“Blair is about to go” rumour sets off betting surge
November 16th, 2005
-
What are we to make of the “Blair going” market moves?
The implied probability, based on best betting prices, of Tony Blair leaving by the end of this year - within six weeks - has started rising again following the big surge last week after the 90-day detention defeat. The chart maps how punters have being viewing Blair’s possible imminent departure
Meanwhile the bookmakers, William Hill, have reported taking string of bets from punters who believe an announcement that Tony Blair is about to stand down is imminent. After accepting, amongst others, a bet of £1000 at odds of 10/1 for Blair to step down before the end of this year, Hills cut the odds to 13/2, but then received another bet of £500 at those odds from a Nottingham punter, followed by another client wanting to open an account to place precisely the same bet.
“At the same time we had people ringing us up, placing smaller bets, then telling us that they had been told that a significant announcement about Mr Blair’s future was imminent’ said a Hill’s spokesman.
This morning the Independent ran a story that the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, was calling for Brown to take over the leadership unopposed.
-
We are not convinced by the rumour. And even if it was true a process would have to be set up to select a new leader and it is hard to see how that could be truncated within the six weeks between now and New Year’s Eve. This would point to a change-over in the first quarter of 2006 - not of it all being resolved this year.
I think we are going to have to get used to stories like this.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Hoon said he hopes to see Brown running unopposed last month too. Will we a new story everytime he’ll repeat it?
Concerning TB’s departure, I think there was an over-reaction following the Commons defeat. It’s sometimes easy to be carried away by our own feelings (I’m the first one to do it!)
Agreed Andrea - Blair will break at least two of his rules or aims if he goes now. As I keep saying he’ll want to beat Thatcher (Nov 08) so I think he’ll go in Jan 09. Also he said he wanted to serve a full term as PM - he can’t even claim that if he goes now but he can in Jan 09. He won’t want even his resignation to be a broken promise!
Beware Nulab spin here and in the near future.
Rumours of imminent departure now have the same function as the pre-election self denying fourth term: the distractor. Why attack someone when he is on the way out? Its targeted mainly at the potentially rebellious Labour party and the chattering and misspelling classes of the Guardianistas.
Now being at a point of real and serious danger the Blairites are playing the same game? He’s going soon so don’t rock the boat. And under the smoke screen Tone Alone carries on delivering the nearly-Tory manifesto but still not daring to go all the way, despite what he said at the Labour conference about always wishing he had been more radical.
An interesting post about the stresses and strains of the contradictory education policies of the Labour party in different parts of the UK is at:
http://thecep.org.uk/news/ViewItem.asp?Entry=748
I agree. The only way the timscale works would be if he just resigned as PM and labour leader on the spot. I think in these circumstances John prescott would takeover as leader and therefore PM for the 6 to 8 weeks it would take to elect a new leader. having said that hes the sort of personality that would go for the dramatic exit.
The more plausible rumours (of which - I agree - we shall have no lack) - will be the ones with a health dimension: is there any indication of that with this one?
5 Lord Goderich Yes, he will look for fireworks or a love fest opportunity to go out in a blaze of something or other. Going to the stake on ‘Education, education, education’ or being the international iron man seem much more likely swords to fall on to ensure his legacy than social security scroungers and the long term sick.
I would go for education, myself.
Whatever happens, the Dour One is going to be trussed ready for David Cameron’s Christmas present in 2006 at the earliest.
Re. 5, I’m not so sure about Prescott standing in. After all, Blair resigning on the spot may just fit the ’should the leader become suddenly available’ bit of Clause 5:4 of the Labour Constitution as amended in 94.
If it does, then the ‘Cabinet, meeting in consultation with the NEC will elect one of its number’, ie Gordon Brown. Incumbency would reinforce his already strong claim to the leadership, and assist his election at either the Party Conference, or a Special Conference.
Particularly, of course, if Blair resigns for ‘health reasons’ (whether genuine, or a smokescreen).
Blair won’t go immediately: if it looked as if he’d been forced out by a Commons defeat, the power of Labour rebels would be immensely enhanced under Brown (Harold Wilson originally intented to resign on his 60th birthday, but the government was defeated the day before and he had to postpone the announcement for five days while the defeat was reversed).
As far as timing is concerned, whichever year Blair goes, he will probably need to go around, or just after, the beginning of the summer recess - so he doesn’t have to get batted around at PMQs for 6-8 weeks as a lame duck, and also to prevent a leaderless government being defeated in the meantime. Under this timetable, he can remain PM during the election process, resigning on its completion, and it would be a neat tie-up to have a new leader elected at Conference.
8 - Richard, what are the mechanisms for bringing about a challenge to the Labour leader?
And much as it saddens me to say it I don’t think Blair will go anytime soon. I imagine even if their is a chance he could be defeated on health/education reform he would at least want to go down fighting.
11 - According to the rules, 20% of the PLP must endorse a challenge. Once this hurdle is passed, then the issue is put to Conference. If Conference endorses the challenge on a majority card vote, a leadership challenge can take place. If the promoters of a leadership challenge want a special conference on the issue, this must be carried by a majority of the NEC.
5-Prescott as temporary PM,what a laugh, but can’t see anyone in Labour alowing that to happen.
A couple of week’s ago he should have deputised for TB at PMQ’s but was sent on a short break to Croatia instead.
10 You are assuming that Blair cares about the Labour party. I rather think he has seen it first as a vehicle to power and then as a route to put his ideas into effect.
More recently he seems to see the party as more of an hindrance, a burden that causes defeat and damage to his legacy (cf Channel 4 interview last week).
With the scars on his back from the battles still to come for that legacy will he, frankly, give a damn?
12. So far the rebels have only half of the signatures required among the PLP (according to their claims during teh conference).
Btw, according to BBC, Hilary Armstrong is sure to keep her job, because…….no-one wants it!
Then she allegedly told TB he didn’t a majority for 90 days, but he allegedly replied her to get the votes out.
14 - There are two reasons for Blair not taking the apres moi le deluge view: the Cabinet and the PLP is unlikely to allow him to wreck their chances of re-election by ruining the party, and his legacy will look pretty poor if the party ends up dumped in Opposition with the Left on the rampage against the right-wing “betrayals” of the leadership, as in 1970 and 1979.
16 Observer yes, hmmn.
But you assume that Blair is part of the party still. I don’t think he is now if he ever has been.
The party cannot stop a PM quitting whenever he and the Queen think it appropriate.
If the party is arguing about the measures that Tone has tried to put in place, and that a majority of teh electorate support, then I think Tone will say the ungrateful party can go hang.
Never underestimate the arrogance of power that says I did it all and look at how they treat me. Thatcher, Blair even Kinnock?
The extra added element here is that Blair may well believe that his core legacy is likely to be safer in the hands of the new moderate and centrist Tory party than the Labour party.
17. I suppose Blair thinks he’s doing the right thing for Labour Party.
5. No way that Prescott would become PM, interim or otherwise. The theory is that Blair would resign as party leader, and stay as PM for a few weeks while “they” decide who the new PM should be (without bothering to have a contested election). As soon as Brown is confirmed as party leader, Blair would resign as PM.
16/17. Then I don’t think Labour is on the verge to swing to the hard-left. It’s not that the PLP is full of still “old” Labour MPs. I doubt we’re on the verge to see John McDonnell and Alan Simpson as Labour leaders!
5 - Jack Duckworth as PM would be comedy of the rarest sort. We could never be that lucky could we?
17 - “The extra added element here is that Blair may well believe that his core legacy is likely to be safer in the hands of the new moderate and centrist Tory party than the Labour party.”
This is the key of the argument. I don’t believe Tony Blair is or has become a closet Conservative - he seeks to pass these reforms, not so Cameron or any other Conservative can build on them, but in the hope of permanently marginalising the Tories, so that the Tories simply look undsitinctive if they’re moderate and too far to the right if they search for clear blue water. He’s effectively trying to turn Labour into right-leaning Clinton Democrats who can become “the natural party of government”, an extremely tough task given Labour’s current institutional shape. It’s the most audacious attempt to reshape a party since Disraeli rebuilt Tory fortunes. And, if he gives way to pique, it will have failed, and the blame will lie with him. He’ll try and ensure that Brown carries the can if it does go wrong.
22. I think he’s trying to change the whole political dynamic forcing the tories to accept some of his arguments like Labour was forced to change some of his core policies after Thatcher’s years. Achieving so would make New Labour the natural party of government and the tories would be forced to adapt themself to succeed again.
What I just wrote is probably rubbish, I wasn’t able to find the right terms and I got lost in my comment in the end
23 - Indeed, but success would also depend on the Tories only being able to return for government for a term or so, with a low (or no) majority. Of course, the original “project” was based on PR, and that still might be vorached in the next Parliament.
Just returned from the Bolton Hustings - underwhelming - the best word to describe it.
Nothing new, nothing controversial, basic questions. I felt enthusiastic about the future of the party - we have two excellent candidates.
But I am not sure anyone would have changed their minds tonight and how anyone has judged who won previous hustings I will never know - it was not really debate you could judge.
Good night - full of hope, but nothing special.
The campaign is basically over - the laeadership teams of both parties probably suspect that Cameron has a decisive lead in ballots cast.
25 - How many people do you think were there, James? And what were the comparative levels of organisation apparent between the two campaigns?
26 - Probably quite true Observer, but it doesn’t do to take things for granted and so they must keep slogging!
28. AHM, will you go to an husting or aren’t there any of them in your area (I don’t remember the schedule anymore)?
28 - with Davis taking the blows, naturally….
Bringing back from the previous thread the discussion of MPs interests, will Hague be forced to renounce to all these earnings if he comes back to the Shadow Cabinet?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,9061,1643964,00.html
Alastair,
I would say there were about 500 people in total at least, but we did not fill all the seats out. Regarding organisation it was generally poor. I saw a couple of people afterwards, but no Cameron mints beforehand. But each camp maybe had a few people giving out stickers and leaflets at the end, but nothing special and I felt a distinct lack of enthusiasm from both campaigns.
Cameron has the helicopter already though!
Regarding the questions - they were all pretty short and simple. I entered one but it was not read out sadly. I was hoping to get an idea of the candidates deeper political character and it was quite long.
In summary I was going to ask that after both candidates have said they want the party to mirror the society we aspire to govern more, I wanted to asked them whether they felt that our political leaders should also try and shape society, rather than merely follow a society whichs character also includes an increase in divorce rates, drug usage etc.
“
Fantasy scenario (AKA Ramsey McBlair): Once Cameron is Tory leader, he supports Blair in a few votes, with the Labour rebels voting against. The rebels attempt to bring Blair down with a vote of confidence in which the Tories (mostly abstain). There is a lot of rumbling, and then there is an atrocity (or, we can hope, just the threat of one), and Blair proposes a National government. Cameron agrees and a joint government is formed, opposed by the Lib Dems, 60 Labour rebels, 40 reluctant Tories, and the “others” - majority of 350 odd. Dust settles, and the National government wins a general election with a slightly reduced majority. Blair retires two years later, and Cameron becomes Prime Minister for the next 15 years.
It’s a fantasy; the odds should be generous.
29 - Andrea, I plan to attend the hustings at Frimley on the 23rd.
33. You’ve forgotten someone called Gordon.
34. AHM, be kind with DD supporters, please. Remember you’re a true gentrleman and don’t give your email adress to strangers……
32 - There had better be mints on the 23rd!!
34 - I shall be on my very best behaviour, as ever!
If Blair were to walk out of Labour tomorrow, in or out of government, he’d be lucky to take 20 MPs with him.
36. Is the hustings at night……?
38 - No, it’s at 11 am. There is a hustings in London that evening.
39. So no fresh blood
You could go London’s hustings too, so Lady Matlock could go shopping again!
40 - You’d better be careful - I like Italian!
Mrs Matlock has spent her allowance for this month I’m afraid…
41. Mrs Matlock is a Gordon’s followers and could change her golden rule to find extra money
Then I’m pretty safe….I will never attend a Tory hustings in my life.
12 - According to a learned paper by Dr Stuart Thomson of Aberdeen University (who can ever doubt an academic
!!), the procedure you’ve described applies when Labour is in opposition. When in government, Dr Thompson asserts that a leadership challenge can only take place after a majority card vote at conference calls for such an election. The MPs per se appear to have no role in provoking a challenge. Over to you…
Andrea, Thanks for your information about my hon. member on the other thread. I ought to pay you a small retainer as my research assistant, but exploitation is far more satisfying.
42 - She’s quite good at spending someone else’s money, just like Gordo… hmmm. You may be right!
You have no idea of the fun you are missing by ostracising yourself from us, Andrea. We Tories always have better parties - win, lose or draw!
Another TV debate between to 2 Davids coming up on Sunday. This time from the South Derbyshire village of Repton for ITV. I think i’ll give this one a miss as I might start to look like a stalker but it’s typical that I go treking round the country listening to them and then them turn up on a programme filmed 3 miles away from me.
43. John O, I’m afraid how you want to use those info. I don’t want to create troubles to him.
Re Labour rules. BMA and friends were unsure about the rules just after the elections when John Austin wanted to run as stalking horse. They had that dilemma.
Last month I read they’ve half of the signatures required, but I don’t know if Glenda and friends have understood the rules well yet…..it’s better to inform them!
Pshaw. If that Nottingham punter wants another £500 at 10-1, he just has to contact me.
45 - Woody: Always seems to be the way, doesn’t it? Though I’m sure they would never mistake your dedication and devotion for anything more sinister.
44. AHM, maybe when I get older, I’ll finally see the light and join you and John in wild parties
49 - Oh don’t you start on that again!
50. My mind is already flying……..I’ll arrive in UK for the weekend….to help Mrs Matlock to spend your money better.
51 - She doesn’t need any help! No, it’s ok really. You just stay where you are.
52. AHM, don’t be nasty and hateful….:-)
53 - Nothing of the sort. I have no thought but my future financial security!
54. Try to become friends of one those MPs and you won’t have problems!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1875734,00.html
Next time don’t accuse me to ostracise myself from you again….I offer to come to UK just to meet you (and spend your money) and I got a nasty reply. Next time I’ll go to visit JOhn O hoping he’ll take me to lobby the mini-macho from Rutland
55 - Sorry, but I’m very protective of Alan. I wouldn’t want to see him hurt….
56- what are you implying?
57 - The subject of your lobbying of course! I would need precise and comprehensive details before even contemplating an approach.
21-Good one!
Agree it would be the best comedy show for years,but am sure we will be denied it.
Back to everyones favourite subject……. Mike tried to widen things out but why should anyone be interested in the future President of the USA when we can discuss who will lead the Tories to their historic fourth defeat. I was very amused to see Michael Crick’s expose of Mr Camerons foray into the brewery business. Recommended by the Earl of……his father in law who thought David, with his Home Office experience would be just the ticket.
And why shouldn’t he have then tried to get rid of our “absurd licensing laws” and getting into step with the rest of the world…. Politician’s can change their mind three times on the same issue surely?
The more I get to know Cameron the more he’s growing on me….. As a Labour supporter.
58. but I’ll leave the approach to you……
Maybe I should concentrate my efforts on some of those MPs with lots of non- political earnings (even if your MPs don’t give the overall income they get in the end)…..Widdy could be a good choice….no strange activities required
37 Observer you said If Blair were to walk out of Labour tomorrow, in or out of government, he’d be lucky to take 20 MPs with him.
Well, exactly. This is why theories about him trying to radically reshape either the Labour party or politics in general is not tenable. His vision is more personal and clannish (the Blair clan of Campbell and co).
The Labour party is just an ephemeral vehicle for the greater project that is increasingly identified with the individual. That is the only explanation for the Blunkett fiasco and the so unLabour Torylite agenda.
Michael Meacher the meanie is attacking Blair and saying he is re-introducing the Tory internal market …. and … The same pattern is manifest in the new education white paper.
He says Blair will fail if he doesn’t listen.Who to? Well MM and his friends of course. The rebellion against the Emperor is developing. May the Force be with them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1644026,00.html?gusrc=rss
Blue2Win - I think you’ve pegged quite well.
The one thing I’d say, and I’m not sure what you’re opinion would be here, is that it seems to me that Blair has moved steadily rightward as he’s been in office. Do you think this is so? And if so, do you think it is just a personal ideological conversion or rather him becoming increasingly secure/complacent with his position and less willing to compromise and “play nice” with large segments of the Party?
A question concerning those brave punters.
Is shortening odds on Our Dear Leaders resignation something that might have a material impact on his future? I mean if the ship looks like it might sink, would the rats start to desert?
If there is any impact, then betting a few thousand pounds to hasten the departure of a Prime Minister, would be quite a cheap investment for his enemies.
62 - Blue2Win, I’d still disagree with you there. Blair has developed greater (and possibly unjustified) confidence in his own political judgement; he, and Brown, too, like to adminster through a tight little clique, because that’s the way New Labour learnt how to do its business. But that doesn’t mean that Blair has a wider vision. He has always seen leading Labour as a continual process of “re-educatiing” the party in the only policies that, in his view, a modern leftish party in Britain can adopt if it wishes to have a majority, and keep those votes won from the Tories under his leadership. And well he might: holding seats like Battersea (or indeed Broxtowe), and possibly winning back places like Putney, however unlikely in practice, can only be achieved by holding off the threat from the right. He just wants to plug away at what, in his view, is a winning formula.
When Blair has driven the Old Banger Labour party until its wheels are falling off, he will dump it at the side of the road and hop into a brand new taxi for the next stage of his life mission to save us all.
Believe it. Blair is a ruthless politician. Parties are ephemeral but posterity is for ever.
“Parties are ephemeral but posterity is for ever”.
I’d say that any party was much bigger than Blair. The Labour Party will exist after Blair has retreated to retirement and the HofL, as will the other parties. His interest is entirely linked to showing that he left Labour stronger than he found it, able to fight the Tories effectively and with the chance to dominate the next century - or, if he detaches himself from the party, he risks going down in history as a frontman for Brown’s demostic policies who almost destroyed the party. He remembers quite well how the SDP and Ramsey Mac ended up; and they weren’t remembered for success.
I don’t see that Blair has to abandon the Labour party if he can persuade Cameron to join him in a National Government. It’s true that McDonald didn’t carry much of the Labour Party with him, but, in different circumstances admittedly, Attlee did. But anyway, I agree the possibility is so unlikely as be worthy of quite monumental odds.
Don’t underestimate how much Blair and his people loathe the Tories, always surprised by it myself.
As a new contributor I hate to put the cat among the pigeons but… Blue2win and others of a similar ilk are seriously mistaken in summarizing Blair as a ‘Torylite’ megalomaniac. He is a good deal more complicated that this puerile level of analysis – and this is one reason why the two Davids and/ or BMA et al, won’t displace him anytime soon. If he was simply ‘Torylite’ then moderate Tories (an oxymoron if there ever was one!) would support him… He has moved right, but he remains a left-leaning centrist. Moreover, the Tory party has, in recent years, moved dramatically left. Don’t take my word for it – read Peter Hitchens… Apparently, the Conservatives now accept the minimum wage, devolution, public spending approaching 45% of GDP, same sex marriage… etc etc. Blair hatred is getting the better of too many otherwise intelligent commentators.
71 -
You miss the point, Blair has presided over a labour party which has become less liberal. The left/right issue is a red herring.
He has taken the authoritarian clothes of the old tories, knowing that this appeals to working class labour voters, and merged it with a hodgepodge of populist ideas.
He’s a populist with authoritarian leanings, similar to Ms Thatcher in her heyday, that’s why he can be easily read as being ‘torylite’.
There’s always been an authoritarian streak in Labour- think how many of the present Cabinet are former communists. Attlee developed the Bomb and, we now know, also allowed the torture of German civilians on British soil for three years after the war during his reign, after all…
73 - Sorry but I don’t think I do ‘miss the point’. The argument that was being made was not the one you articulate - but that TB is a ‘Tory’ not an authoritarian. Moreover, I made a separate one which you seemingly chose to ‘miss’ – that the Conservatives have taken on as many Labour positions, as Mr Blair has Tory ones. Indeed, I am perplexed (like many social conservatives are) as to how the new cuddly-feely Tory Party is in anyway conservative.
Apologies to 73 I meant to refer to 72…
74 - As I implied those posters are also missing the point. I stated that the term torylite was a misreading.
The interchangeability of tory and labour policies further confirms my point that the left/right axis is a red herring. Blair will go if/when people get fed up of his use/abuse of authority.