Who’ll push PB.C past the 100,000 milestone?
October 24th, 2005-
Tory race helps push the site’s comments’ total into six figures
At some point in the next 24 hours somebody is going to post a comment on the site which will be the 100,000th since PB.C came into being in March 2004.
As of time of this article the total number stood at 99,679 so we are almost at the point where the total is in six figures. More than 92,000 of the postings have been made since the start of the year - 52,000 of them in the period since polls closed in the UK General Election at 10pm on May 5th.
-
These are big figures and reflect the way that PB.C has become the site of choice for people of all party allegiances who want to read about and discuss political betting and political outcomes.
There’s little doubt that we’ve been helped by the enormous interest in the Tory leadership race which provided a focus in what could have been a quiet time after the May 5th General Election.
Meanwhile in a TV interview reported in the Guardian the close Davis aide, Derek Conway, accused David Cameron of “sucking up to the press” and thinking that “he was born to rule“. The BBC was attacked for “taking leave of its senses in its support” for Mr Cameron and newspapers were being “servile” towards him. Conway also attacked Michael Howard for dirty tricks against Davis.
Whether this will help Davis it is hard to see. The betting has remained pretty constant with the best bookie Cameron price of 1/10 and 0.17/1 available on the betting exchanges. You can get 11/2 against David Davis.
Labour leadership. As reported yesterday the Observer had a big story about a big rise in interest on David Miliband for the Labour leadership. We noted that on Betfair the total amount matched on Miliband since the market was established six months ago was £203. In spite of all the coverage not one extra penny has been matched on him on Betfair within the past 24 hours.
Politicalbetting particularly welcomes contributions from people who have not posted before.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
one less to go…
One minor editorial point mike is that it should read Miliband rather than Milibrand.
Sorry I can’t help it
2. Thanks David. I’ve amended it.
May I just take the opportunity to echo your last line, Mike?
I get the impression that people are tending to lurk for quite a long time these days before plunging in, and on some of the threads it’s quite understandable that anyone might feel they were crashing their way into a private party. I’ve never seen a new poster slighted or made to feel unwelcome (but I don’t pretend to read all the posts, especially when I’ve been out for a few hours and another 150 or so have appeared :)) - anyway I’ll try to adopt an etiquette of saying “welcome” to newcomers specifically.
How many of those comments were by Tabman….to the nearest 10,000 say?
Also, Mike, is it possible for you to estimate the number of DIFFERENT contributors? In a way, that would be more indicative of the site’s enormous popularity.
Does anyone have the contacts to make a good press release or story out of this? It might be good of journalists to give something back as well as borrowing from the site
I could try The Inverness Courier but I don’t think they’ll be interested…
Innocent at 4: Yes, regular contributors can be rough with each other, sometimes incomprehensibly so, but new contributors can count on a friendly welcome from pretty well everyone. We are not a private club, however much it may sometimes look like that.
)
Incidentally, there are lots of MP lurkers - they just don’t like to post under their own names. Wimps! (Oops, that wasn’t very friendly, was it?
[7] We all know you’re referring to Government Whips’ Office, Nick
100,000 posts is pretty impressive. Its amazing how much the site has grown in the space of less than two years. And a great tribute to the hard work done by Mike and Robert.
Just a shame that work keeps distracting me from posting!
7 - I’d always wondered about that Nick, perhaps Andrea is really Berlusconi in disguise!
4,7 & 8 I agree it’s a pretty friendly site. It’s generally good knockabout stuff with very little serious acrimony. I can remember Rik Willis getting some rough treatment during the last election - unfairly I thought - but most of the criticism is good humoured. You don’t need too thick a skin to participate here. If you did, I wouldn’t chance my arm!
9 - If Andrea is really Silvio it’s a very convincing disguise
4,7&10 - Totally agree, its always good to hear from new posters and it would be a shame if people ever did think they wouldn’t be welcome or couldn’t make a worthwhile contribution.
It would be good if the site was even more diverse, obviously its very much dominated by Tories at the moment given the hot topic is the leadership but it would be good to here from more Labour supporters and nationalists, unionists etc.
11 - The only other Italian politician I could think of was Umberto Bossi and I think that would be even more offensive to Andrea!
Congrats Mike on a milestone almost achieved!
I agree with other posters, that whilst there are one or two more noxious posters, generally it is a friendly forum with people tripping over themselves to provide useful info to inform the debate.
Surpisingly Andrea has not been on this morning yet, since he must contribute about 30% of all posts!!!
Well as a new poster here (second post) I can back up the jist of the story by the fact that it was the Conservative Leadership election that brought me here. I followed a link from BBC news. Great site here and I look forward to contributing in the future!
15 - I can’t remember if I did post prior to the last couple of weeks (if so only once or twice) but I was a reader (rather than a lurker) of the comment every so often before contorubuting. But the Tory debate has drawn me in and I will enjoy continuing the comments into the new parliament. I must admit it’s got me putting money on politics too which I guess is the whole idea of the site!
Welcome James H! We look forward to hearing from you.
Welcome James H!
Well I have really enjoyed this website and although it we predomimantly talk political betting, I have found the website a great source of general political debate.
Congratulations to Mike, Robert and all who have helped make the website what it is today.
So in the interest of debate, what do people think of DD saying he would happily make DC his Deputy? I actually think this could be a good idea, especially the other way should DC win. It would be like (excuse the comparison fellow Conservatives) Blair and Prescott but with a little more ability!
You would get two men who care about the party deeply, working together the bring in each “wing” in support of a general consensus. You would get two capable men at the Commons dispatch box, imagine either against Prescott. You would get the mix of experience and freshness.
Perhaps DD and DC are the actual “dream ticket” and it has taken us this long to realise.
PS: Is everyone else experiencing torrential rainfall? We have had hours on end of constant heavy rain here in the Ribble Valley.
Actually, be warned James H - this place can take a grip on your imagination! I have just had a flashback to a dream I had last night, in which Jack was 25-year old Asian Brit who works in HMV, and Tabman bred mice!
Just for the Conservatives on the website - it seems our leadership race is capturing the hearts of millions and not all necessarily in the UK!
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=10/24/2005&Cat=4&Num=22
21 - And Rik was a senior Cabinet Minister?
[20] Were they orange mice?
[19] Welcome to you and David both - those of us who are old enough recall that Hattersley and Kinnock stood in 1983 for both Leader and Deputy Leader of their party… a similar deal (which would have to be a promise by each to appoint the other in this case) now would do the Tories no harm at all - indeed if I were a Tory I’d be demanding that Michael Howard broker it and the accompanying photo-opportunity.
21. Heseltine said the 39-year-old had an “elusive quality that encapsulates people”.
What is that supposed to mean? Either he or the Tehran Times are getting words mixed up, methinks.
Thanks for the warm welcome!
James M (19)… I think this is essentially a rather unsubtle attempt by DD to force DC into giving him the Deputy Leaders job should DC win. I would imagine DC would be fairly happy to do this. I think it means he can tip his hat to the more traditional wing of the party without having to give DC one of the bigger cabinet positions that he may feel more inclined to fill with like minded individuals. The role of Deputy Leader is also so undefined that DC could effectivly include or maginalise DD as much as he wishes.
I for one am very interested to see what DC does with his first shaddow cabinet should he win.
19 - I wouldn’t object to DD being deputy leader. For all his poor diction if he was against Prezza he’d be in the oratorial class of a Hitler, Churchill or Burke!!
26 I agree. Being up against Prezza would highlight DD’s good points, grasp of policy etc, but not show up his weaker aspects such as his public speaking.
I see Paddy Power have opened a market on Cameron’s vote percentage - does anybody have strong opinions on this? Do you really think he could poll above 80 per cent of the parliamentary party?
The tory party’s problem is that they look unattracive to the casual voter. DC will be a success if he makes them look appealing, even if he never has a policy in his political life.
‘Policies’ are of interest to wonks and other parties.
A parallel is in advertising. When there is loads of spiel in an advert, extolling a product (eg a car), there are two groups who read it word-for-word. One is the competitors, searching for both ideas and flaws. The other is people who have just bought the product, looking for confirmation of their buying decision.
For DC, policy lite is right.
If DC wins, surely he would be mad not to keep DD shadowing the home office. He proved highly effective in this role so what would be the point of having someone else fill the brief and let the government get away with pushing these terrible bills through Parliament. Whatever happens, I do hope all the appointees to the senior shadow positions remain in place until the next election. All the chopping and changing doesn’t help with public recognition and consistant policy.
Mike, I’ve said it before, but politicalbetting.com is the site I wish I’d thought of first. I love it. (Although I think there is too much politics talk in the comments and not enough punter talk!)
28. Between 66-80% looks a stonking bet at 6-4
22. ‘Twas not a nightmare…
19&27 - I’m not totally convinced that Deputy Leader is more prestigious than shadowing the Chancellor (especially), foreign or home secretary. I don’t think many people really thinks JP is as important as Gordon Brown, Jack Straw or Charles Clarke.
28 - Can’t see Cameron getting over 80% but 65%-70% is probably possible.
30 - Totally agree with that Woody. Think your bet is still ok so long as we get someone like Sir Bobby in and we keep hold of Gordon, Webster, Hartley and Skacel. But Saturday was very, very traumatic!
34. Surely deputy leader is largely symbolic and only created to keep on side the opposing wing of the party to that of the leader. I don’t see why DD can’t be deputy leader and shadow home secretary.
36 - Tactically it’s bad plan to combine Home and ODPM. Simply because it means one less person kept happy.
35. At least as a Derby supporter, I can say I know how you feel. I’ve laid a bit off on betfair but at least Hearts is now attractive league position wise. Funny bloke Burley is. I think there is probably a personal problem as well but I won’t get into that on a public forum. My ante post football portfolio is looking OK. Got Millwall at 7-2 to be relegated, spreadbet on Spurs to get more than 55 points and Darren Bent at 40-1 to be top goalscorer. Anyway must go and double up my winnings from Clarke going out first on that 66-80% bet. Pile in everyone, that price will be cut soon.
37. Wouldn’t shadow ODPM be a seperate job. There is no tie between that and deputy leader, it’s just where Blair thinks Prescott will do the least damage. Ancram combained it with shadow foreign affairs.
I was thinking last night about the difficult choices whoever wins the Tory leadership will have to make on shadow cabinet appointments.
Assuming Cameron is the eventual victor, all of the following people now have a claim, to a greater or lesser extent, to a “top job”:
Davis
Fox
Clarke
Rifkind
Osbourne
May
Hague
That’s seven people I can think of who would, assuming they wanted to serve, be vying for the very best positions. In the case of Clarke and Hague, who surely Cameron would want to include if they were up for it, no job other than (in Clarke’s case) Shadow Chancellor and in Hague’s case Shadow Foreign, Home or Chancellor would do it. So if he is able to recruit both of them, which surely is something he’d want to do, he’ll be stuffed when it comes to giving jobs to the others.
Therefore in many ways it might be better if Clarke and Hague stay out of the picture.
40. May imo hasn’t really done enough to warrant a top position. Clarke won’t serve. Seeing as Education is a big priority of DC, I expect him to perhaps send Osbourne there. That’s narrowed it down a bit.
40 - It’s never better to not recruit the best. And those two ARE the best. Though I would be surprised if he gets Clarke back?
Put it this way I bet Labour will be more worried about the Tories with a fully staffed front bench which in many ways looks better than the government one (Prezza, Straw and Charles Clarke are never gonna win politician of the year awards from anyone but their close personal friends).
If we don’t get Billy back we’ve made a huge mistake.
40 - Not sure about Teresa May but agree on much of the rest. KC might fancy being Deputy Leader as it wouldn’t be too much work and he could probably still keep up his business interests.
41 - yes it has. Clarke has hinted that he might accept a job offer depending on what it is though, hasn’t he? I was assuming that he might fancy having a crack at Brown and trying to shore up his legacy by hammering on about how great a Chancellor he was at the despatch box. He surely couldn’t be Party Chairman considering he’s unpopular with the grass roots. I think my own view is simply that having him on board might superficially please the floating voter but would cause more problems than it solves.
I accept your point about Osbourne on education, after all Cameron himself has indicated that if he loses he wants to stick with that brief, so he can convincingly say its not such a demotion for his pal Osbourne.
I think he’s a mug if he gives Fox anything but Chairman - clearly the guy is quite chummy with the grass roots and if he doesn’t have a policy brief he can’t spout off about his mad neocon views.
[43] Shadow Secretary of State for Death?
41. Woody, I’ve been meaning to ask, why 662?
44 - Agreed re Liam Fox
45 - Now now Innocent
The hatchett hobs on Cameron’s Neo-Con links have already started, I see.
The problem with not defining yourself politically is that whilst it allows your supporters to map anything onto you that they wish, the same is also true for your enemies. Plus, Cameron wrote the manifesto which was either policy-deficient or over-concentrated on things like immigration, depending upon your tastes.
48 -
slip of the key, there! (this darned laptop)
46. When I registered on for a hotmail account a few years ago, there were 661 woodys in front of me. Since then, I’ve used it as an internet calling card.
Howard promoting Fox and Osbourne to shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow Chancellor was incredibly silly really. It is very hard to demote either because Fox had a good leadership run and Osbourne is Cameron’s little friend. But neither are really up to it (Osbourne may grow into it but it is man versus boy at the moment in that role).
48 - So the Guardian thinks a center-right politician isn’t moderate? Of course the left-wing press will try to demonise him, the last thing they want is a successful Conservative party.
Another post nearer the milestone expect a flurry of posts nearer the magic number from people wanting to be the one .
Yes this site has grown in importance not surprisingly during the GE but perhaps more so since .
The talk of deputy leaders reminds of the joke about Bush and Blair discussing how to be a successful leader and the role of a deputy . If people have not heard it I will post it on here but as
it is quite a long joke it will have to wait .
[45] Fear not, David, I’m still on the ciggies myself…
[52] I suppose the Mail and Telegraph give wholly disinterested advice in Labour and Lib Dem leadership elections…
53. I was just thinking that. Is there a prize like a supermarkets millionth customer or something.
The Telegraph today allows its letters page to be dominated by anti-Cameron material. Is this in the interest of balance or are they hedging their bets.
Conway, DD’s chief enforcer, gave a clumsy performance on Sky yesterday (see AHM on an earlier post). It contrasts starkly with DC’s own performance on Today this morning. Very smooth, he knew his brief, knew the messages he wanted to put across, reminded us of the road block to reform that is Gordon Brown and he killed interruptions easily. There is no doubt that he DC has got it. The only other politician that can pull that off in that studio is TB.
Compare and contrast that interview by imagining David Davis replacing David Cameron. You can do this by looking at the Sky piece on him offering the deputy leadership to DC. The coaching is in evidence, less silly false laughs and a straighter face, but it still doesn’t convince me. He may be a nice man who knows his stuff but if he can’t put it across in a way that makes it believable he is no use to us in 2005.
The leader has to be a communicator of quality. To be able to use and direct the media and have good political nous and determination. There are plenty of policy wonks around to do the donkey work on detail. The nous directs the wonks, the determination gets the policy put into action.
TeamDD seem to be light on media managers and are prone to misunderstand the visual messages they are giving. For the weekend they believed that the casual look is in. Whoops. For TeamDC the dark suit and modest tie are mostly in evidence. Who looks and sounds the real leader?
But, however TeamDD try to dress it up I still see shadows twisting arms and the shades of DD’s less charming supporters staring out through the charm offensive, with their egotistical ‘red of tooth and claw’ approach just waiting to get its chance.
So the weekend scorecard is DD 0 DC 2 (one being an own goal by DD’s team)
How about a cricket analogy for the Shadow Cabinet?
Cameron - opening bat, right handed - Captain - Leader
Clarke - opening bat, left handed - Chancellor
Davis - solid run scorer - Home
Hague - spinning all-rounder, opponents always on their toes - Foreign
Conway - middle order hard man - Chief Whip
Fox - wicket keeping middle order basher, century or out - Party Chairman
Osborne - young right arm swing bowler and middle order batsman - Education
May - useless spinner who can’t turn the ball and has batting average well below potential - in to secure balanced team - Environment
Rifkind - nagging line and length, fast pace left armer - Health
Green - fast medium left arm bowler - Transport
Willetts - reverse swing right arm bowler - vice captain in charge of field placings - Policy
48 - you say its a hatchet job - and I would say that the attempt to suggest some kind of neocon conspiracy to exclude Clarke is weak - but facts are facts. Cameron is linked to neoconservatism and lots of us are instinctively against neoconservatism just as people were against fascism in the past.
I take it that poster of the 100,000th message will be buying the first round at the next pb.c party.
54 - Not at all - I’m sure that Liberals and Labourites would be just as unconcerned with attacks from the Mail and Telegraph as Tories should be with attacks from the Guardian.
The Telegraph reports that Tonight the shadow home secretary will address the 1900 Club, a group set up to help the Tories back to power early last century.. It’s the future, fellers, not the past!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/24/ntory24.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/24/ixhome.html
58 - Stonch, facts are indeed facts. But at present the media are, on the whole, spinning DC as “The man in the nice suit”. These neo-con links are not being put under any scrutiny. The interesting thing is who will be the first to break the dam, and it looks like its the Guardian.
62 - what I do fear is that the neocon agenda, if introduced into British politics and backed by sections of the media, might have great appeal to right-leaning people. Just as American neocons shore up their position by allying themselves with Christian fundamentalism, a British neocon movement could find a bedrock of support in the Europhobe, xenophobic and downright racist undercurrents in British society to all of our detriment.
What number is this?
99999
59 - Now is that a way of slowing down the traffic…
Just to say in common with the theme of this thread - I started reading before the GE, and started posting just afterwards. I’ve been amazed at the way the sites grown over the last 6months and think that the winning formula is very much the friendly banter and well-informed views from across the political spectrum. You might not agree with someone all the time, but you (almost) always feel welcome enough to say so and put across your opposing arguement, and it is this that I think has really helped the site gain in popularity and readership. Long may it continue!
Congratulations mike on this (?) your 100,000 post! I agree with all that has been said so far. Though there’s a ratio of about 5:1 Tories to others for the most part they are remarkably polite and not at all cliquy(?). And as a Labour voter myself I have to admit that if the tables were turned I doubt the Tory supporters would have nearly such a pleasant time!
Nonetheless I’m here to bury Ceasar not to praise him! And I must point out that you are running ahead of yourselves. Why should your shadow cabinet suddenly become such a wonder? Your membership hasn’t changed. You have access to the worst leader your party ever had (Hague)and you have Rifkind back. Big deal! You’ve exchanged a tired Thatcher lover with lots of experience for a Thatcher lover with no experience! Gordon Brown must be thinking Christmas has come early.
67 - I utterly disagree Roger. If you really think William Hague has no political, analytical, or oratorical talent then you are clearly totally one-eyed. He’s a witty and engaging man who took the Tory job at just about the worst possible time.
67. “the worst leader your party ever had (Hague)”.
Hague’s not even the worst Tory Leader of the last decade, let alone “ever”. Major and IDS push him into third worst (and therefore second best) of the last ten years.
‘97-2001 was an impossible period for the Tories; they may as well not have bothered. Hague was young, badly advised, and had an unenviable task.
69 - “‘97-2001 was an impossible period for the Tories; they may as well not have bothered.”
I agree. Remember that after the 1945 election Churchill’s Tories simply disappeared - that wouldn’t be acceptable nowadays, but as you say there was nothing to be gained by the Tories after 97. The public enjoyed punishing them too much and relished giving second licks in 2001!
However after 8 years of Blair’s disingenuous spinning and disasterous wars people are looking for an alternative finally. The only problem seems to be that the Tories are keen to elect a Blair clone with a neocon agenda…
Neocon seems to be shorhand for “American rightwinger I dislike”.
Neoconservatives tend to be on the Left of the Republican party, and believe that government intervention can be used to achieve conservative ends (as you can imagine plenty of Republicans disagree with this view and regard big government as the enemy). They tend to favour US intervention to promote democracy in places like the Middle East and the Balkans, while US conservatives have traditionally been suspicious of any foreign involvement that does not directly benefit US interests - in that respect neo Conservatives are more like Democrats in the post-War era. They are usually pretty secular and don’t get on that well with religious conservatives in the US.
It’s not really helpful to use a foreign political term and try to apply it to British politics - but if pushed, one could say the Neo Conservatives are a bit similar to the Liberal Unionists of the 1900s.
Agree that Hague was in a no win situation, but surely he was intelligent enough to know that (95% of the country could have told him), and so why did he put himself forward?
70 - Stonch, what is it about generals always looking to fight the last war?
David R. I agree he’s witty. But what’s often forgotten is that his judgement when leader was so flawed that appointing Amanda Platell didn’t even seem bizarre. As for his talent; If he was talented would he have used that “5 days to save the pound” that embarassed his own party during the ‘00 election? And what about the morality of stabbing Michael Howard to get the leadership in ‘97. And how good was his judgement in taking the job when it was obvious to everyone else that he wasn’t up to it? Perhaps when Cameron screws up IDS will be the new Messiah!
“Gordon Brown must be thinking Christmas has come early”
Ever the optimist, Roger.
Sean 75 was 99762
Is there any chance Duncan Loon could make a comeback in Cameron’s shadow cabinet? That would be hilarious, seeing him humiliated again.
Dear Mike,
I instinctively don’t like politicians of the Blair/Cameron style, so it may be my prejudice talking here, but I do think that there’s an objective problem that his supporters haven’t faced up to. In the twentieth century the great actors of politics, who appealled to the emotions and stirred the soul have always been followed by plain speaking, undemonstrative politicians. Lloyd George was followed by Baldwin. Chruchill by Atlee. Thatcher by Major. My guess is the public sees through the tricks of the actors after a while and yearns for the reassurance of plain speaking. I don’t know if you can put me right, but the only exception to this rule I can think of is the succession of Macmillan by Wilson. But even then, we had the interlude of the quiet Douglas Hume in between. Blair has dominated British politics since 1994. His every move and personality trait has been scrutinised by 24/7 media whose coverage is more intrusive and comprehensive than ever. The economist James Buchan once said saturation media made nausea the most common emotion in the modern world. My guess is that once the euphoria has died off, nausea is what Mr Cameron will produce.
All the best,
Nick
There is one point you all seem to be ignoring and I would like to place this point, which I believe should be central to all further discussion, on to the agenda firmly.
With the threat of global terrorism pressing upon all of our societies would not political UNITY be more appropriate? A leader of the Conservative Party will need to demonstrate he can work with whoever is Prime Minister to achieve global security. That is my observation.
76. Now we know… Not simple maths, though, as I’m sure your sophisticated posters will be posting on several threads to mix up the numbers - How about a book on the winner?
76 - Could go with a spreadbet on the time of the post… 16:00 - 16:15 anyone?
81 - I like your thinking. Are we becoming an on-line equivalent of Banzai?
Arfer Daley is fighting a council election on channel 129 if anyones interested.
Re: 69 & 70: Yes, I think Hague had an impossible task after 1997. The problem was, he allowed himself to get elected when the rump of Tory MPs then, as now, decided they wanted someone younger to challenge Blair. Originally, Hague was going to stand as deputy to Michael Howard and the two apparently forged a deal only for Hague to get home and find his answering machine full of messages of support.
In hindsight, Howard should have led the Party after 1997 allowing Portillo, Hague and Clarke to fight it out in 2001. Whether that would have prevented Labour’s victory in 2005 is debatable but there’s little doubt the Tories lost valuable time and impetus during the IDS leadership.
I certainly don’t rate Hague a bad Conservative leader. He did probably the best he could in the circumstances. As regards comparison with 1945, the Tories kept faith with Churchill, but, in truth, I think Churchill might have stood down in favour of Eden. It’s not always realised the enormous difficulties facing the Attlee Government after 1945. The Shinwell Winter of 1946-47 is still remembered for its severity - the fact Labour still polled nearly 49% in defeat in 1951 (as against 36% in defeat in 1979) was remarkable.
As for the Conservatives, they accepted much of the Beveridge Plan and the Labour nationalisations - the “thinking” was done by men like Thorneycroft, Iain Macleod and a young Ted Heath. They understood that the world had moved on and there could be no going back on many of the reforms instigated by Attlee’s Government.
In the same way, Blair recognised that he had to acknowledge the achievements of the Thatcher administrations especially the Union legislation before Labour could be electorally acceptable especially in the south. The problem I see with the Conservatives now is that there is no recognition that the world of 2009 will not be the world of 1997. There are aspects of Blair’s legacy (devolution, independence of the Bank of England) that have been positive and I would like to hear Cameron recognise that there have been some positives in Labour’s record. Too much from the Tories sounds like whingeing, carping criticism and many people have a fear that an incoming Tory Government will try and take us back to the 1980s in terms of thinking of tax cuts before public services.
9. Max. I’m not Berlusconi in disguise (after a plastic surgery)!
14. Rik, I’ve a life too, even if it doesn’t seem.
(Am I one of your noxious posters?)
84 - The more interesting Analogy is between Churchill and Eden. You say Churchill might have stood down and this is totally not the case. Increasingly Churchill thought Eden not up to the stepping up from Foreign Office to PM and held on as long as he could.
I think Blair equally thinks that Brown is not up to taking over as PM.
And just as Eden was dragged down by his supposed area of expertise, foreign affairs, so I would suggest Brown would be dragged down by his supposed speciality, the economy.
84 - Agree with a lot in that last paragraph Stodge. For too long we’ve just had a list of complaints and gripes rather than a coherent, positive agenda for government.
OTOH I think its unlikely that DC would start congratulating Tony Blair on where he and the Labour party have gone right. Since 1997 I can rarely, if ever, remember anyone in the Labour Party openly congratulating us on some of the things that were done right in the 80’s and 90’s. Its important that DC gives the impression of being on level terms with Blair and I don’t think this is best achieved by paying homage to his achievments without reciprocation.
84 - Very good last paragraph stodge, and I agree with much of it. For too long all we’ve presented the country with is a list of complaimts and gripes rather than a coherent, positive agenda for government.
In an ideal world DC should of course be able to congratulate Tony Blair on where things have gone right but I don’t believe this would (or ever has been) openly reciprocated. It would be very dangerous for DC to give the impression that he is paying homage to TB’s achievments whilst he aspires to be Blair’s equal.
84/86: Churchill was disengaged from the mainstream of British politics during most of 1945-50, and the running on domestic policy was made by Eden and Butler. Eden’s role is under-appreciated - it was he who popularised ‘the nation-wide property owning democracy’ as an encapsulation of Conservative values at the 1946 conference (speech scripted by Reggie Maudling). Churchill tended to take the view in 1945-51 that the Conservatives didn’t need policy and would be best being vague and winning a doctor’s mandate after Labour (incidentally, Conservative discourse at the time was extremely heated about the alleged incompetence and malice of the Labour government). But Eden and Butler (and Macleod, Powell and Maudling) worked on policy anyway, and ‘bounced’ Churchill into acceding in his 1947 conference speech. Yes, Churchill later took a dim view of Eden’s abilities and clung on, but the situation changed significantly in 1953 with Eden’s botched surgery (that worsened what one might call, in a contemporary echo, his ‘psychological flaws’). With Churchill and Eden both ill, the succession would otherwise go to Butler - who was on the other side of the appeasement divide.
78: Interesting point about the alternation of actors and managerial quiet men (I think it holds true for the most part, although Eden messes it up and Heath was a different sort of managerial figure). However, a reassuring manager usually requires experience in office, which no Conservative currently has except Clarke, to make his/ her pitch as the quiet life candidate (and Clarke is perhaps too rumbustious to fit the part). Callaghan, Douglas-Home, Attlee were all battle-hardened ministers; Major and Baldwin a little less so. The Conservatives have now been out for too long to come up with a manager - their best bet is probably that Labour choose a boring successor to Blair and that their leader can appear an exciting contrast.
85 - Andrea - no you are not “noxious”!
Stodge [84] wrote As regards comparison with 1945, the Tories kept faith with Churchill, but, in truth, I think Churchill might have stood down in favour of Eden
That’s certainly what Eden thought
Paddy power now evens on 66-80% cameron win.
Click for
Paddy Power then go into novelty bets.
91. I put it up on attheraces and fear I may have helped ruin the price.
78 - Lloyd George was actually succeeded (briefly) by Andrew Bonar Law, but the very fact that politicos forget about his Premiership surely underscores your point! The main point - that dynamic leaders are typically followed by more managerial ones - is a valid one, and I fear that, particularly in the short term, Cameron will suffer from the comparison to Blair. A lot will depend on when the Blair-Brown handover occurs: I think that Cameron will be seen as a decent and viable alternative to Brown, but if Brown is only ensconced in 2009, he may enjoy a honeymoon that tides him over the election period.
93 - I think its fair to say that Labour SHOULD win the next general election unless something seriously bad happens to the economy before then. A Brown bounce should easily see him through.
Re: 78 - An interesting posting, Nick, and it raises the question of the degree to which changes in the intensity of media coverage have led to changes in political behaviours and culture. I can only imagine what a Sky News-style coverage of the 1963 Conservative Conference would have been like.
It HAS changed the rules of debate. no doubt. The ability of politicians to float ideas publically (eg: taxation or drugs policy) has been undermined by the media, both written and broadcast. The former reflect the views of often non-British owners, who use their publications to castigate any politician seen as deviating from the norm. Blair, you might argue, danced to Murdoch’s tune and survived. Major did not, neither did Kinnock, nor does Kennedy and they have all been savaged quite unfairly and unreasonably.
I’m all for a “free” press but I also want a “fair” press and that we do not have at present. I’m not especially interested in what Cameron might have inhaled when he was a student but if he becomes leader of the Opposition, I am interested to know how he would run the country and what policies he would adopt and, as a reasonably intelliegent person, I want some detail not superficial soundbites. With respect to Rik, the “ideas” that Cameron has so far articulated could have been articulated by most Conservatives in the last decade. How is the “wunderkind” any different ?
93 - And MacMillan by Alec Douglas-Home, although ditto to an extent. However, Blair will be succeeded by Brown (presumably). If Cameron were to do well as Tory leader they may even let him have two elections and according to Nick’s theory could in fact be superbly placed to be the “dynamic” chap to follow the “managerial” Brown. Actually, I am not really convinced by the theory and not anyway sure that Cameron will appear particularly glamorous and dynamic when the Conservatives calm themselves down, step back, and take a look at the rather somewhat inexperienced, posh suit they seem certain to opt for (he has some good aspects but really isn’t the messiah that the more hysterical voices on this site suggest).
We don’t want a messiah we want a very naughty boy.
95. “How is the “wunderkind” any different ?”
This is precisely what the next 3 years are for. Cameron’s objective so far has been to win the Tory Leadership Contest, not to win over the electorate. He has been clever not to exclude any factions of the Tory Party with his campaign. We will soon see where he really stands on solid policy issues.
On the subject of the shadow cabinet, what do people think will be the futures of Willetts and, to a lesser extent, Green. Both went on the “wrong” side of the contest, but surely both have claims for shadow office, particularly Willetts.
If there is any truth in Clarke’s willingness to serve (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article321755.ece - from Clarke’s own paper) then the only position he could accept is deputy leader, with a free-roaming portfolio from which to bash Brown. Willetts would then still have potential access to Shadow Chancellor. Also, I think Fox’s new-found neocon streak could suit Defence, where he opinions would not necessarily be that controversial.
Lastly, surely Howard could be offered something, like Shadow Lord Chancellor, that gives him cabinet status and an outlet for his particular forensic talents? As someone else noted a few days ago, if he accepts a role he would surely go down as the most heroic and self-sacrificial Tory leader in recent memory.
GB seems to have a tremendous fund of good will for making the B of E independent to set interest rates.
Interest rates have never mattered much. So why the fuss?
Two reasons. Firstly, they ’set the tone’. Significant, but hardly earth shattering.
Secondly, because businessmen whinge about them. Thats because of the 38 (or however many) costs there are on a trading statement, the CEO has control of 37. The exception is interest rates. So which one does he highlight when things go wrong?
For all the difference interest rates make, the CEO would add more to his company’s properity by cutting out the wife’s beer.
99. I think Howard accepting a post even for an interim period is highly unlikely.
100 - “Interest rates have never mattered much” - Try telling that to the people whose homes got repossessed as Lamont chucked interest rates to 15% in a doomed bid to save a political project (ERM). Independance is exactly to solution to prevent meddling with interest rates for political gain (or not if you muck it up…)
Classic Sun front page. In the middle of a run of sex-scandals. The day after the ERM collapse:
“Now we’ve all been screwed by the government”
103 - it was “… by the Cabinet” (at the time of the Mellor scandal)
102 - the 15% rate was only for a day or so, wasn’t it? Can’t imagine that in itself caused anyone to lose their home, though of course there was an upward drift before that.
104 - Sorry, I meant the upward drift before that, that was principly ERM determined, as well as the general principle.
104 - Dammit I wondered whether I’d got it wrong. I keep chuckling when I see it at work. BTW passed on the link to this thread to The Whip column in the currant bun. Maybe you’ll get a nice red-top mention!
105 - true. You could argue that targeting inflation is just as much a political project as the ERM, though. Had the BoE been independent but mandated to maintain the value of the pound (and if we decided to enter the euro, it would have do that during the transition period), the results would have been much the same.
Agreed that the ERM was a bad idea, but I think it’s a separate one to BoE independence (which I agree is a good idea).
84 Stodge DC has indeed recognised that Blair has made changes that must be accepted as part of the new landscape. That is one of his coremessages about change in the party. DC has been roundly condemned for voicing this truth and this, as well as his slick campaign, has tempted people to put a ‘Blair’ tag on him.
It is simply a tactic to discredit him, but as the speech quoted below shows, he has bee nwuite clear from the beginning that not all that Blair has done is bad but often it is not done well enough.
Quote: So the task for a modern Conservative Party is to deliver the radical reform that Labour are temperamentally and politically incapable of. It won’t be easy. We cannot try some version of “Blair-lite”, echoing calls for tinkering reform but dodging hard choices. Nor can we simply pledge to match spending in a hope that that alone will be enough to win people over.
http://www.cameroncampaign.org/downloads/speeches/DC_09.09.05.pdf
108 - Very short sentences.
Large gaps between each line.
I care passionately about this. We must do that.
Self-deprecating joke. Guy-on-the-street anecdote.
List of past failures. Visions of future success! Sentences without verbs.
Re: 108 - well, Mr Cameron goes up a couple of notches in my estimations !! It’s encouraging to hear of course but the issue is very often the direction in which that reform is headed. There are many in the public sector who would argue that the use of consultants and greater private sector intervention has been at best a mixed blessing and has been at worst harmful.
It’s a key area for debate over the next three years but I fear a lot of this is predicated on the “public bad, private good” mantra which has pervaded Government thinking under successive Governments. Simply bypassing local authorities and giving money directly to schools is superficially attractive but when you have a portofolio of 300 schools, what happens is each school gets too small an amount to do anything useful. When the money was centralised, it could be targetted on a rolling programme of maintenance improvement e.g: boiler replacement or redecoration. I’ve no problem with teachers teaching - I do think that local authorities should be left to manage the school’s internal and external fabric.
107 - Fair point, but in your scenario would the BoE just have to maintain the value of the pound, to the detriment of inflation, or try to steer a narrow line and cover both targets? I suspect that if the BoE were sensible they’d refuse to try and do both as you almost inevitably get stuck between a rock and a hard place.
110 - Good points, Stodge. Furthermore, as is true in many public services (schools, hospitals, Universities) the professionals are trained to do their particularl profession. What they are not trained to be is managers, either of people or of money. The danger is that by giving a head teacher control of a budget you are asking them to do something that they are not trained to do. Some do it well, but many do not.
111 - I think if we entered the euro we would be bound by agreement with the other members to maintain the pound within a band. Inflation wouldn’t ipso facto be an excuse for slipping out of that (though I admit a fudge could probably be concocted, given how several other countries’ assent to the Stability Pact is not worth the paper it is written on.)
113 - I think you may have just given one of the best reasons around for not joining the single currency…
95 Stodge you are right about the environmental changes in politics. A politician who wants to rise to the top has to live in the current and still fast changing environment. This site and others like it would have made earlier leadership elections, let alone general elections, rather different propositions to what they were.
The Web in the last US Presidential election was pivotal in knocking down knocking copy against Bush. It also provided a ready made network for poll cheat watchers and those alerting the public to obscure but important developments. Without the blogs Rathergate would never have surfaced, and the MSM in the US would still have free rein to peddle their bias unchallenged.
Now we have non-stop news to our phones, webcasts one to one, DVDs on our doormats and TV everywhere (even on the planes and the trains). Newspapers are online and blogs chart every minute detail of every action, advise everyone on everything and confuse the issue generally.
People now expect more data daily than the media provided during the whole 1964 campaign.
So even if the Manager>Flash Harry sequence were to be valid, both the stuffy one and the flashy one would need the same level of basic media skills. Otherwise they would be like people trying to swim across the croc infested river without having bothered to learn to swim or chart the dangerous places.
Easy meat for the pack.
114 - yes, I think the balance of risks is well against joining in the foreseeable future.
Conway is obviously three pantographs short of a tram.
As for suggestions of Miliband as a leader this is pure anorak-peak. Miliband is more Willetts than IDS if you know what I mean.
Why not look to some real street-fighting politicians like say Phil Woolas?
117 - Because Phil Woolas will lose his seat one of these days. And he looks far too slimy to appeal to the masses.
As I say he’ll lose his seat one day.
**touches wood**
Andreas mate is speaking about railtrack at the moment. Very animated.
113. I rather think a brief course in international macroeconomics is in order here. Targeting the exchange rate and targeting inflation are quite different, even if both require the use of interest rates. Targeting the exchange rate has a very poor record in the UK since the war, culminating in the ERM fiasco. It is very inflexible because it requires the subjugation of all other economic considerations to maintaining an (often arbitrary) level of the currency on a day-to-day basis. This can lead to interest rate levels that are entirely inappropriate for the needs of the domestic economy. Inside the euro, the pound would vanish as a currency and UK rates would be set by the ECB, with the economic needs of the Eurozone as a whole in mind. This too could easily lead to rates being at wholly inappropriate levels. The key difference between euro membership and old-fashioned targeting of the sterling exchange rate is that there would be no escape from euro membership - exchange rate targets can always be dumped, as all the UK ones eventually have been.
118 - Does anyone (Mark Senior perhaps) know whats going to happen to Phil Woolas’s seat after the boundary review?
117 - Can’t see Milliband as leader either - he’s clearly talented and smart but maybe a bit to geeky to really appeal. And I agree with you on Conway - his latest intervention wont help DD one bit.
120 - I don’t disagree with anything you say. However, looking back at 113 perhaps I should have clarified my first sentence to “If we agreed to enter the euro, then in the transition period leading up to entry…”
Who have Labour actually got as a credible leader in their next generation. Ruth Kelly. The Millibands, Chris Bryant, David Lammy?? It’s all looking a little bleak.
P.S Alan Duncans having tremendous fun on 508 now.
117, 121 et al - All this talk about Conway not helping DD - is Conway stupid, naive or a backstabbing Cameroon mole…? Just putting the question out there…
Oldham East is losing part of St Mary’s in Oldham centre as well as some of south Royton (obviously going to Oldham West and Royton).
The seat will also get the whole of the Milnrow and Newhey Ward from Rochdale (though most of it was already in Oldham East). Rochdale takes the heavy Labour area around Firgrove.
Basically the overall change wipes out much of Woolas’ advantage!!
**again touches wood**
121/125 - Basically correct but the proposals are not confirmed and the public enquiry commences on 31st October . Revised recommendations may well follow .
125 - does this make both notional Lib Dem marginals, or does Rochdale go back to Labour?
122. Correct. Sterling would have to be maintained in a range around a central rate against the euro that would be determined by negotiation. The normal fluctuation band allowed would be +-2.5%, the normal period at least two years. This is basically the same system that we joined in the original version of the ERM, and would have the same flaws. Most glaringly, interest rates might have to move drastically, regardless of the condition of the domestic economy, to maintain an arbitrary level of sterling. For reference, the trading range of sterling against the euro in the last year is about 6%, against the dollar about 12%. If you want to try to prevent these kind of FX moves, you need to be prepared to tolerate a great deal more volatility in interest rates. As rather more agents in the economy are sensitive to rates than to the currency, this generally means you have to tolerate rather more volatility in output and employment as well.
#120 “…no escape from euro membership…” Or perhaps there is a [painful] route. The idea of Italy leaving the Euro and recreating the Lira has been suggested a few times. Any betting on that?
There is quite a strong case for saying that the interest rates imposed by Major/Lamont in the ERM era were pretty much justified by inflation in any event. Thatcher/Lawson left them a poisoned legacy on that front. I don’t think that line is entirely correct, but it is certainly right that the early 90s recession was always certain to be very deep and painful and the ERM was in many respects a fringe issue.
Incidentally, the Bank of England’s decision to cut interest rates a couple of months ago was a worrying sign - mission creep on their part I feel. They are charged with hitting the inflation target and have taken their eyes off that particular ball. A little prediction of my own is that inflation will come back into play as a real issue within ten years.
I don’t doubt that interest rates had to rise in 1989/90 to choke off inflation. However, our being in the ERM kept them high for longer than necessary. As soon as we came out of ERM, interest rates dropped very sharply within a few months, with no adverse effect on inflation.
125. “Who have Labour actually got as a credible leader in their next generation. Ruth Kelly. The Millibands, Chris Bryant, David Lammy?? ”
Chris Bryant’s Y fronts for leader?
129 - Both appear to stay in the same column as the last GE but both are more marginal . As earlier though revised proposals may be totally different .
78. Completely agree with this. DC and TB are very much actor-polticians and peoples tastes are moving away from this. In a post-ideological era the positioning of ones image matters more than ever and DC has not got it right.
And for those who ask “but why, then, has he polled so much support from the public and Tory members alike?” I give this answer: - because, if you hadn’t seen this man (DC) talk and perform before very often (which most haven’t), then you might initially be convinced by his act - but as the performance wears on, it will soon loose it’s appeal. Remember adverts are only meant to be seen for (at most) 40 seconds; DC seems to have already outstayed his welcome.
Voting for Clarke would have in one fell swoop showed that the Tories had changed, and they would also have provided the antidote to the image of the TB/DC actor-politician. This was their clause four, and they blew it. I for one, a floating voter, would have joined the Tory party if KC had become leader. I’m sure I’m not the only one. And for those that will say that they would have left for the same reason, I say what an even greater loss.
132 - I agree on the inflation risk - but given waht has been happening with commodity prices, am particularly worried about stagflation.
136 - a pretty forceful post and I find it difficult to disagree. Nick, perhaps you should consider a career in politics!
Nick [136] - one reason I’m sure that Clarke did no better than he did this time was the thought in Tory MPs’ minds that people with organisational ability/experience and donors would defect to UKIP/Veritas - it wouldn’t have been beyond the bounds of possibility for say Rupert Murdoch to have flattered them into some sort of unity for 2009… on the QT and at second hand, natch.
I was on holiday in Slovenia in September. They are joining the Euro in 2007. It’s quite clear that when the Tolar (the Slovenian currency) disappears, prices will rise rapidly to nearer the levels of Austria and Italy. However, the economic disparity is considerable and the disparity within Slovenia itself is considerable.
In a sense, this mirrors the situation everywhere. Those who criticise the Euro often cite the economic disparity BETWEEN countries as a reason why the joined currency won’t work yet conveniently forget the disparity that exists WITHIN countries. Let’s take an example - if I earned £50k per year (which I don’t) and lived in London (which I do), that wouldn’t be considered a remarkable income or provide an exceptional standard or quality of life. Take that same £50k and earn it in York or Newcastle and it’s a very respectable income. Despite that, I pay the same income tax wherever the money is earned. The “disparity” exists through the economic spectrum from house prices to how much you pay for a Mars bar yet we don’t use Yorkshire Pounds or Newcastle Pounds - it’s the same currency. The Euro takes the notion of disparity to a new level.
I’m not convinced by the Euro but nor do I think it will collapse. Nor do I think that it would mark the end of us as a nation if we join. The Welsh have been economically and politically linked to England since 1536 but go to the Arms Park when Wales are playing a Rugby Union international and tell me there’s no such thing as a Welsh nation !!
131.” The idea of Italy leaving the Euro and recreating the Lira has been suggested a few times. Any betting on that?”
Lega Nord and Alessandra Mussolini ar ethe only ones who openly called for Lira’s return. Berlusconi usually uses the Euro as an excuse for economical problems (”it’s not my fault, it’s Euro fault)
135. Rochdale has not big margins to become more marginal without falling in the Labour column.
139 - don’t give UKIP and certainly not Veritas any credit whatsoever Innocent Abroad - they are laughable clowns. If the powers that be had been hacked off with a Clarke leadership, they would be more likely to found a new party on the right of politics than try and start with UKIP/Veritas.
Does anyone remember when the “New Party for Britain” thing was floated, and embarassingly just disappeared after h