Who’ll win the LD race - the debate continues
January 16th, 2006
-
PB.C party-goers discuss the chances
Saturday’s second PB.C party attracted 40+ site regulars including Anthony Wells, founder of UK Polling Report, Guido Fawkes and Ian Dale, the owner of Politicos and who served as David Davis’s chief of staff.
Clearly the Lib Dem leadership race was a key discussion point with many of the Tories there saying the candidate that they most feared was the former MEP, Nick Clegg, who is not a candidate and has come out strongly for Ming Campbell.
Guido Fawkes advised everybody that he had just signed up as a Lib Dem member so that he could vote. Those Lib Dems who had been at the party conference earlier in the day had no clear view over the likely winner.
What we need is a further YouGov poll of party members but, apparently, there’s not likely to be one in the next few days. A key element is the alternative vote PR system that the party uses and this could yet spring a surprise result.
Simon Hughes is popular amongst many activists but commands much less support at Westminster and within the party’s headquarters. He might get a lot of first choices but could be at the bottom of the list of a significant group of voters.
Ming Campbell is reckoned to be the establishment choice and he did beat Hughes by 49-21 in the only members’ poll that has been carried out. He’s likely to get a lot of second preferences which could be crucial provided he is still in there for the final two.
Chris Huhne continues to arouse a lot of interest and many were impressed by the content, if not the delivery, of his Saturday speech.
Mark Oaten’s chances were rated at almost zero by just about everybody at the party.
In the betting Simon Hughes continues to be the favourite although there has been an easing in his price and a tightening in the Campbell one overnight.
My other website: There’s a strong political slant today on the other web-site that I have just launched The-Fundraiser.com. This is aimed at people who are involved in raising money.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
mike, can you please put names to some of the faces on your pictures so that those of us that were unable to make it can put a face to all the comments. Thanks
If people could identify themselves it would help me.
A question was asked as to whether or not I would attend a pb.c party. The answer is mainly driven by the fact that I spend almost all weekends in Birmingham. If it were midweek in London that would be different.
I think that is a fair analysis, Mike. Hughes is both more and less popular in London tough - he’ll get a lot of first preference votes here, but a lot of fourth preferences as well.
though no tough
3rd time lucky “though” not “tough”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1687178,00.html
For all those “liberal” Conservatives. At last a voice of reason
Hughes wants a wife (a perfect leader should have a wife).
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article338873.ece
So female posters (Sophia?), it’s your occasion now!
8.”a perfect leader should have a wife”
I would add a
Could the suggestions of Campbell not being so anti-war damage him with LD members?
[7] At last a reasoned post from Roger.
The issues are, as usual, much more complicated than they look. The police raw material is the credit card numbers they have recovered from people running certain types of web-site, particularly child pornography.
The argument is simple and two-fold. Firstly, if were there no demand for child pornograhy, no children would be abused in making child pornographic photos/videos. Thus, a tiny number of children would no longer be abused in the production of these photos/videos/DVDs. Kill (or at least reduce) the economic demand. This looks thin to me—huge police time and money to produce a miniscule reduction in demand.
The second point is much stronger. Nobody logs in a 12 digit credit card number by mistake.
also in the Grauniad:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1687223,00.html
Jackie Ashley on why politicalbetting.com (and the bookmakers) is bad for politics.
In the Grauniad article, a probably accurate judgment:
My advice to a Lib Dem leadership contender would be to pay lots of friends to go down to William Hill or Ladbrokes, with bundles of fivers. It might well be the cheapest way of shifting opinion and getting elected.
“[7] At last a reasoned post from Roger”
Not your normal charming self to-day David
13. Roger, you know that in the deep of our heart we all love you (plotonically!)
Jackie Ashley should put his money where his mouth is…
What Ashley fails to understand is that the wisdom of crowds is often greater than the wisdom of Guardian columnists. I’m more inclined to believe Betfair’s inferences than Polly Toynbee’s or Simon Heffer’s.
[15] Oh, Guido, Guido - for that howler in your first line you really sould do penance and open your blog up to those of us who prefer not to join Blogspot
10 david kendrick
I would add an extra point. Paedaphilia, like homosexuality, is not a disease; it is a description of which individuals you find attractive. You don’t “grow out of it”, and you don’t “get cured of it”. Paedaphilia is no more curable than sociopathy.
We, as a society, have decided that homosexuality is acceptable. (Why on earth it was ever unacceptable is beyond me!) However, society has decided that paedaphilia is not. Perhaps because parents don’t want people who like sex with children to be in loco parentis for their children.
If someone is a paedaphile, they stay one for life; they may learn control, but they will not change their sexual desires. Thus, once someone has been identified as a paedaphile, there is no need to “review their case”, or to monitor for changes; they won’t happen.
Once someone has been confirmed as a paedaphile, society’s current position is that they should never be put in charge of children. Banning them for anything less than life makes no sense.
Why then is anybody reviewing their cases? It makes no difference whether it is a politician or a civil servant. (Personally, I would trust the former more than the latter; the electorate can fire a politician; just try firing an incompetent civil servant!)
The Mail have drawn analogy with the RC church’s cover-ups of paedaphile priests, and Ruth Kelly’s membership of opus dei. Could it be that both are incapable of accepting that some conditions do not reverse? Is it the idea that any sinner may one day repent?
[16] “should” not “sould” of course - that’ll larn me to make sarky comments about my youngers and betters
16 - IA - he already has opened it up to the vagaries of anonymous posting, following pleadings and lobbying at the pb party on saturday - haven’t you read his site since then??
16 - Oh, Guido, Guido - for that howler in your first line you really sould do penance and open your blog up to those of us who prefer not to join Blogspot
I think Guido’s already done that, hasn’t she?
Morning all. Simon Hughes is not gay eh?
**falls over**
21. Could we set him down with the Venerable Helen*?
The only problem is that she’s already married.
19 - the party to which I wish I had been at, btw instead of my obligations…
speaking of parties and saturday, I got an interesting piece of goss, nay a confession from Saturday…. MH was at a local association function, and he effectively confessed to what we all knew - that he deliberately set up a long contest so that DC could win, or, as he put it “so that everyone would get a fair crack at it”…
Oh my word. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone and I kinda like Simon Hughes
Oops… the last para should have read…
The Mail have drawn analogy with the RC church (with it’s cover-ups of paedaphile priests), and Ruth Kelly’s membership of opus dei. Could it be that both are incapable of accepting that some conditions do not reverse? Is it the idea that any sinner may one day repent?
11. I LOVE the quote:
“Politics ought to be about argument, debate, complexity.”
From a blairite like Ashley this is just SO funny. What will wake up her brain if she’s not frequently ‘pinged’ by Mike Smithson?
One good thing about the party is finding out which of the women on here erm exist
My letter to the Guardian commenting on Jackie Ashley’s article is on my blog:
http://liberalism2010.tsohost.co.uk/blog/2006/01/16/a-letter-to-the-guardian/
24. David, thinking well, Widdy is still free!
BV @29. Beautifully put, fully agree.
26 - jackie ashley is a brownite, not a blair-ite.
I agree entirely with Mike. CK beat simon hughes clearly on first prefferences in 1999 and then very comfortabley indeed after redistribution. What ever you think of ming he tends not to polarise opinion and simon does. As for the “I’m not gay” interview today.
erm…
Jackie Ashley is also Mrs Andrew Marr
Slightly OT but can anyone find the very good article Anthony Wells wrote on the boundary changes? I can’t find it anywhere….
17 - I dont think it is a case of whether someone who is a paedophile can be cured but rather what sort of sex offence should bar someone from working with children.
Just because someone is on the sex offenders list does not mean that they are a paedophile. And what about someone who has a lot of porn on their PC but which includes some pics which the Police say are of under 18’s? I
It is not black and white. There are some shades of grey as to offences. Maybe the law should bar ALL sex offenders of any kind from working with children. But why (for example) should a gay offender not work in a girls school?
The real danger it seems to me is not so much those on the lists but those people who secretly harbour desires and have no criminal or other record.
the bournemouth man was convicted for having sex with a 15 year old girl, who he subsequantly married and had three children with. perhaps this is a grey area?
36 - Not really no… unless he was under 18 himself in which case he shouldnt have been prosecuted.
Doh! Must pay attention to gender…
She she she she she she her her her her her
She she she she she she her her her her her
She she she she she she her her her her her
She she she she she she her her her her her
She she she she she she her her her her her
My blog’s comments are now open to non-registered types. Unlike here I can edit my comments on my blog and look less stupid. I will use the Charlie Kennedy defence for that howler - baby is teething.
37 - i think it is a grey area personally, but i can see why others wouldn’t.
Me@30 - oops, should have begun “BV@28″. oh well…
Milkybar Kid @23 - well, well, there’s a surprise! MHs calculated gamble really paid off - though questioned and critised at the time his surprise announcement of intention to step down neatly avoided the inevitable round of plotting and backstabbing that so badly damaged the party and his predecessors. He must have known what DCs qualities, message and intentions were at the time, and calculated that a long election run would give him the time for him to really shine & win over the party. He had also correctly guessed that the party was ready to hear the message - three election defeats, and the previous discipline problems had been dealt with by MH, so it was obvious that this couldn’t be the problem that was holding the Tories back.
OK, so the jury is still out on DC, but if he does manage to drag the party and policies into the 21st century and back to electablility then MH should be looked upon as having saved the party.
Much as the LDs will have learned from the Tory contest they cannot now, unfortunately, change history and the way that CK was forced to go. If their fortunes are once again restored as a result of the contest then it will probably be seen that a public leadership contest is a good thing per se, if not then all leaders ought to be aware that the manner of their departure has just as much effect. I’m sure that TB will be taking great note of what happens.
Re 28. Well put. Her comments show a total lack of understanding. The price movements on Betfair are frequently the first sign that something is happening eg the emergency of Christ Huhne as a candidate. Let’s face Lib Dems like a punt, and use their inside knowledge to have a bet. Jackie Ashley doesn’t understand this fact. OK, the media is well aware that Mr Shrpe from Hills is very media savvy and knows how to tickle the media’s fancy. But Ms Ashley’s lack of knowledge of the betting world means she fails to understand the significance of betting movements.
As Book Value points out, the established media don’t like it there are other people who have a view. After all, many of us here were tipping Cameron while the London-based media were convinced Davis would win.
31. More pious nonsense from the Guardian.
Interesting the media bandwagon on paedophiles teaching now. Sounding like the Brass Eye special on the subject in many cases.
[38] That’s the Opus Dei method, penance first, sin afterwards
[28] Good letter BV - p’raps she’s just jealous of our editorial freedom…
28 Ditto BV, like it.
Shame Ashley doesn’t sign up and try and argue her corner here rather than carting from a position of privilege.
Strikes me as pretty cowardly behaviour if truth be said.
Bet she’s still lurking here, aren’t you Jackie ;)? We all know how long “New Year Resolutions” last… Perhaps Nick Cohen will grass on her.
35-Rik and 36-Bally Eric
That’s a couple of good examples of grey areas.
What I don’t understand and cannot accept is that,after the Bichard enquiry (which was completed in 2003) following the Soham murders,one of the key recommendations was that all the various lists (list 99 etc.) would be combined into one single list to avoid the current level of confusion.
No doubt during this process the examples you give & others could have been excluded from the list.
There has been no attempt to do this with Kelly et al siting the lack of parliamentary time as the excuse for not doing it.
So clearly 24 hour drinking,smoking bans and of course fox hunting are much higher priorities then kids safety at schools!
Simon Hughes wants a wife?
Well I suppose there is the civic partnerships. I always assumed his leanings were comman knowledge and that it was no big deal. Now I’m confused if people are saying he isn’t the way I’d assumed. Anyway, he would have my support if I were a LibDem. He comes across as a nice bloke and that might be their best selling point as nobody takes their policies that seriously.
46 I hope in many ways she manages to hang on.
It isn’t going to do her/TB any favours whatsoever when the Education Bill comes up and she’s such damaged goods.
47. Can’t he mail order one?
It looks to me like Jackie Ashley is worried that her Westminster clique isn’t where the action’s at any more.
I’ve written a bit about it on my blog.
35-Rik
Well put, Rik. Tell me, is this type of more cerebral posting from you a reflection of the direction in which your new leader is taking the party - or are you just getting sensible in your old age?
Kind regards
P.
To be fair to Jackie Ashley, I actually made the point to mIke that PBC is now an important part of the spin cycle in the washing machine of politics some months ago. Mike defended the site saying that he personally had no axe to grind and was interested in making money and sharing tips. My response was that unlike horse racing or foorball, where only events on the day can determine the outcome, ‘tipping’in politics is becoming influential in decision making - so the wisdom of crowds argument does not make as much sense - and that it is more a prisoners dilemma i.e. if people think that candidate a is not going to win even though that is their preferred option, then they might vote for candidate c to stop candidate b. Of course there are other factors in politics that lead to these decisions, other than bookies (opinion polls, media perceptions, discussion), but it is disingenuous to say that a site like this can be totally neutral in the process.
47 Likewise.
He’d be mad if he wasn’t telling the truth though.
It wasn’t the booze that brought down CK so much as the porkies.
35- Must say I am impressed, Rik.
My father used to be a magistrate and says that some of the people going on the list posed - in his view - no threat to anyone.
52 - No: but neither is Jackie Ashley or any other political journalist neutral in the process!
Rik — good post. Note that there are shades of grey in both directions — type I errors and type II errors. Fiona MacTaggart told the Observer “I don’t think most men who use prostitutes think of themselves as child abusers, but they are”. So should we therefore ban 10% of all British men from working in schools for life?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1686864,00.html
54. I think the fact that Hearts manager Graham Rix was supposdly barred from the clubs academy because of the incident with the 15 year old girl shows that it’s not all black and white.
P.S Any views on DCs police reform speech?
She might be wide of the mark but I definitely think the growing influence of betting and odds on the reporting of politics is worth considering.
There is something qualitatively different in political betting: in what other events can the runners and riders bet on the outcome during play? And in what other events do the odds provide a feedback loop to influence the outcome?
The market seems to be small enough for only a small number of largish bets to significantly impact the odds and therefore the reporting of the story. If that’s right then strongly backing a candidate at the right time can create the impression either of momentum or stability. Or am I misunderstanding something. Anyway, if I’m right, the best defence against political outcomes being deliberately distorted by betting is if the market grows. We need more not less political betting.
58 James — another remedy is if the Commons Speaker (or other relevant authority) issues a clear edict that it is as unacceptable for MPs and their families to gamble on political events relating to themselves, as it is for Wimbledon players to gamble on who will score the first goal in their own matches. And that anyone caught will be harshly dealt with.
In financial markets, insider trading is rightly a serious criminal offence, and there should be no exception for political betting. Indeed maybe a lawyer could advise — I wouldn’t be surprised if existing statute already criminalises such behaviour…
Down goes another sacred cow
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4615718.stm
How long until DC announces an increase in the council tax in Notting Hill!
56 - To be honest I would rather we banned anyone convicted of any sex crime from working with kids than had some of these scumbags teach our kids.
57 - He’s not allowed to coach under-18’s without another adult being present. Which does seem completely ridiculous as I don’t think anyone really thinks he is a danger to young boys.
Hope everyone has a good time at the party - unfortunately I had a prior engagement up in Perth but will try to make the next one. Perhaps it could coincide with British Day. I’m sure the Labour and Lib Dem supporters on the site would like nothing more than a display of flag waving patriotism followed by a rousing rendition of Land of Hope and Glory!
28 - Excellent letter BV.
60 -
“Here is my offer to Britain’s police. You make the changes which will improve police performance and we will stop the centralisation and political interference that gets in your way.”
Pray tell how this is putting the holy old bullock out its misery?
60 No VOL, I’m quite happy with this personally.
Like in other sectors, there are good officers and bad officers
and the latter need removing.
52 - I’m more of a Jerusalem man myself, Max.
59 et al. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) was that in sport you can bet on yourself, but not against yourself, as there is then no conflict of interest (ie Henman could bet that he would win Wimbledon, as that what he’d be trying to do anyway). The problem unique to politics is that Henman betting he’d win Wimbledon doesn’t alter his ability to do so, whereas (for example) Cameron betting on himself as Tory leader would help to create a feeling of momentum behind him, and make it more likely that he will succeed (in theory).
Whilst I agree with BV’s letter at 28, I think a large part of the problem comes from the media’s laziness and lack of knowledge about the subject they are spouting off about. For example if you are trying to write a column about those going for the Lib Dem leadership, it is much easier to write half a column about what the current betting odds are than actually do some research and find out what each of there detailed policies are.
35. Good post!
Piling in on the Jackie Ashley debate, what she fails to appreciate is that the betting markets have actually got uncanny accuracy, especially when compared to the existing commentariat. The General Election is a case in point: it only takes a cursory glance over what the pundits were saying at the time (Private Eye’s Mystic Mogg column is as sharp as ever) to note that predictions ranged from a hung parliament to a Labour majority of 100+. The betting markets got it to within, I think, about ten seats.
The point about “buying” elections by putting on money is fairly specious. For one, if the prices go out, more ordinary punters will try and return them to the quasi-market rate. Ming trying to defy the punters by giving his chums cash to put on William Hill is akin to Major’s attempt to defy Soros et al. in the ERM debacle. Moreover, if the same punters are putting on stacks of cash, I’m fairly sure that eyebrows will be raised. In any case, as Guido notes on his blog, at a bargain £6 for membership, Ming could buy the leadership must more effectively and cheaply simply by paying for people’s subscriptions.
60. Can’t see how many people can argue with getting rid of imcompetent policemen and decentralisation.
68 AlexW - Sounds suspiciously like there’s are “you can’t buck the market” speech in there somewhere! Naturally I agree.
59 - Surely only an issue if it were realistic to manipulate results, hence things like bets on the first throw-in in a football match now being unavailable. I suppose there is a theoretical possibility that Menzies Campbell put a huge bet on Simon Hughes before asking a botched question himself at PMQs, but it is hardly realistic.
I have no problem with political candidates betting on themselves (or others!) to win elections. It is no different from activists (i.e. many on this site) doing likewise. It is certainly not insider trading. The information they have is not of a confidential nature - the fact that their experience and expertise allows them perhaps to process the information more fruitfully is a key part of gambling in any sphere (people who know how businesses work ought to do better playing the stock market, people who know about horses ought to do better at Ladbrokes).
There is some feedback, as there is with opinion polls, but so what? Do we really not trust people to take it all with a pinch of salt? Should we seriously supress the information that a lot of people are prepared to put hard cash on Hughes or Campbell winning the Lib Dem leadership, but that nobody is risking their shirt on Oaten?
66.”For example if you are trying to write a column about those going for the Lib Dem leadership, it is much easier to write half a column about what the current betting odds are than actually do some research and find out what each of there detailed policies are. ”
and in the second part they just write about themself!
68 - A very fair point. Suppose Oaten were to make a concerted effort to engineer a surge by placing a lot of money on himself - he would essentially only succeed in pumping money into the pockets of Mike and others on the betting exchanges and Hilton Group plc at Ladbrokes (since they will adjust their odds to some extent in response but only as insurance - bookmakers do not aim to make the same regardless of outcome but take a view on what the outcome is actually likely to be).
Gordon is set to become a father again. The baby is expected for July.
38 - Guido - “Baby teething” - is that the new euphemism for hung over?
40 - there are many within the party who felt before the election that, come what may, MH would be viewed as the party’s Moses, leading us out of the wilderness - as you say, the question is now whether DC is our King David or simply Joshua.
For all of you neo parents (Guido etc) who have trouble concentrating, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4616590.stm. Could there be an election on the way?
1 - are the pictures already published somewhere? Where?
I guess the real objection behind Jackie Ashley’s piece of prose is that policalbetting.com is outside the control of the Labour spin machine and people clearly find the comments on the site a lot more interesting than her predicatable drivvle.
Andrea @ 74. Sorry. Didn’t see your post before I clicked “send”.
76. Chris Huhne has already 5 children. He could give Blair, Brown and Cameron a run for their money in this field!
35. Good post Rik
80. I think some of them have flown the nest, Brown will still have it on the cute baby front. Do we know how many offsprings Ming has?
74. Doing to his wife what he’s doing to the economy.
80 Don’t know where he gets the energy !
83. Andrew Lansley has 5 children too…but in this case I could guess where his wife gets the energy from!
Another one of your favourites Andrea?
Have you got that signed photo of Dinky yet?
83. Perhaps it’s the sandles. Mr Hemming might be able to enlighten us.
45 - Surely the Brownite mouthpiece, Jackie Ashley and the Brownite mouthpiece ‘The Professor’ are one and the same? The timing is more than a coincidence n’est ce pas?
82. How nice of you to suggest Gordon is creating life within the economy!
Campbell has now a leadership website:
http://www.campbellcampaign.org/
82. thanks for giving me the chance to remind you. 8 years of consecutive growth and higher standard of living, coupled with low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment. more than the tories managed during their last period of government. some of us remember relatives having to scrabble around for coal to keep warm in winter (only 20 years ago believe it or not) and friends with good A levels taking 2 years to find a job. sure things were better then woody?
88. Not quite what I had in mind.
85. book value, not a full time favourite
But he’s pretty goodlooking.
What is the post-war average number of children for the PM? Is there a correlation between general election results - Blair has more children than Howard, Hague and Major … and won! But the same as IDS, but it didn’t go so far as a poll…
90. Inherited or created?
93 - Obviously people such as Ted Heath reduce the average a bit…
90 - sorry, that won’t wash after nearly NINE years.
93. who’s the MP with more children?
96 Take that as “INHERITED” then Woody !
97 - Edward Leigh has a fair few I think.
99. yup, he has 6 children. I don’t know if there’s someone more “active” than him.
91. You weren’t suggesting that Gordon was…oh dear?! My youthful innocence has been taken away from me!
btw. can anyone tell me how to put emoticons in my text?
Re “good cops” and “bad cops”.
Is the “bobby on the beat” in an area with very little crime - because he is there - a “bad cop”? He wont score very highly in the crimes cleared up statistics. Sounds like Cameron has swallowed New Labours target culture as well as everything else.
98. I think we can Tory Boy.
03 - no you can’t. not after nearly 9 years.
I certainly don’t think you can “buy” the election and I was careful to say in my post at 58 that any investment would have to be made “at the right time”. A weak candidate, talking up his chances and backing himself heavily at 200-1, is still a weak candidate. He’s also a few quid worse off.
Around the time of Davis’s speech at the conference Mike wrote a piece criticising him for calling himself the favourite when he clearly wasn’t. The point is, he was talking about the betting as a means to illustrate the validity and strength of his campaign, to retain momentum. If I was in the Cameron camp I would have definitely wanted to kick that crutch away.
After Cameron had shot ahead in the betting his odds eased slightly as you might expect when those who’d backed him further out sought to lay some off. At that stage some big bets came in (£10,000 on one occassion whilst I was watching) and stabilised the market. I definitely understand political betting less well than many here and I may only be showing my ignorance, but it seemed to me that such a move could have been deliberate and designed to stop prices sliding out again. That’s not to say that it was deliberate, or that prices wouldn’t have stabilised anyway. It’s certainly not an implication that the election was bought, but just an illustration of the type of situation in which such a move might usefully form part of a thorough campaign and help to manage the news. Maybe.
104 - bear in mind, as Gordon says, it is now 54 quarters of successive growth….
but 54 quarters (divided by 4) gives you 13 years 6 months.
Which is a bit more than the 8 years 6 months he has been in charge of the economy.
so that means the first 5 years came out of thin air? Nope - patterns, economic policy precedents and the trend began in 92. KC laid the foundations to escape from boom and bust for GB to build on, although the full effect of hi work was not obvious until 5 years ago (during GBs first term at Number 11)
In the same breath, the full impact of everything GB has done as Chancellor will not be felt for another 3 - 5 years
One wonders where Jackie Ashley has been all these years.
Sir Clement Freud on his successful 1973 campaign:
I took all the £10,000 to £300 [33/1] that was going, saw my price shorten to 8-1 and read in the Daily Telegraph that in the Isle of Ely by-election “the clever money seems to be going on Freud”. It was actually the Freud money that was going on Freud.
The question as to do candidates (or their backers) attempt to manipulate betting markets to influence the reporting is a real one.
I hope so - it represents an opportunity for canny punters.
You’re forgetting Norman ‘A price worth paying’ Lamont too surely? Remember those ‘green shoots’ started under his fine stewardship of the economy.
p.s. anyone guess who came up with the ‘price worth paying’ line?
03 He’s definitely done better than us at running up levels of national debt and taxation though Woody.
It’s going to take a Conservative Government years to unwind all of the problems that will create in the years ahead.
I think I heard him once described as “The Credit Card Chancellor”
How unfair!
109 - but Labour accepts the “price worth paying” doctrine, as the Bank of England has an inflation target that it is required to pursue without reference to unemployment.
110. I expect you are going to say David Cameron as he as a 25 year old advisor, was responsible for Black Wednesday!!!
I’m very sceptical of the betting markets at the moment.
I strongly suspect that all the candidates teams are betting quite heavily on themselves, and as such are distorting the market, in addition I suspect there is a lot of money being laid down by people who just don’t know the LibDems particularly well and are betting on the basis of name recognition and media speculation.
For instance, Hughes is the favourite at the moment, however as Mike alludes to even if he tops the poll on first preferences he seems unlikely to get very many second preferences, particularly if it is Huhne or Oaten who are eliminated. Currently I see him repeating his 1999 performance with 30% or so & second place in first preferences.
It’s hard to really know what’s happening with Ming, certainly his supporters are very twitchy and a bad performance at PMQs this week could cause some to start peeling off. It would be interesting to know much of the money on him has been laid down recently and whether it has been drying up a bit, however given his ‘centrist mainstream’ positioning in this election, if he can come first or second in the preferences which still remains the most likely then he surely must be the favourite to get over 50% as transfers from other candidates go to him.
The betting on the last 2 candidates looks pretty odd too, in all honestly Huhne was written up well in the press and had a flurry of Parliamentary attention but seriously underperformed at the hustings on Saturday. I just can’t see him generating any excitement at all as te contest goes on. I think he is likely to withdraw before to long and endorse one of the other candidates (probably Ming, or even conceivably Oaten). Oaten himself has actually performed much better than expected - on both QT & the hustings he has been stronger than the Oaten-haters on here (including our esteemed webmaster) would have had us believe. Still he looks firmly in third place to me and unless he can leapfrog Hughes for second place is unlikely to win.
When Gordon made his speech about how he’s beaten Arsenal by going 50 quarters of growth I shouted at the telly that Arsenal’s first 15 games weren’t played by Man Utd
what a strange assertion book value.
109 - Of course, am guilty of this. NL did lay down the basic principles that KC ran with and then GB picked up also.
Point is, neither party can take total responsibility for the current financial state, yet neither can be (currently) criticised. There are concerns being raised by Independent observers about GBs fiscal policies, growth of the Civil Service, etc, but, to date, GB has been proven prudent and correct in his actions - as I said, the key mark on his policies and legacy will only tell when he is not guiding the tiller and someone else is
no cameron was not responsible. don’t be daft. he was too busy running to the toilet on black wednesday
(oops, not hinting at drugs here)
116 - why is it strange?
Norman Lamont said that unemployment was a price worth paying (for, primarily, monetary stability).
If inflation suddenly rose, the Bank of England would be compelled to raise interest rates to chase inflation back down to its target rate. They could not - because of the terms of their legal mandate - decide that unemployment was not a price worth paying, and not worry about running inflation higher. It would be a breach of the terms of their office.
106 Largely agreed MBK.
Would say that it was our merciful release from the ERM under Lamont that made it all possible as it enable interest rates to drop from 10% to levels altogether more compatable with our economic needs.
Perversely, Lamont got slotted for Golden Wednesday (when he had been against ERM entry in the first place !)and Clarke got feted as ‘the man’ for the recovering economy when he had actually been a staunch advocate of joining the system in the first place.
Always makes us un reconstructed Eurorealists seethe that !
118. Shocking accusations. He might have just had a curry the night before.
yes, bring back lamont tory boy! things were much better then!
I knew I’d talk you round !!
122.”He might have just had a curry the night before”
An Edwina Curry* the night before!?
*I know it’s Currie
121 - Hi Tory Boy , No amount of your trying to rewrite history will change the memory of those of us who experienced it first hand that that Wednesday was black and not golden .
Depends on your point of view…
How’s your leadership crisis going ?
127.”How’s your leadership crisis going ? ”
ToryBoy, the leadership crisis has already ended. Now we’re in the leadership race.
Wouldn’t be so sure Andrea - wait and see what happens immediately afterwards !
ToryBoy, you really think that Cameron will swan along for the next three years with no problems within the party??
Lets wait and see when he really has to step up, when Labour attack him and when he has to take on his own right wing.
No party is ever happy for long, the honeymoon will end soon!
I can see that the run up to that Wednesday was grisly Mark, but surely anyone would have to agree that coming out of the ERM was excellent news for everyone (apart from John Major’s government).
130
Para 1 No
Para 2 Agree that will be the key period
Para 3 Agreed
You’re knocking on the wrong door !
I’m not surprised that the price on Campbell has tightened - he would be good value at the moment. The LibDems won’t elect Hughes. The membership like him in the way Labour members like Prescott. That’s a far cry from actually electing him as leader.
All political parties have a desire for survival and LibDems know that their chances under Hughes would not be as great as under Campbell. I know the Tories have been trying to defy gravity by electing 3 unpopular leaders in succession, but even they had to come to their senses in the end - thus Cameroon.
Trust the members instinct for survival and bet on the person perceived to be most electorally attractive.
i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again. clegg is an idiot if he doesn’t stand. the liberals could be down to 18% or lower and lose lots of Tory marginal seats if Hughes does win. why can’t clegg show some mettle and have a go?
Hi Jack, I’d obviously defer to you on the physche of the LD membership.
Just raise the thought though that when our MP’s ousted a popular
(with the membership) Leader in Mrs T, it opened a Pandora’s Box that has still to be completely closed to this day.
i don’t think the LDs had the same devotion or ideological ties to Kennedy (does anyone really know what the hell he believed in any way???) as Tories had to Thatcher. She was an icon to them, hardly something that can be said about Kennedy. Labour could face similar problems to the Tories when Blair goes though, depending on how it’s done.
Jackie Ashley may have a point about betting creating political movement. I’ve been told (less than half an hour ago) that the Orange Bookers are preparing to tell Ming to stand aside for Clegg. They’re shitting themselves about Hughes and - wait for it - are citing Ming’s odds as justification for telling him to quit!
You just couldn’t make it up !
129 & 130 Here’s something on leadership problems
Point taken. I’m not an expert on the LibDems or their memebers - I regard myself as deeply interested in politics but with a non-partisan appraoch. It’s just that I believe the LibDems must be able to see what has happened to firstly the Labour Party in the 1980’s before they came to their senses and elected Blair and secondly to the Tories in 1997-2005 before they elected their own version of Blair. Electability and credibility is everything and Hughes just doesn’t have either.
Surely Ming is favourite in the Country (ie away from London). All the Scots will vote for him.
They, and the markets are being too influenced by London based politicos.
34-Bally Eric
‘why can’t clegg show some mettle and have a go?’
May be he doesn’t have any.
john - if he doesn’t stand, you’re right!
I just though I would comment on the piece in the guardian today. A couple of thoughts occurred to me. One of which is that it nicely fits into the guardian’s general view of the world which is that citizens cannot be trusted to be left to their own devices and need to be told/regulated as to what they can do. The second is that it conforms with their view of their being an intellectual elite who know far better than us, how the country should be run.
In terms of the writer, I suspect Mrs Ashley, a good champagne socialist, is rather peeved at this website’s negative views towards GB (who she champions). Personally I don’t take the view that a GB will automatically fail, though I think in the long term it probably would (like Major’s did) but it seems a reasonable point to argue.
The odds don’t look that odd to me… if you know what I mean. Hughes probably deserves his favourites tag. Apart from putting Huhne last I am not at all sure what order I am going in. All the other candidates have strengths and weaknesses.
141 - Not sure about that the SoS was saying a lot of the MSPs were upset with the role he played in Kennedy’s departure. If it’s thought he was heavily involved it’s hard to see why all the Scots (especially those in the Highlands) are going to vote for him.
OK I’ve lumped into Clegg.
He HAS to stand?
144. Not seen The Professor since that piece appeared.
147. Same here.
OT - Galloway to get a Parliamentary “tut-tut” - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4616622.stm
See, kinda double standards here, aren’t there? I know he is absenting himself from his elected duties (care of constituents, etc), and I personally cannot stomach the man, but if they are going to motion a “Dismay” at GG, surely the same should be done for the other MPs who are just as bad in terms of spending time away from the houses doing their own personal thing????
Nominations don´t close until the 25th of this month. Lots of time yet. I wouldn´t be at all surprised if two candidates stood down, and another two came in. But I have no inside knowledge, of course - just a feeling.
146. Max. I read the Dunfermline byelection is expected for Frebruary 9. Labour will select this week.
Stihler seems the favourite, could her pregnancy affect the choice of the date?
Btw, it seems that Labour chefs have “bent” party rules just for her. She should have given up her Euro-seat before trying for Westminster, but they’ll let to keep it until the election.
127 - The Lib Dem leadership crisis seems to be weathered with minimal effect on Opinion Poll standing . The task now is to elect the best leader . I am still open on this except to say that Ming as was my view on KC is too old . I would still hope for 2 other candidates to come forward to give the widest choice possible Clegg/Law and a woman candidate Kramer/featherstone .
148 - the Professor posted linking to the Guardian article at about 12.16am this morning. Awfully quick to find something in today’s paper if you didn’t know it was coming!
137. If that’s true I would be over the Moon, but I think that the youngsters are waiting ntil next time. This in my view is a HUGE mistake, by them Cameron and Brown could have taken the Lib Dems a rump around a 68 year old, who while liked is not exactly going to set politics alight.
We are left with Huhne and Oaten who are best of a bad bunch. I agree with 140 while Hughes is liked at grass roots he does not have serious clout to worry the other two.
If only Clegg or Ed Davey stood, then that would really give Cameron a run for his money.
152 - Have you rejoined yet, Mark? I disagree on Ming’s age. Campbell Bannerman was much older and he did well. And Ming has a back story other party leaders would give their right arms for.
149. Milkybar Kid, MPs table Early Day Motion for almost everything.
I see that Oaten has now moved out to 20.
Hi Mark,
Funnily enough I was just going to reply to 147/148 on ‘new’ candidates and had Featherstone in mind if there were to be a ’stop Hughes’ Candidate emerge.
Don’t rate her (or Kramer) particularly highly personally, but hey it’s your Party and I’ve seen more than one LD supporter praising her virtues on these pages.
What do they bring to the show that isn’t there already please ?
153 - curiouser and curiouser - hasn’t The Professor only been posting for a short period, and always highly inflammatory - may take some time tonight to trawl back over past articles to see exactly what and when has been said, and when they first posted
Mike, without revealing anything you shouldn’t, are suspicions about the Professor justified, or pure political conspiracy?
Re Clegg. If he doesn’t stand he’s mad. Talking to Tory colleagues who are not punters, they all say he’s the only LD politician of any substance.
Someone has got to take MC aside to tell him to stand aside. If they don’t the LDs will become irrelevant.
155 - Hi Peter , Not yet inertia and Bar Billiards all weekend so waiting to be signed up LOL . I am being consistent re Ming . If as I said KC was too old then so is he . Of the present runners , although my mind is still open , Simon Hughes is impressing most and would I think confound those Conservatives who are presuming he will be a left of centre leader only challenging Labour .
155 - in 1906!!!!!!
I’m consistent too then as I said they needed KC - and still do! I’m not sure about Hughes - he made a bright start, but hasn’t followed through so far.
137. whats your source?
163. Ken looks younger than Ming even if he’s older.
51 - no it is just a posting of my views. You will notice that i usually only go into attack dog mode when others post ridiculous or personally abusive messages!
160-Cheltboy
‘Someone has got to take MC aside to tell him to stand aside. If they don’t the LDs will become irrelevant’
I think they are just waiting for another PMQ,maybe this week or next,then they won’t have to tell him.
137 - Conservative Central Office ?????