Meet the man who claims he toppled Blunkett
September 30th, 2005-
Is David Davis really the man gamblers should thank?
One of the great bets at the end of last year was the 7/2 you could get against David Blunkett not surviving until the end of December in all the furore over the Kimberely Quinn paternity case. Blunkett was of course Home Secretary and David Davis was his Tory shadow.
Until yesterday’s formal launch of the David Davis campaign for the Tory leadership not everybody, we guess, fully realised the part that Davis played in Blunkett’s departure. For in a BBC potted history of the paternity affair the Shadow home Secretary’s name appears just once and that was a reference to a call he made sixteen days before the departure.
-
But according to the short biography on his campaign website one of Davis’s achievements, we are told, was that it was he who “prompted” Blunkett’s resignation.
This follows the the Newsnight feature on Wednesday which questioned the extent of his role in coming to the aid of a gay teenager while he was at school - something that he has spoken about. That can be explained because it was all a long time ago and people have different memories.
The Blunkett claim is different because he is talking about something that happened amidst a huge amount of publicity just ten months ago and is within people’s recall. You have to be careful about taking the credit for things that people know about.
Tory leadership betting prices
Conventional bookmakers best price: Davis 8/15: Clarke 11/4: Cameron 10/1: Fox 12/1: Rifkind 33/1 Betfair betting exchange: Davis 0.6/1: Clark 2.85/1: Cameron 8.8/1: Fox 11.5/1: Rifkind 84/1 BinaryBet spread market. Davis 56-63: Clarke 23-29: Cameron 5-9 Fox 5-9: Rifkind 1-3
MessageSpace Advertising
Here’s last nights by-election results:
http://scottish-independence.blogspot.com/2005/09/three-excellent-performances.html
Livingston constituency
Westminster by-election
29 September 2005
(change from election 2005)
1. Labour 42% (-9%)
2. Scottish National Party 33% (+11%)
3. Liberal Democrats 15% (-1%)
4. Conservatives 7% (-3%)
5. Scottish Green Party 2% (-)
6. Scottish Socialist Party 1% (nc)
7. UKIP 0.4% (-)
8. “Independent” 0.2% (-)
9. Alliance for Change 0.1% (-)
10. Socialist Party of Great Britain 0.1% (-)
Turnout 39% (-20%)
LAB HOLD - swing from Labour to SNP of 10.2%
Glasgow Cathcart constituency
Scottish Parliamentary by-election
29 September 2005
(change from general election 2003)
1. Labour 38% (-2%)
2. Scottish National Party 22% (+6%)
3. Conservative and Unionist 15% (+2%)
4. Liberal Democrats 10% (+2%)
5. “Independent” Pat “Lazarus” Lally 6% (-)
6. Scottish Socialist Party 5% (-7%)
7. Scottish Green Party 4% (-)
8. “Independent” 0.4% (-)
9. United Kingdom Independence Party 0.4% (-)
Turnout 32% (-11%)
LAB HOLD - swing from Lab to SNP of 3.7%
Auchtertool and Burnisland East ward
Fife Council by-election
29 September 2005
(change from council elections 2003)
1. Scottish National Party
2. Labour
3. “Independent”
4. Liberal Democrats
5. Conservative
Turnout
SNP GAIN FROM IND
Sorry I haven’t got the detailed results yet for Fife, but for your info, the result last time was: IND 30% LAB 29% SNP 25% LD 17% and the LibDems had actually held the ward as recently as 2003. A big collapse for the lap-dogs.
Mike,is this to be phase 2 of the campaign ?
Pretty low stuff, I’m disappointed you’ve chosen to go there.
3 - I think Mike’s article is pretty fair comment. The press is much more to thank than DD for getting rid of Blunkett (sadly, only temporarily).
3. I think Kimberly Quinn (or is her name Kimberly Queen?) could cliam Blunkett’s scalp better than Davis.
Kimberly for Leader
TB @ 2. If your man does get selected then every aspect of his life until now will be crawled over by the media and opponents. Having a reputation for embellishment might not be very smart. Taking the credit for things when you were only part of the story is not a good idea.
Having watched the launch and this week’s coverage I now think that Davis will be beaten in the membership ballot by whoever he is up against.
5. Even Fox?
If so could be worth a punt - all it would need is for Davis tactical voting to get him in the top 2. He’s now 12-1 on Betfair.
5. “Having a reputation for embellishment might not be very smart.”
Worked for Tony Blair
I was at the Davis launch yesterday and was distinctly underwhelmed. His speech was quite well delivered and what he had to say I agree with but his handling of the questions was poor.
He has a tendency to mumble and not form his words properly. When under pressure and not rehearsed, his sentences tail away into a mumble. I expect a lot better from a potential leader.
By contrast Cameron was bright and energetic. Its a bit of shame he has no chance really!
I was very impressed with Ken Clarke on Question Time last night. He at least is projecting the image of a leader. He is pleasant assured and (seeemingly) well respected by the audience. He was a pleasant contrast to the patronising, school marm like Patricia Hewitt and the “Christian Voice” nutter!
I am still floating!
The characteristic any leader needs is to be lucky. There are various (obviously imprecise) ways of trying to examine this ‘luck’ from different angles. One in particular that has ‘legs’ is the ‘teflon’ quality.
In politics, the only measurable quality needed is to be a good speaker. Look at the (quite underserved) credit that was awarded to Blair after his comments post 7/7/05.
The problem for an analytical site like this one is that many posters don’t actually seem to like the fact that such an indefinable quality as luck is actually the key. They prefer to study, and comment on, individual policies, alliances, political achievements and other more quantifiable measures. MS and I and a few others think this completely misses the point. One contributor actually wondered whether Hague could ‘get lucky’. Just asking the question…
7 - “Worked for Tony Blair ;-)”
True. It would be interesting to see if Brown tried to attack it though, like Bush very successfully did to Gore in 2000. “He said he invented the internet!” - er, no he didn’t, but the perception stuck.
8- I can never decide what I like better the sound of Patricia Hewitt’s voice or the sound of nails scratching against a blackboard (sorry Ben!). After Ian McCartney she would be my ideal choice for Labour leader.
I thought Ken was good as well (but then I would). Disapointed I cant make it to the conference (flying out to Barcelona on Monday - working unfortunately) it would have been good to hear the various speeches. I’m hoping I can get my girlfriend to record them for me without her thinking I’m a truely tragic individual!
Re: 8 - very rare that I agree with Rik, but Clarke still has the gravitas that eludes most politicians. It’s clear that if non-Tories could choose the Tory leader, Clarke would be a shoo-in. The problem is, we’ve been here before. Clarke had gravitas in 1997 and 2001 especially outside the Conservative party.
I still think it will be Davis and Clarke on the members’ ballot. I think it’s too early to pass judgement on Davis - if/when he’s elected, there will be opportunities aplenty for him to prove himself.
Cameron did put down an impressive marker for next time. I suppose he might reason that as he was once Howard’s “heir”, he might become Clarke’s who, I suspect, even if he made it to Downing Street, would only serve one term.
If Davis wins and makes it to Downing Street, Cameron faces a longer wait and the prospect of being outmanoeuvred by Osborne, who, by opting out of the whole shambles, has played an immensely intelligent game.
I would be far more interested in backing Osborne to be the Tory leader after next than I would in the Tories winning the next election.
OT Result of the Thailand Open by election :
Andy Murray : Scottish Tennis Jacobite Party 6:4 6:3
Robby Ginepri : American Hanovarian Alsoran Liberal Democrat 6:3
Scottish Tennis Jacobite Gain
Effortless Swing
11.”After Ian McCartney ”
Ian McCarthey reminds me of Chucky, a doll who starred in a 80’s horror movie.
http://www.nostalgia.com/posters/60983.JPG
12 - I wonder what Osborne will get in the new leader’s shadow cabinet. Surely it is not credible that we will remain as Shadow Chancellor. He might be best served by something like Health - particularly if KC is leader, so Osborne can represent a different perceived Tory approach from that of the 1980s, and push the “you paid the taxes, so why are you still on the waiting list?” argument.
12 - “I would be far more interested in backing Osborne to be the Tory leader after next than I would in the Tories winning the next election.”
I concur. Wouldn’t rule out Vaizey either.
14 - “Surely it is not credible that we will remain as Shadow Chancellor”
Why not?
Sorry, I meant “15 - “
I concur about Vaizey as well. Was his father a Labour peer?
19 - He was. Also noticed that Clement Attlee’s grandson (who looks just like him) is now a Tory peer.
14, 17 - ” Surely it is not credible that we will remain as Shadow Chancellor.”
“We” should have been “he”. I would not like to start speculation either that I am George Osborne, or that he has a royalty complex.
I think that either DD or KC would want a key ally as Shadow Chancellor - and more of a parliamentary big hitter than Osborne is; despite his undoubted talents he still doesn’t have extensive Commons experience. Not that I expect the Tories to listen to Lib Dem advice, of course.
Mike Smithson - I hope there are going to be similar articles on the other candidates. Looking forward to the true Ken Clarke piece were you examine the unpopular things he did in government ( as Hewitt was alluding to last night), BAT, how europe is not a dead issue, etc.
Otherwise alex would have been right when he mistakenly gave Ken Clarkes website as polticalbetting.com. Looking forward to seeing the balance.
15 - It depends fundamentally on who is leader. One of the problems of Cameron is that he might be tempted to bypass a whole generation of MPs to continue the approach of giving the Tory party a completely fresh look. On the other hand Clarke is possibly far more likely to grab politicians from the nineties and will need to find space for some ideological (pragmatical?) allies in the shadow cabinet.
22 — This misses the whole point of PB.com. It is not meant to give us BBC-balanced views on all runners. What’s valuable is that Mike steps off the fence, comes down on one side and makes a case. If you disagree — then you can bet against him. But he’s under no obligation to run tedious “on the one hand, on the other hand” pieces. He’s put his money where his mouth is, what more could you want.
I would expect an article on Ken Clarke looking at the aspects you mention — but don’t be surprised if the betting conclusion is that his popularity outweighs any downside from these matters.
22 - tbh Mike can do what he wants, it’s his site. On the other hand commentators can point out where bias seems to be creeping into his articles and he can take it on board. Personally i think of all the negatives one can produce about Davis, this is somewhat irrelevant.
I would be interested in some more detailed examination of the voting system, perhaps with reference to what happened in 2001. Plenty of scope to talk down Davis there - you just have to cast him as Portillo! (or even himself ;-))
Perhaps that can wait until after the Conference, which has huge significance. It is true that Davis has a significant handicap from his total lack of press support - the Telegraph doing its best to wreck the election as usual.
25 - Exactly. Well said!
25 alex. The conference will be critical to the race. And the ensuing mood music will give us a good guide to the feeling towards candidates.
I have to say I’m suprised at the luke warm effort from DD yesterday and most of the media have rightly indicated that in comparison to the DC launch, DD looked and sounded paralysed by frontrunner status. Yesterday damaged DD in my view. He’ll clearly stroll into the final two, but I wonder if it’s starting to dawn on Tory members that if DC shines in comparison with DD on a big day, how will DD cope in the spotlight as leader let alone the intensity of a GE campaign ?
Agree with the general tone of the comments here- it’s disappointing that Mike has climbed down into the mud.
When I first encountered this site, what I liked about it was the apparent broad spread of views and Mike’s balanced well-informed posts towering over the whole. Resorting to Davis bashing on the basis of the BBC (the BBC!!!) version of reality is…yes, extremely disappointing.
“Resorting to Davis bashing on the basis of the BBC (the BBC!!!) version of reality is…yes, extremely disappointing.”
Well, it’s not just the BBC version, is it? It’s not like none of us was around at the time of the Blunkett affair.
28.”BBC (the BBC!!!)”
Dennis Skinner has said this week that the BBC is very righ wing. Like the Daily Mail.
27 - I think he’s desperate not to take any risks which could subsequently turn into mistakes. It’ll be interesting to see if that strategy changes next week in the light of some of the slightly lukewarm press.
The scary thing about this contest is that Clarke is the best candidate. He is 65, stubborn and egotistical, and was a leading member of a very unpopular government. And yet he is STILL the best candidate! This speaks volumes about the poverty of talent in the Conservative party. Davis will be another IDS, maybe not quite so incompetent, but certainly not the kind of charismatic figure needed these days. Cameron may be one for the future but should have stayed out of this contest for fear of ruining himself a’la William Hague. Long-term the Tories only cause for optimism is a similar lack of talent within Labour - all of their leading figures are in their 50s/60s and once Brown has had his turn, who are the young pretenders coming up on the rails? David Miliband? Ed Balls? Labour may go the way of the Tories under Thatcher and Major, with the party crumbling in the wake of too many election victories.
Wat - Could you please respond to the claims above that DD was lacklustre yesterday and is general weak when it comes to speeches and media relations as a whole? As a floating-vote Tory I have noticed that you never answer these central concerns, namely that DD lacks the charisma and gravitas to grab voters’ attention away from Nu Lab.
28 Wat. You really have to accept that it’s Mike site, he’s not a BBC govenor. He indicates his betting position, then tells us why, and we can agree or disagree as we please. Mike is not an umpire !
BTW - Poor reception for your man yesterday - fraying at the edges ! or did you think it was a triumph
Sophia, are you still lurking out there?
David Miliband is excellent. And he actually makes efforts to answer interviewer’s questions
I think you underestimate some of the talent on the Labour benches which has had to wait its turn for a few years doing the hard yards in the state ministerial posts.
36 - They may (or may not) be able ministers but do any of them have a noticeable personality? In an age where everything is about image and celebrity, politicians are actually becoming duller.
32. “the poverty of talent in the Conservative party”
Osbourne, Gove, Vaizey, Cameron, Willets (if not in front of a camera), Hague, Rifkind. I’d take the likes of them over our current Cabinet any day.
Re 32 I tend to think there’s a decent amount of young brainpower on the Lab side - Milibands, Balls, Cooper, Kelly (over-promoted, but smart), Lammy, Alexander, probably others (Nick?) plus a few who lost but may well return. Not so sure about strength in depth, though.
I think I tend to agree with this:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1057-1804196,00.html
I can see why people would vote for DD. “I lived on a council estate, but life wasn’t bad.” v.good sentence IMO, not surprising the Indy use it as a heading.
36 - I quite like Miliband, D.
AHM - I am still lurking here!
re 32 again. perceptive point about Clarke. I’m finding it hard to assess whether he really has got solid teflon coating or whether it would peel off under the scrutiny of leadership. I’d like to think the latter (as I think making £££ with BAT while serving as an MP is shameful) but rather suspect the former. However, I also feel Clarke could peak within a year or two (unless recession, of course). TB/GB could play the long game and Clarke might not look quite so bubbly approaching 70.
38. Between the new tory intake, I would add Nick Herbert too (a DD’s man).
Btw, Bob Marshall Andrews said that the Left is thinking to challenge Blair with a stalking horse next year. They would need 71 signatures (and then a card vote at the conference): they’ve only 36 names at the moment.
They would like to challenge Brown too. The names under discussions are Michael Meacher, Alan Simpson and Frank Dobson.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article316106.ece
The kind of talent I’m referring to isn’t brainpower, it’s charisma, chutzpah, willpower. If intellect was the criteria for leadership then Dr David Starkey would be prime minister.
42 - I think the stuff about BAT is irrelevant. They make a product that people enjoy and that people are aware has dangers associated with it. I’m astonished at the Tories who dislike KC who become all PC and nanny statist just because KC helps sell fags. I smoke, I know its not good for me but I love it!
Far too early for schadenfreude as DD is still probably the front-runner, but I do wonder naughtily what noble thoughts are going through the minds of the likes of Damian Green and Ian Taylor.
Being naturally chaps of the utmost principle, devoted solely to the interests of the party, I’m sure that ruminations about personal career prospects would be considered base and unworthy ;), and that the Kuddly One, if elected, will remember affectionally their past loyalties rather than dwell on present desertion!
Ho, ho, ho.
43 Andrea. Meacher, Simpson and Dobbin - stalking horses
more like stalking the political knackers yard.
44 - Having met Dr Starkey I would say his chutzpah outweighs his intellect.
Edward Leigh outlines what Cornerstone demonds to leadership candidates:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4296944.stm
47. No, Jack. Simpson, Dobson and Meacher should be the real candidates against Brown. The name suggested as the stalking horse against Blair was John Austin.
Damm it Andrea, you have beat me to that exciting news.
45 - Max, the issue is a lot more complex than that and you know it.
It centres around the business activities of BAT in the Third World, where rules and regulations are far less stringent than they are here. I’m sure BAT have behaved within the letter of the law of the countries in which they operate. However, many UK citizens might decide that there is an ethical gap between what is permitted in other countries and what is permitted in this country, and conclude that they would expect a First World company to abide by First World rules wherever it operates.
I have no problem with informed adults, aware of all the risks, choosing to smoke and being offered advertising to influence which brand of cigarettes they consume. I do have a problem with using sophisticated advertising techniques, in countries where their use is not banned, to entice children to smoke because (a) children are by definition not “informed adults” and (b) smoking is adictive and an addiction formed in childhood can have profound consequences in adulthood.
It is up to individuals to decide if BAT have behaved in this fashion, and I am not suggesting they have, but were a company to act in such a way many would find this immoral (even if it is not illegal in the countries concerned). Consequently they would be right to question the judgement of a politician who accepts large sums of money from a company which engaged in such practices.
46 John O. I’m aware of 4 DD and 2 DC “names” who are considering their positions and I’m not talking the Kama Sutra, well apart from one and that’s another NoW story
BTW I understand that “discussions are ongoing” between the Fox and Leigh camps ! Code for Leigh not running .
50 - “John Austin”. Wasn’t his name once John Austin Walker? When did he become legless
…?
51. Sophia, who are you backing as tory leader? Were you a Cameronite(?) ?
[32][39][44] I very much agree with Houndtang’s original diagnosis. It seems to point to a structural crisis whereby parties no longer seem to be able to renew themselves effectively… one thing that this board has convinced me of is how poorly they now relate to the several political philosophies, one the one hand, and political “interests” on the other. (They still do in the USA.)
55 - Andrea of the 5 candidates (I am not forgetting Sir Malcolm, Nuala!) DC is my favourite. None of them are perfect that is for sure.
54. yes, he doesn’t like to use his full name.
Jack @53. Hmm, interesting…but I doubt if Taylor or Green will be among the re-ratters. They were both prominent on TV yesterday at the ‘welcoming party’.
50 Andrea. John “Who He” Austin
TB will be trembling !!!
52 Nanny Tabman. Pleeeaaaaaassssssseeeeee !!!
45 — as it is noted as a big negative among the general public at large (see the latest yougov poll), it would only point to the unrepresentative nature of the Tory party if it did not contain people within it who felt similarly.
Not that anyone asked, but I’ll take this opportunity to compile my current preferences:
1. AH Matlock
2. Rifkind
3. Cameron
4. Clarke
5. Davis
6. Me
7-60,000,000. Anyone else in the country
60,000,001. Liam Fox
60,000,002. Ed Leigh
60. Jack, he got one of the best Labour results in London (the fifth best result I think).
57. Thanks Sophia.
Mr W, looking at your cogent and densely argued response to Tabman in point 60, I wonder why you do not throw your own (no doubt ten-gallon) hat into the ring. If not for the leadership, perhaps as a “Two Brains” figure in the mould of David Willetts.
59 John O. I couldn’t possibly comment on the names !! but having declared, their absence from the declaration would really set the hare running. One newspaper that I daren’t name down Farringdon Road …. Oopps ….. is running a book on the first to rerat
Jack W
As a betting man (which I presume most people on this site are) I am very interested in your post 53. Might you want to say a bit more? Thanks!
53. Beware Mr W of self-interested sources. Cornerstone are enjoying themselves putting out pamphlets and talking to everyone.
61 - certainly there have been Tory posters on here who’ve felt similarly. How much this is sincere and how much it’s the desire to throw anything they can at KC is not for me to judge.
That said(TM), I agree with Tabman - the fact that BAT may not be breaking local laws doesn’t mean anyone here is obliged to approve of it. There is also the issue that the Treasury is unhappy at BAT’s perceived condoning of cigarette smuggling into the UK.
64 - Surely “two brain cells”
63 - Indeed, he’s a giant in Erith and Thamesmead…and, er, that’s about it…
I’ve decided. I’ll be going for Edward Leigh (in the absence of Laurence Robertson, of course).
41 - Sophia. Excellent! Tabbers spoke of these rumours swirling around about DD again yesterday and said that he wouldn’t post them on the open forum. I said that I thought as I have yet to hear anyone substantiate them that they are most likely a load of tosh, but he suggested that I might be able to get details from you. I’m itching to know! Could you email the brief version on alastairmatlock@gmail.com ? Thanks.
60 - Jack, so in your “swinging” free-marketry I presume you are quite happy for other products which it is legal to market and sell to adults to be advertised and sold to children? Shot guns? Pornography? Spirits? (ie - children need parenting, or nannies if you like; adults don’t) Perhaps you’d also like to defend Ken’s decisions on the point raised? Hmmm?
I’ve decided. I’ll be going for Edward Leigh (in the absence of Laurence Robertson, of course).
62 - Julian, Have you ever thought of yourself as a Peer of the Realm? An Ambassadorship? Let’s talk!
69. John, he’s only the stalking horse, then they would throw CLare Short in the ring. She’ll get 2 votes, but she’ll provide lots of fun
62. Julian, how would you rank my new favourite candidate for Tory leadership? She’s Kimberly Quinn.
64 Ms Nuala. Thank you for being cogent and dense.
Your post was most welcome as I’ve now denuded Messrs Ladbrokes of a hatfull (ten gallons indeed)of cash, having bet you would post before 2009 an item without mentioning Malc ! I now await the second coming to bring up a win double of epic proportions …… of which more later !
Signed Jack The Hatter of Deer Stalker and Kinkell.
The left can talk up a challenge but it means nothing. Blair will go at the time of his choosing. Brown just has to wait. And wait. And wait. And wait……..
Who are Rifkind’s MP supporters?
74 - My modest young mind has not thought of such things, but they do hold some appeal. I’m sure we can come to some kind of arrangement. Incidentally AHM, you can tell your wife from me that (with all due respect) she’s living in the past - a past in which a man could not emerge from an internet betting forum to lead the country. These days are behind us. Forward, not back.
75. KQ has done a wonderful job for us but she does not have the intellect of AHM. I therefore propose a “dream ticket” of AHM as Leader, supported by KQ who will add the glamour. Perhaps they could get free holidays in Italy at Andrea Towers? Do you have measures to block the paparazzi?
74 - AHM, What a let-down…you’re just like the others
Reward your mates and flatterers. Instead of Tony’s cronies, we’ll have Al’s Acolytes.
Well, I’m sorry, but you can kiss goodbye to my support at next Papal election
From PA
RESULTS
Bournemouth Borough Kinson North: Lib Dem 720, Lab 645, C 456, UKIP 126. (May 2003 Three seats Lib Dem 1154, 1076, 1030, Lab 728, 669, 663, C 420, 411, 401, Ind 272). Lib Dem hold. Swing 6.1% Lib Dem to Lab.
Derwentside District Stanley Hall: Lab 599, Lib Dem 199, BNP 118. (May 2003 Three seats Lab 1360, 1354, 1351, Lib Dem 429, C 291). Lab hold. Swing 0.4% Lab to Lib Dem.
East Sussex County Pevensey and Westham: C 1293, Lib Dem 406, Lab 147. (May 2005 - C 2374, Lib Dem 1553, Lab 834). C hold. Swing 15.3% Lib Dem to C.
Fife Council Auchtertool and Burntisland East: SNP 609, Lab 321, Ind 249, Lib Dem 71, C 54. (May 2003 Ind 479, Lab 462, SNP 400, Lib Dem 269). SNP gain from Ind. Swing 13% Lab to SNP.
Oswestry Borough Ruyton and West Felton: C unopposed. (May 2003 Two seats C 302, Ind 270, Lib Dem 225). C hold.
Rother District Bexhill St Stephens: C 470, Lib Dem 359, Lab 180. (May 2005 Two seats C 648, 631, Lib Dem 432, 339, Lab 235). C hold. Swing 4.6% C to Lib Dem.
Salford Borough Barton: Lab 676, Lib Dem 389, C 189, UKIP 137, Ind 93. (May 2003 Three seats Lab 1238, 1135, 984, Lib Dem 855, C 725, 692). Lab hold. Swing 4.8% Lib Dem to Lab.
Shepway District New Romney Town: C 560, Lab 175, Lib Dem 111. (May 2003 Two seats C 438. Lab 360, C 358, Lab 234, Lib Dem 129, 121). C gain from Lab. Swing 16.6% Lab to C.
Wealden District Pevensey and Westham: C 1229, Lib Dem 469, Lab 143. (May 2003 Three seats C 1245, 1233, 1135, Lib Dem 793, 781). Swing 10.1% Lib Dem to C.
Winchester City Olivers Battery and Badger Farm: Lib Dem 853, C 584, Lab 56. (May 2004 Lib Dem 1038, C 666, Lab 90). Lib Dem hold. Swing 1.4% Lib Dem to C.
80 - Oh come along now, John… I’ve already told you that you could be my Chancellor! What have you got to sulk about?
66 nick12. The essential here is that some natural Ken allies thought he wouldn’t run and frankly have deen suprised by his momentum and lack of in their own candidates. Further their own soundings have told them that the wider party have warmed to our Ken as the prospect of another loss looms. This has also been confirmed by several Tory posters.
67 Baskerville. Agreed. I’m aware of the games they are playing, but we’ll see if Leigh does stand. My source on this one says no.
72 Tabman. Within bounds if it’s legal in the country concerned I couldn’t give a fig or fag. We can’t nanny the world !
79 - Incidentally Julian, did I mention that this would be a hereditary peerage? None of this naff Labour life peerage business. I’m going to do patronage Tory style!
81 - small samples, but the Tories have been picking up some big swings on what should already have been a high starting point. What’s going on? A temporary blip, or something bigger?
82 - But you’re already manouvering to have Julian H as your eventual successor. And what are these unattributable briefings from Gerrard’s Cross about “psychological flaws”. Perhaps Sophia can arrange a private dinner to discuss the timing of your retirement
Yes, some very healthy swings there. Good stuff. Thanks for the update, Richard.
85. There you go. Obvious iinit? The Ken effect is already weaving its magic
:)
86 - I will not tolerate plotting! Tread carefully or you shall be off to Northern Ireland, my friend.
[76] Wasn’t Jck “The hat” Macvitie shot in the Blind Beggar by the Krays’ ?
[71] Well, Guido calls him “Basher” Davis…
[42] [52] BAT are constantly accused of connivance in cross border cigarette smuggling- and the Government of Bulgaria is said to be coming close to laying actual charges…
83 - “within bounds” … ahhh … but who decides where the bounds are, Jack? Nanny?
It would make sense for Leigh to stand. If he gets, say, 20 supporters then that is a very tempting group for one of the candidates to make some attempt to woo, especially if who gets into the run off looks tight.
Like I said before it would have made sense for Davis to hold some of his supporters back, in case things like this (defections) happened and to give him momentum when he might need it later. (reports were he had 75-80)
This research could be useful one day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4293520.stm
90 - Yes, I’ve seen that on Guido’s blog and very good reading it is, but you know, I tend to take what Guido writes with a pinch of salt.
83.” I couldn’t give a fig or FAG”
I’ve nothing to do with it!
79. I’ll do my best to protect AHM and KQ from paparazzi.
Btw, the Evening Standard’s article about drugs at Labour conference has made its way to Italian press. The second bestselling newspaper (a centre-left newspaper) run an article today about it (the journalist was able to talk about Kate Moss in it too)
Completely o/t here, but has anyone got an update on the Coalition talks in Berlin? From what I can tell, speculation is mounting that Schroeder is merely waiting for the results of the delayed election in Dresden on Sunday to retire for the good of the country. About bloody time too!
95 - At least ensure they get my best side, if they must take pictures.
96. If he really cares about the country, he shouldn’t let it to be ruled by Merkel
97. The problem is that I don’t know which side is your best one.
98 - She could hardly do any worse than he has.
99. If her performance as Chancellor is similar to her campaign’s results…..
86. John, listen to me and defect. I could name you Senior Master of Clare Short’s household.
100 - As bad as that may have been, she still beat Schroeder.
101. But you should look at the starting point. When Schroeder announced he was going to call new elections she almost had a 20% lead and at the end she had less than a 1%. Would you really call her a good campaigner? I wouldn’t even dare to compare her to Schroeder in terms of campaign skills.
Fortunately (unfortunately?) a person’s campaigning skills say little about their ability to run the country. Surely far more revealing is the fact that Schroeder was 20pts down in the first place!
I agree Alex. If campaigning skills were an indicator of how well someone would run the country, we would think Tony Blair was the greatest PM this country has ever had.
103. No one has said that a person’s campaigning skills says something about his/her ability to rule.
Re my “lack of objectivity” - dead right. I spent a decade as an editor with BBC national news and being balanced and objective is not how I approach the site.
When I express a strong view of a particular outcome I put money on it. Sometimes I’m wrong - usually when I’m overestimating the Lib Dems - but mostly I end up in profit. In my view we get better discussions in someone is taking an unequivocal view.
On the tory leadership I’ve switched three times. at first I was on Ken, then I switched my money to Cameron, and now I’m on Ken again.
91 Tabman. The country concerned sets the laws and the Board and shareholders of respective companies sell or not. It’s free trade !
106 - unclear if you’re saying that the BBC gave you good training for not being balanced and objective, or whether this site is a rebellion against the past!
105 - “if her performance as chancellor is similar to her campaign’s results”…
102 - Andrea, you have to remember that she had a fair bit of help ballsing things up from Kirchhof and Stoiber. Schroeder undoubtedly gets kudos for being a brilliant campaigner, but he does it by demonising others - in 2002 it was Bush over Iraq, this year it was Kirchhof over the flat tax, never mind the countless economic, fiscal and structural problems that exist in Germany that he has failed to address throughout his tenure. Alex is absolutely right when he says that a person’s ability as a campaigner is not necessarily indicative of their ability to govern, and this is certainly true in Schroeder’s case. I think it’s becoming pretty clear now that he is going to have to make way for Merkel. His performance on telly after the exit polls were released was pretty arrogant, even for him and I think he’s pushing his luck the longer he carries this charade on.
107 - agreed, Jack. And, were a particular country to decide that slavery was legal I’m sure that some companies would seek to fill the gap in that market. It wouldn’t stop it being unethical, which is the point I’m making, and UK consumers with-holding their trade from such companies (and their votes from the politicians who drew salaries from those companies) accordingly. It’s called consumer choice / democratic politics
109. Infact that sentence doesn’t say that her campaigning skills says something about his/her ability to rule.
It only says that she led a bad campaign and if her ability to rule are similar to her ability to run a campaign, it’s not a good sign. I’ve never said that her ability to are as bad as her campaign skills (there’s a big IF at the beginning of the sentence if you haven’t notice it.)
112 - of course Andrea. But your first statement was that for the good of the country Merkel shouldn’t be Chancellor. The first justification for this statement that you gave was her poor campaign. It does not seem totally unreasonable to think that you were implying a link between the two
I don’t think there is ANY reason to think that a person’s campaigning ability is an indication of how they will run a government. It is just an unfortunate by-product of democracy that we have to maintain the pretence that it does 
111 - aren’t there some instances where British subjects can be prosecuted for offences which break UK law committed abroad?
Actually, I think Merkel will do very well if she gets her chance. She seems very level headed and pragmatic to me.
111 Tabman. Don’t try and use your bar chart jiggery pockery with me !! There’s a world of difference between coffin sticks and slavery.
Selling fags in the third world does not, in my mind, cross the line ! Indeed if Andrea wants to ply his trade in Zimbabwe I’m sure Peter Tatchell will offer much help, especially on the arresting sight of Robert Mugabe. However I’ll not be buying shares in the venture.
108 Alex. I did not express it well. I spent a lot of my career with BBC News at a time when you would not express your political allegiance to colleagues for fear that your objectivity might be questioned. At the time I was on the “restricted list” and banned from any overt political activity. This was at a time, also, when all new staff were checked by the security services to make sure that they were OK.
One of the joys of leaving the Corporation was being able to get actively involved in politics.
Now I love talking and arguing and taking strong positions
113. The first comment about her being bad for Germany was only a way to tease A H Matlock.
I’m not responsible of any link someone could imply without my permission
And then I’m particularly bitter (the day didn’t start in the best way…), so don’t expect a easy ride today
110- I agree he was OTT during the election night.
116 - “There’s a world of difference between coffin sticks and slavery.”
Is there not a significant (though of course smaller) difference between marketing to children and marketing to adults? That is the particular objection many people have.
116 - different people have different lines. That’s the point.
117.”This was at a time, also, when all new staff were checked by the security services to make sure that they were OK.”
so it was like the Labour conference in these days!
119 - And is their any evidence that BAT are doing this. They tend to sell more expensive brands that most young people couldn’t afford to buy.
119 book value. I’m unconcerned about the advertizing. Nobody is forced to buy the product.
120 alex. Agreed.
122 - I can’t infallibly assess the accusations here. But in any case, Jack hasn’t argued that that’s an issue - he doesn’t care about selling to children if it’s legal in that country.
116 - Jack, it is you who is being obtuse and not adressing my arguments!
If you go back to my original post I am not saying that selling fags per se is unethical. I am arguing that using sophisticated advertising techniques in Third World Countries that do not have laws to ban such things, to poorly-educated adults, and children, is unethical, even though it is not illegal. Consequently First World consumers and voters have the right to be informed of these activities and make their judgements about the companies and politicians who overtly or tactily support such arrangements accordingly.
There’s no “bar-chart jiggery-pockery” about that - it’s pretty clear cut. If UK voters say “good on yer, Mr C, for trousering that money, those Third World kids must be pretty stupid!”, well that’s fine. Alternatively they might decide that they would expect someone they vote for to exercise the judgement that they wouldn’t want to be associated with such behaviour. I am pretty relaxed about it. The electorate will decide!
124 book value. Correct.
122 - “They tend to sell more expensive brands that most young people couldn’t afford to buy.” Fashion designers make clothes most women can’t afford to buy, but it does lead them to then go and buy the Tesco’s knockoff for 20pound instead.
125.”it is you who is being obtuse ”
A personal attack! How do you dare? Especially you!
123 - Thanks. Clear enough that there’s probably not much mileage in arguing further.
125 - They’ve already decided where Rushcliffe is concerned, haven’t they? Surely his local opponents have used this line of attack against him in previous campaigns.
127-”Fashion designers make clothes most women can’t afford to buy”
fashion designers make also clothes no woman in her right mind woul wear!
125 Tabman. I sure the Third World will be pleased to be the object of such patronizing Lib Dem musing, let alone what is unethical or not in their country !
130 - AHM, I take your point, but the campaign literature from all parties I saw in Rushcliffe concentrated on the positive attributes that the respective candidates had to offer, with the exception of UKIP which IIRC did have a piece about KC’s europhile tendencies and the damage” they might do. I can’t recall anyone mentioning his BAT links (and the implications thereof).
OTOH I am not a Labour Spin-Doctor so who’s to say what a concerted media campaign or a bit of push-polling might do?
132 - Furthermore, are voters going to care? I think the Lib Dems better have more than that to come at Ken with than his position with BAT, by which time he would have relinquished. I’ve said before, in a free country, it shouldn’t matter who works where so long as no laws are being broken. The way Tabbers and BV are talking about it you might think KC has been spotted personally handing out packs to kids on the streets of Timbuktu.
Perhaps, he has.
132 - Jack, I didn’t realise you were a moral relativist!
Once again, you put words into my mouth. I am talking about the judgements of First World consumers and voters, not what Third World governments (sadly not many voters, though) choose or choose not to do. You are just having a fit of pique because I’ve said something vaguely controversial about, and don’t share the same passion for, your cause celebre. You make Nuala look positively lukewarm by comparison in your enthusiasm for all things “our Ken”
134.”The way Tabbers and BV are talking about it you might think KC has been spotted personally handing out packs to kids on the streets of Timbuktu”
maybe Tabman spotted him in the streets of Rushcliffe, but he couldn’t say it in an open forum.
133 - I think that sort of thing is sufficiently petty that it would as easily backfire on Labour for bringing it up as it would damage KC.
137 - Perhaps he was in the receiving line, Andrea…
I’ve spotted a strange symmetery about the David Davis and Ken Clarke campaigns.
The former has Derek Conway to repel potential supporters. The latter has John Bercow. The former is supported by The Fugitve. The latter is supported by The Gorgon.
139- so, it must have been a long time ago (if Tabman was still a kid…).
134 - “I’ve said before, in a free country, it shouldn’t matter who works where so long as no laws are being broken.”
But in a free country, whether something should or shouldn’t matter is an issue of individual conscience. A free country means you are free not to buy from or vote for a company or candidate whose (legal) activities you disapprove of.
Anyway, now I really have reached the point of repetition.
134 - Alastair, what about someone who works for a company engaging in an activity in a foreign country that would be illegal in their own country?
140 - I never have liked John Bercow. I think KC would be well advised to keep him on a short lead if he has any official position within KC’s campaign. It boggles the mind to think that he has the biggest majority in the House.
140.”The former has Derek Conway to repel potential supporters. The latter has John Bercow. The former is supported by The Fugitve. The latter is supported by The Gorgon. ”
But Ken has the support of Clare Short too. Now Davis should try to get the support of Galloway!
He’s got Alistair Campbell.
142, 143 - But you two are never going to vote for him anyway, are you? Could it not be that you are making a bit more of this than the average voter is going to do?
Companies are obliged to live up to the letter of the law in the country that they are trading in. I think it’s being rather unrealistic to expect companies that exist to make money to do any more than that, really. I think that is the cold reality at work here.
144 - It was interesting seeing the conversation between Dimbleby and Clarke on Newsnight about Tim Yeo. Dimbleby was clearly just stirring (he does have a little bit of a tendency for that) but it ended up with Clarke having to effectively promise to tell his supporters to shut up!
136 Tabman. “.. you make Nuala look positively Lukewarm ..”
My god is Nuala Christopher Biggins a la Porridge
147 - agreed, but companies are creations of people and don’t exist in a moral vacuum. Which is what I’m saying. ATEOTD many people will conclude that they don’t care. Some won’t, and it will affect their vote. You don’t know how many, and that’s the risk you take if you elect him. And with that, I think I’ve made my point and shall say no more.
147 - I think there is clear polling evidence that it is widely viewed as a negative for Ken. There is no evidence on whether it would particularly impact on people’s votes
149 he was better in the Rocky Horror Show
146. Oh Sean, you’re right. Campbell is enough.
150 - Fair Enough. My view is that the people who are going to let that sort of thing influence their decision are the same people who would never have voted for him anyway. Net Loss = 0.
148. I think it’ll be difficult to shut Widdy up.
155 - Widdy is pure gold among the grassroots. Tory members love her which is why she’s in such demand on the rubber chicken constituency dinner circuit.
If anyone is interested, I’m hosting a dinner in Bushey for Ann Widdecombe on 17th November. I imagine she’ll have a lot to say about the leadership there.
156. I’m afraid to ask what is the rubber chicken constituency dinner circuit.
http://www.political.co.uk/annwiddecombe/images/jrpic01.jpg
158 - Andrea: Just means that she’s a very popular person for constituencies to have around to dinners and other events. She’s guaranteed to draw a good crowd.
At least the rubber chicken circuit doesn’t have to put up with Jeffery Archer barking at them anymore.