the 2010 election results in seats which have changed (all other states, the actual results are used). It is unlikely there will be any further boundary changes between now and the election. Bob Katter was elected as an independent, but has since formed "Katter's Australia Party" - since it keeps his name, I've just shaded his seat as being won by the party, rather than by him as an independent. Independents are also elected in New England, Lyne (both NSW) and Denison (Tasmania). The Greens also hold the seat of Melbourne.

As a candidate needs to get 50% (+1 vote) to get elected, preferences are distributed in their seats. You'd understand this from Atlasia. Anyway, a Two Candidate Preferred count is conducted - which is your normal "distribute preferences until just two candidates remain" count, but the Electoral Commission conducts a further count of Two Party Preferred - which is a Labor vs Coalition result, regardless of who won the seat (in other words, even though the Liberals finished behind the Greens in Melbourne, the 2PP result would show Labor vs Greens).



Bigger version in the Gallery.

[Mr. Morden]

There are quite a few futures markets on UK politics.  Here's a sampling, with percentage probabilities listed, as calculated from the current betting odds:

Betfair:

Party to win most seats at next election:
Labour 52%
Conservatives 48%

Next Conservative Leader:
Boris Johnson 20.1%
George Osborne 13.7%
Michael Gove 11.1%
William Hague 9.1%
David Davis 6.8%

Next Labour Leader:
Yvette Cooper 31.0%
David Miliband 18.5%
Chuka Umunna 9.1%
Ed Balls 8.4%
Alistair Darling 7.8%

Paddy Power:

Next Prime Minister:
Ed Miliband 40.0%
Yvette Cooper 13.3%
George Osborne 10.0%
Boris Johnson 8.3%
Ed Balls 7.7%
Michael Gove 7.7%

Ladbrokes:

Cameron to still be Conservative Leader at next election: 83.3%
Ed Miliband to still be Labour Leader at next election: 75.0%

[Mr. Morden]

Also, I used to be able to find more betting odds for Australian politics.  At the moment, I do see that Ladbrokes seems to have Rudd as slightly more likely to be leading Labor at the next election than Gillard.  Their most likely matchups for the next election are:

Abbott vs. Rudd 33.9%
Abbott vs. Gillard 30.3%

[Marcus Aurelius]

France- I think Hollande will lose in a similar manner to Sarkozy this year. Potential UMP Presidents  include Jean-Francois Cope and Christine Lagarde.

I'm not that well-versed German, French, and Israeli politics, so my predictions could be very wrong, but I expect my predictions in the other three nations to be correct.

As a French I can assure you that nobody is speaking about a potential Christine Lagarde Presidency of France. I can see why you would think otherwise from your cross-Atlantic point of view, since she is closer to you in DC than to us, but that is the fact : she no longer appears in any French newspaper or TV news. Ever. Our press tends to speak about 98% of the time about France, France, France. And mainland France of course.

For now, there is no indication if Hollande could or could not be reelected in 2017, but let's say he still has his shot.

Rightwise, we have two people fighting for the presidency of the UMP, the main opposition party : the incumbent PM François Fillon, representing the "dull" tendancy, and the incumbent secretary general of that party, Jean-François Copé, representing the "muscled" tendancy. Nothing is preventing Sarkozy to run for President again in 2017 and settle that battle though.

We shouldn't rule out, unfortunately, the possibility of another right-wing candidate to win President, extreme-right Marine Le Pen.

[You kip if you want to...]

France- I think Hollande will lose in a similar manner to Sarkozy this year. Potential UMP Presidents  include Jean-Francois Cope and Christine Lagarde.

I'm not that well-versed German, French, and Israeli politics, so my predictions could be very wrong, but I expect my predictions in the other three nations to be correct.

As a French I can assure you that nobody is speaking about a potential Christine Lagarde Presidency of France. I can see why you would think otherwise from your cross-Atlantic point of view, since she is closer to you in DC than to us, but that is the fact : she no longer appears in any French newspaper or TV news. Ever. Our press tends to speak about 98% of the time about France, France, France. And mainland France of course.

For now, there is no indication if Hollande could or could not be reelected in 2017, but let's say he still has his shot.

Rightwise, we have two people fighting for the presidency of the UMP, the main opposition party : the incumbent PM François Fillon, representing the "dull" tendancy, and the incumbent secretary general of that party, Jean-François Copé, representing the "muscled" tendancy. Nothing is preventing Sarkozy to run for President again in 2017 and settle that battle though.

We shouldn't rule out, unfortunately, the possibility of another right-wing candidate to win President, extreme-right Marine Le Pen.

The run off would surely stop Marine. And while we're on it, is it even certain that the UMP will even exist in 2017? I was always under the impression it was just a cult of personality for Sarko, and now with him gone...

[Formerly Californian Tony]

France- I think Hollande will lose in a similar manner to Sarkozy this year. Potential UMP Presidents  include Jean-Francois Cope and Christine Lagarde.

I'm not that well-versed German, French, and Israeli politics, so my predictions could be very wrong, but I expect my predictions in the other three nations to be correct.

As a French I can assure you that nobody is speaking about a potential Christine Lagarde Presidency of France. I can see why you would think otherwise from your cross-Atlantic point of view, since she is closer to you in DC than to us, but that is the fact : she no longer appears in any French newspaper or TV news. Ever. Our press tends to speak about 98% of the time about France, France, France. And mainland France of course.

For now, there is no indication if Hollande could or could not be reelected in 2017, but let's say he still has his shot.

Rightwise, we have two people fighting for the presidency of the UMP, the main opposition party : the incumbent PM François Fillon, representing the "dull" tendancy, and the incumbent secretary general of that party, Jean-François Copé, representing the "muscled" tendancy. Nothing is preventing Sarkozy to run for President again in 2017 and settle that battle though.

We shouldn't rule out, unfortunately, the possibility of another right-wing candidate to win President, extreme-right Marine Le Pen.

The run off would surely stop Marine. And while we're on it, is it even certain that the UMP will even exist in 2017? I was always under the impression it was just a cult of personality for Sarko, and now with him gone...

The UMP was actually created two years before Sarko took over it, and was designed by Chirac to be Juppé's presidential vehicle. When Juppé got sentenced to ineligibility, Sarko staged a coup and Chirac failed to stop him.

Anyways, civil war is far from being a new thing inside the french right. We had Chirac/Giscard, Chirac/Balladur, Chirac-Villepin/Sarkozy... It has always survived in some way or another. The UMP will certainly survive the Copé-Fillon civil war as well, which is far from the worst.

[Vote UKIP!]

Australia- I believe that it is clear that Abbott will become the next Prime Minister. Of course, if Gillard's numbers continue to plummet, I could see yet another leadership spill before the 2013 deadline.

Canada- I'm a bit stuck on this one. Harper will probably lose seats in the 2015 election. To what extent remains to be seen. I could see Harper remaining PM as head of a minority government. We have yet to see how the post-Layton NDP will fair. I still don't see Mulcair forming a majority. And of course, an attempted NDP-Grits coalition would cause cries of indignation from the Tories.

United Kingdom- 2015 does not look good for Cameron should trends in polling data continue. However, I can't forsee Ed as PM either. Ed does seem more like an interim leader than Prime Minister material. I'll go with most of the predictions on this thread that give the Tory leadership to Johnson, and the Labor leadership to a Post-Blair figure.

The other nations I am a bit fuzzy on.

[clarence]

Thank you everyone!!! This is fascinating....

[DL]

Canada- I'm a bit stuck on this one. Harper will probably lose seats in the 2015 election. To what extent remains to be seen. I could see Harper remaining PM as head of a minority government. We have yet to see how the post-Layton NDP will fair. I still don't see Mulcair forming a majority. And of course, an attempted NDP-Grits coalition would cause cries of indignation from the Tories.

If Harper loses his majority in 2015 (which I think is extremely likely), Mulcair would form a minority government with Liberal support (or possibly a coalition) - regardless of whether the NDP was the largest or the second largest party. We can live with a few Tory "cries of indignation" - there will be nothing they can do about it...in any case the big problem with the 2008 abortive coalition was the involvement of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Now that they are virtually dead - it would hard to summon up much civil unrest over two federalist parties like the NDP and Liberals joining forces.

[You kip if you want to...]

Canada- I'm a bit stuck on this one. Harper will probably lose seats in the 2015 election. To what extent remains to be seen. I could see Harper remaining PM as head of a minority government. We have yet to see how the post-Layton NDP will fair. I still don't see Mulcair forming a majority. And of course, an attempted NDP-Grits coalition would cause cries of indignation from the Tories.

If Harper loses his majority in 2015 (which I think is extremely likely), Mulcair would form a minority government with Liberal support (or possibly a coalition) - regardless of whether the NDP was the largest or the second largest party. We can live with a few Tory "cries of indignation" - there will be nothing they can do about it...in any case the big problem with the 2008 abortive coalition was the involvement of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Now that they are virtually dead - it would hard to summon up much civil unrest over two federalist parties like the NDP and Liberals joining forces.

Or the Liberals could prove themselves as the joke party they now are and copy their British counterparts.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

Maybe that Kenney person or whatever his name is?

While I don't expect Harpo to go anywhere anytime soon, there's a possibility in the long-term that after 2015, if he's reelected - which isn't a sure thing, even for my pessimist self - Harper might start thinking of pulling out in favour of some new guy. The CPC caucus and cabinet is very short on talent, so it's hard, at this juncture, to say who would be leader if Harper ever retired.

Jim Flaherty could probably win but by whatever time Harper is out, I doubt he'll want to begin a political career at the top. He's been in politics for a long time and he'll be getting quite old by that time.

John Baird is kinda young, but he's probably still too much of an abrasive bully/attack-dog politico to be a good contender for Prime Minister. He's also, from my perspective, not the brightest bulb in the pack. And he might be a bit tad too centrist for the base, and overall he seems more suited for an attack dog/bully style than actual leadership of the party, but the Tories can be weird.

Peter MacKay is not going anywhere, he was too centrist and Red Toryish for the base before and now he's also really damaged goods with a crappy reputation as a liar and a crook. He's also a moron, but from my perspective, a lot of his colleagues are too.

I don't know a lot about Rob Nicholson (but I know enough to really dislike him), but he's not a very high-profile guy despite his portfolio and he might be getting a bit too old when Harper finally retires.

Tony Clement might be a contender by the time Harper pulls out, but I don't really know, he's an idiot/tool and he seems like damaged goods to me. He's also uninspiring and everything.

The Tories have nobody worth a damn in Quebec, and even if they did, it would take some superstar for the party to elect a Quebecois leader. Christian Paradis is a total moron and a crook, while Maxime Bernier is on Harper's sh**t list and for good reason - he's another total doofus. If anybody from Quebec runs, it would probably be Bernier, as a shout-out to any libertarian base in the party; but then again, I'm just saying this for the form, even the Tories won't let a retard like Bernier get anywhere near a position of power. There's also Denis Lebel, but I don't care.

James Moore might be somebody worth watching; he's from the West, he has Alliance credentials but isn't a nutjob (probably because he's in the closet), he's young, he's not too controversial and he doesn't seem to be too incompetent even with my really tinted glasses. He's something of a creeper, but that's just an anecdote.

So, in the end, yeah, Jason Kenney is probably a good guess, for now - as far as I know, by the time Harper pulls out, you might have some rising star which we don't really know about right now. He's young, he's from Alberta, he doesn't seem overly controversial, he doesn't seem like a nutjob, he's held an important portfolio and he played a very big role in building the Tory majority in 2011 with his immigrant-outreach stuff.

In terms of longshots, Leona Aglukkaq from Nunavut is young, one of the most competent ministers (imo), is a woman and she's Inuit. She's really a longshot, but something tells me, for whatever reason, that if Harper would promote her to a more visible and useful position, she could have a good future. On that female note, there aren't a lot of women in the cabinet who seem like strong leadership contenders: Ambrose is an idiot, and the others (Raitt, Finley) seem pretty unremarkable and don't stand out by their talent or anything, at least for me.

Some young up-and-coming Tory MPs/juniors like Chris Alexander, Shelly Glover, or even Peter Penashue could certainly be contenders by then, but it requires a rapid promotion to portfolios which are actually relevant and sh**t.

As for France, I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the elephant in the room for Hollande's chances in 2017: the state of the economy between now and then. I think how he'll be viewed by the electorate and how the opposition acts will be heavily dependent on how the economy goes. 5 years is a long time, but Europe is deep in the sh**tter. He's "lucky" that he'll have a free-pass of sorts until 2014/2015 to implement all the unpopular austerity/cuts he will and that he needs to do it so early on in his term. 5 years is shorter than the 7 year term in the past, but the 7 year terms were not really 7 years of free-passes because you had the legislative elections acting as midterms and so forth. If the economy hasn't improved, he could very well lose and Melenchon could potentially be a major thorn in his side. If the economy is better, then he will probably have a boost.

Who is the UMP's candidate also plays a role, and there's such a free for all that nobody can claim to know who will be the UMP candidate. Going only by things as they stand now, Fillon is the strongest candidate, stronger than Cope. I don't think, at this point, that Cope could beat Hollande even in a 'tied-race' kind of circumstance. He has a bad image as a somewhat hard-line, too 'liberal', party big boss. Fillon has a way better image in public opinion than he does.
 
The young 'uns like NKM, Wauquiez, Le Maire or Baroin will need to make themselves relevant and very visible in the next 5 years, hence why they're so keen, some of them, on making themselves heard on top of the Fillon/Cope cacophony. They're still unknown quantities against Fillon and Cope at this point, so it's hard to say where they'll be in 2017 or how good they'll be as potential candidates. Wauquiez and NKM are definitely quite ambitious and talented, fwiw.

Of course, Marion is worth watching, but anybody who thinks that she can win 50%+1 nationally in five years time save some *huge* event is obviously delusional. Even if her potential electorate (35-40% max) is way bigger than Daddy's old potential, which was 25% at most, she still has a stable 60% or so unfavourable rating which I doubt will improve out of the blue to give her a 50% favourable rating, let alone make her an actual serious contender for the presidency.

[Zioneer]

Well, I don't know about those countries, but there's an interesting contender for the presidency of Mali this year who (after democracy is restored, elections are rescheduled, etc) could prove to be a future dark horse candidate not involved with any of the groups that caused a stir this year. His name is Yeah Samake, and he's a Mormon.

Not to waste a good "I'm a Mormon" joke, but actually, he and his family are the only Mormons in all of Mali besides the LDS missionaries.

[Vosem]

Israel -- I'm not so sure Bibi is quite as safe as some of you say...the biggest issue in Israeli politics right now is the Tal Law and I don't think a secularist coalition excluding Likud is impossible depending on the result of the next election. But, yeah, he's favored.

Canada -- The Dauphin effect seems to suggest the Liberals will rebound enough that there will be a contest between Trudeau's Liberals and Mulcair's New Democrats for second place. Thus, the most likely is that Harper is reelected in 2015. If the majority continues, I doubt Harper stays on for another four years till 2019 -- I read somewhere that Jason Kenney is favored to become the next Conservative leader. If 2015 is a minority, then most likely whoever comes in second (Mulcair or Trudeau; I personally think Trudeau is likelier) takes over sometime 2016-18.

UK -- I'm not happy to say this, but Ed Miliband taking over as PM after a successful 2015 election looks like the likeliest scenario. Who succeeds Cameron as Conservative leader is more questionable -- George Osborne is the 'favorite' but he's hated, so I doubt he gets it. In my mind the candidates are Boris Johnson and William Hague, but then I'm not British.

Australia -- It's literally a certainty Tony Abbott defeats Julia Gillard in a landslide in 2013. The question is how big the landslide is. As always with enormous victories, unexpected things happen so it's difficult to look beyond 2013.

Germany -- Looks like another 'Grand Coalition' between Merkel and the SDP in 2013, with Merkel remaining as Chancellor for another four years. After that I don't know about Germany to say with confidence.

France -- It all depends on the state of the economy in 2017; things aren't looking particularly good now but with elections just concluded it's really too early to say. As Hashemite noted, the obvious UMP possibilities are Francois Fillon and Jean-Francois Cope, though honestly I can't see Sarkozy just bowing out of politics. He might be able to take a few years off, the way Nixon did after 1962, but not just leave.

So, yeah. Most of my political knowledge is centered around the US, and to a lesser degree Israel and Canada. Past that I'm not really that knowledgable (history I'm good at at, and I'm Wikipedia-ing Indian electoral politics trying to learn about that, but it's still early days, I need a book about it)...

[DL]

Kenney would have some major liabilities as a prospective Onseevative leader. He seems to have a personal life that no one would care about in other parties, but in the Onservative party, the base needs a leader with a wife and kids. Kenney is a lifelong "bachelor" , was once in a seminary, is part of some ultra-conservative Catholic sect, declared himself to be a "virgin" when he was already in his 30s and is widely rumoured to be a closet gay man, in the Conservative policy all of that is a total deal breaker so scratch him off the list.

I think when Harper quits Jim Prentice could make a come bak.

[Talleyrand]

France- I think Hollande will lose in a similar manner to Sarkozy this year. Potential UMP Presidents  include Jean-Francois Cope and Christine Lagarde.

I'm not that well-versed German, French, and Israeli politics, so my predictions could be very wrong, but I expect my predictions in the other three nations to be correct.

As a French I can assure you that nobody is speaking about a potential Christine Lagarde Presidency of France. I can see why you would think otherwise from your cross-Atlantic point of view, since she is closer to you in DC than to us, but that is the fact : she no longer appears in any French newspaper or TV news. Ever. Our press tends to speak about 98% of the time about France, France, France. And mainland France of course.

For now, there is no indication if Hollande could or could not be reelected in 2017, but let's say he still has his shot.

Rightwise, we have two people fighting for the presidency of the UMP, the main opposition party : the incumbent PM François Fillon, representing the "dull" tendancy, and the incumbent secretary general of that party, Jean-François Copé, representing the "muscled" tendancy. Nothing is preventing Sarkozy to run for President again in 2017 and settle that battle though.

We shouldn't rule out, unfortunately, the possibility of another right-wing candidate to win President, extreme-right Marine Le Pen.

Thanks for the information. I thought that Lagarde would make a good candidate for the UMP because she holds the same position DSK did and could potentially using it a launching pad.

If Hollande wins reelection and retires in 2022, who are some potential Socialist candidates who could then run for the presidency?

[Senator MaxQue]

France- I think Hollande will lose in a similar manner to Sarkozy this year. Potential UMP Presidents  include Jean-Francois Cope and Christine Lagarde.

I'm not that well-versed German, French, and Israeli politics, so my predictions could be very wrong, but I expect my predictions in the other three nations to be correct.

As a French I can assure you that nobody is speaking about a potential Christine Lagarde Presidency of France. I can see why you would think otherwise from your cross-Atlantic point of view, since she is closer to you in DC than to us, but that is the fact : she no longer appears in any French newspaper or TV news. Ever. Our press tends to speak about 98% of the time about France, France, France. And mainland France of course.

For now, there is no indication if Hollande could or could not be reelected in 2017, but let's say he still has his shot.

Rightwise, we have two people fighting for the presidency of the UMP, the main opposition party : the incumbent PM François Fillon, representing the "dull" tendancy, and the incumbent secretary general of that party, Jean-François Copé, representing the "muscled" tendancy. Nothing is preventing Sarkozy to run for President again in 2017 and settle that battle though.

We shouldn't rule out, unfortunately, the possibility of another right-wing candidate to win President, extreme-right Marine Le Pen.

Thanks for the information. I thought that Lagarde would make a good candidate for the UMP because she holds the same position DSK did and could potentially using it a launching pad.

If Hollande wins reelection and retires in 2022, who are some potential Socialist candidates who could then run for the presidency?

The only prohiminent Socialists which will be at a reasonable age in 2022 than I see are Marisol Touraine and Manuel Valls, but I don't think Touraine is interested and than Valls is enough consentual in the party. Or Montebourg??

Hashemite, Antonio, some ideas?

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

Manuel Valls is definitely ambitious and it's no secret his presidential run was a way to get his name out there for 2022, and so far, he's quite popular as Interior Minister. I think a stint in government could help him break his "liberal" image within the PS somewhat and make him a more palatable centrist option. He's also popular on the right, but I don't think that will endure for 10 years!

Marisol Touraine seems young and appears, so far, to be a competent minister. She has a future, but it's hard to say whether she'd be a good candidate in 2022 given that it's 10 years away and that right now she's only getting her name out there and building up notoriety.

Montebourg can probably always count on a strong minority from the party's left (unless he loses his aura with any potential faux-pas or stupid antics in cabinet), but I don't think he can win. But it's in 10 years.

Aurélie Filippetti will be 48 in 2022, which is still young for a presidential contender, but she is talented and she can go places. Delphine Batho will be 49 by 2022 as well, and so far she's proven to be a very strong one-termer kind of deputy and she's also talented. I'm not sure if the other youngie, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, who will be 44, could be a candidate.

But - who would have thought, in 1997, that Segolene Royal would be the PS candidate 10 years later? Hollande could always have been a reasonable future candidate back in 2002, but, in 2008, who would have thought that a guy with his image would be President four years later? The PS bench in the National Assembly has a lot of young people (including younger women) and a few of them will definitely go places.