Mike - “Should I risk £10,000 of my pension cash on Gordon?”
June 22nd, 2006-
“..Is 0.38/1 a good investment for part of my lump sum?”
Last week I was emailed by JH who is considering whether to bet £10,000 from his pension on Gordon Brown. He’s just retired with an index linked pension based on his final salary and has been looking at ways of getting a good return from his tax free lump sum.
JH has been following PB.C for some time and he had come to the conclusion that sometimes, such as with Cameron last November, reasonable betting prices could be had on near certainties in political markets.
-
Given the now “near certainty” that Brown’s succession to the Labour was being regarded surely putting a large sum on at the present 0.38/1 was a great way of turning £10,000 in £13,800. What did I think? Was this a good bet?
Of course I started by warning that you have to go into any bet on the assumption that you might lose. Only he could know what the impact of the loss of £10,000 would be on his ongoing financial prospects and I could not advise.
My email went on “…The big problem with this bet is timing. Neither you, nor other punters, nor even Brown himself know for certain when Blair will go. The Chancellor has shown a marked reluctance to push the issue and the latest YouGov Labour members’ poll underlines that the party has not got the stomach for a forced departure.
The threats to Brown come from both Blair and the Tories. Will the Prime Minister use what influence over events that he has to thwart Gordon? Blair has it in his power to make it easy or hard. And the longer this issue is delayed the greater the chance of something emerging that could undermine the Chancellor’s reputation - the latest Freedom of Information Act move on Brown’s 1997 “pensions raid” is the latest in an ongoing Tory onslaught.
There’s also the possibility that you have to take into account that something untoward could happen to Brown himself - a health issue for instance.
Looking forward the whole UK political scene will change dramatically once Tony Blair makes his historic announcement. People will scrutinise Brown in a way that they have not done until now. Thus his years of successfully deflecting the tax credit issue might not last when he’s being judged as a Prime minister set to take over.
Then there’s the media to take into consideration. Journalists hate foregone conclusions and there’ll be strong support for a contest if only because it makes a better story. Someone emerging as a possible Brown opponent would get favourable treatment in the same way that Cameron experienced when the foregone conclusion of a David Davis leadership started to look doubtful at last year’s Tory conference.
That the Chancellor is Scottish is simmering as an issue and, frankly, he has been less than convincing in his promotion of Britishness and his position on England’s World Cup bid.
Assuming that you are ready to take the risk there’s the betting process to take into account. The 0.38/1 is only available on the Betfair betting exchange and it’s going to be hard placing much of the £10,000 at this level. Once you start backing the price will surely tighten and you could see it move to 0.30-0.33/1 in a very short time.
Adding it all up a return of £3,800 is not enough given you would be risking £10,000. Try backing the Tories in Bromley instead. That looks like a certainty and you won’t have long to wait for your profits.”
Latest Labour leader prices are here. For the Bromley betting click here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
On betting can I thank David Kendrick for his excellent World Cup tip. Before the contest started he suggested that “buying” on the spread markets the number of Ivory Coast goals at the then level of 3.5 was one of the best bets available.
I know little about football betting but I respect David’s abilities as a gambler. So I did buy, Ivory Coast scored three last night taking their total to 5, and I’ve just picked up some nice profits.
It would be a delicious irony, if the Gentleman mentioned in the introduction were able to increase the size of his pension by gambling on Gordon Brown. The irony being that Gordon is responsible for so many people’s pensions being REDUCED as a result of his ‘prudent’ raid on funds since 1997.
That said, you gave him sound advice, Mike.
A good topic, Mike.
Buy Brown on bad news would be my advice. I think there is some value in the current price, but I wouldn’t want to have such a substantial sum riding on him. Buying a little whenever a better price is available seem the best strategy.
The other point to consider is that Brown might not become PM if the economy suffered some major setback. So betting on Brown might have the same sort of risk as other investments in your friend’s portfolio. (If the stockmarket continues to decline at a certain point Brown’s chances of succeeding Blair also decline). So backing Brown is not really diversifying.
(Hope that is clear - still early morning.)
This thread highlights one of the problems with political betting: the long time periods that can be involved. In a football match odds for one team of 0.38/1 may well be realistic, but the payout will be within days. Even betting on a team to win a championship results in a definate outcome within months, whereas betting on the next leader of the Labour party may not result in a decision for 3 or more years. That’s a long time to tie money up for in what is a highly risky investment at a return of possibly not much better than 10% and it’s the reason why I haven’t entered this market.
I do expect Brown to become leader of the Labour Party and PM unless some external factor such as health intervenes. If Blair wanted to promote his own candidate, he should have promoted that person to a much more senior position at the reshuffle (every PM appointed in peace-time for about 150 years has been either leader of the opposition, chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary or de facto joint PM). As he chose to move Jack Straw the option was there but not taken.
The other fly in the ointment is that someone could promote themselves if Prescott stands down as deputy leader of the Labour Party before Blair. Whoever gets that job will gain a lot of momentum, especially if they stand without the explicit backing of either Blair or Brown.
With traditional gambling (one off stake, win or lose the lot) there is an obvious maxim: “never bet what you can’t afford to lose”. There is no such thing as a sure thing, especially at odds of 1.38 with a settlement date of months or years into the future. IMO there is no time to be more wary than when every “expert” under the sun says something is a certainty and the (fairly liquid) market so strongly contradicts.
With the advent of Betfair, this maxim is probably far too strict, and better is “never bet what you are not comfortable losing”. This is because of Betfair’s unique feature of allowing you to trade and lay off bets. So you put your £10K on Gordon @1.38 because everyone knows “he will be the next leader” and then some unforeseen piece of news, gossip, rumour causes his price to shift to 1.5. Whereas in the past you would just grin and bear it, hope that just as the original price was “wrong” so the market shift is meaningless, now you have a whole different psychological ballgame. Because now you are able to lay your bet off at a guaranteed loss of £400. Not a small amount of money, but faced with the sudden (even if probably illusory) prospect of the loss of the full £10K it may seem like a sensible option. That’s the sort of thing that going beyond your comfort zone can do.
more reasons to love a scottish party
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/22/ncup22.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/22/ixuknews.html
Events.
Has Gordon given the Lib Dems a lifeline with the Trident issue, or will they miss the boat again and this time let the Greens have the opportunity, surely not! It would be distinctive if they do not support, not sure of the public reaction.
Trying to “buy money” on short odds is a rather dangerous pension strategy….
Especially considering Brown’s opinions on Trident.
Use the money as a deposit and put it into property! Safer in the long run.
I think there is a very significant chance Brown will not make it.
Surely the only way for Lab Mps to save their marginal seats is to have the impression of real change, ie a leader not associated with our deficit and closing hospitals & later pensions. Like Alan Johnston. Or somebody personable like miliband….
All Gordon has is the perception of inevitability. David Davis once had it too. Once a serious challenge is mounted that perception goes. Gordon’s footballing gaffe is just proof that he doesn’t have Blair’s golden touch of connection.
Get Hillary Benn promoted and maybe there’s a chance.
9 But how confident are you about the property market?
On the assumption that it’s “mad money” - presumably the rest of the lump sum is going into sensible places like National Savings (4.5% or so tax free isn’t it?) - the first question to ask yourself is: how actively am I prepared to manage it? (This is really a generalisation of Alex’s point.) If the answer is “not at all” then that’s what Premium Bonds are for.
Otherwise I’d suggest paying close attention here - now that we’re all reformed characters
- and betting on elections, because, as has already been said, it’s only possible to compare the returns to a bet with returns to other financial instruments (which is what a bet is) if you know when the book is going to be settled.
My betting is against Brown. I think the key point is that if a contest arises, he will have to undergo a lot of scrutiny, at least one challenger will be taken seriously by the press, an of course there are a whole series of people who are plausble PMs if only we all start thinking about them seriously. It seems to me there’s only an outside possibility of a Brown blunder. I don’t think anything has yet been written up as a brown blundr. But the polling is also convincing that Brown is not the man.
If there is a cotest, with serious candidates standing, I’d give Brown only just above evens, maybe a 55% chance of winning. His biggest protection is the need for 70-odd names.
As for £10,000 of your pension fund, I really think you should start small on betting. I started with a couple of £50 bets, won some but ended up fairly well down. It’s taken me a long while in small bets (£5) to be confident that I can beat the market more often than not. I will start raising my stakes if I keep winning.
One point re Alex’s post - it’s true that you can lay off a Betfair bet if the price moves the other way and limit your losses, and indeed that if it becomes even more ‘certain’ but you’re not quiter sure that you can bet the other way and make a certain gain. But both involve tying up another £10000 or so - Betfair won’t let you even out the position with the same money.
I think the price is about right and I do expect GB to win the Labour election easily if there is one, but it’s not an especially good bet, since nothing in life is entirely certain years ahead.
To paraphrase Humphrey Littleton’s introductions to Swannee Kazoo:
“Brown and Pensions. Two words that go together like Crippen and Marriage”.
I wouldn’t, it’s just tempting fate…
Re 14, Crippen was innocent. (No seriously, there are serious questions over his guilt)
Sorry about all the typoes. Brown’s biggest protection is the need for 70-odd names to back another candidate. It’s a bit like David Davies with all those people registered as supporters on his web site, not all of whom actually wanted him as leader. People won’t want to divide the party, nor upset Brown.
And the polling. Cameron outpolls Brown by more than Blair, which means someone else, perhaps Alan Johnson or David Milliband or someone, may do better.
By the way, why has David Milliband gone so far off the boil?
10 - I’m still waiting for your response, my apologies for this to everyone else, but this has to be resolved otherwise there will be further problems down the line.
You have made an accusation, insinuated something, given no indication of what it is you infer and no evidence to back it up.
Attack my, or anybody’s political views if you so wish but ad hominem attacks, as Mike has said, are unconscionable. Once this has been cleared up then the matter will no longer need to be raised.
Raegarding the main thread and JH - surely not John Humphreys?
Commentator @ 9. My guess is that you’re under 30. This 40something takes a rather more cautious view of property having owned my first one in 1987.
Would I put part of my pension lump sum into a bet of this nature? No - as Mike rightly pointed out something untoward could happen to Gordon over what is an indefinite period. That I would suggest is the ONLY risk.
Barring being run over by the famous Clapham omnibus Gordon is as absolute a certainty as absolute certainties can be. For who else is there? The Home Office has proved to be a poison chalice for Reid and if he did harbour any ambitions these must have now been dashed. Milliband is just too young and while eloquent lacks authority.
Alan Johnson is very likable and able and will surely be John Prescott’s successor. But he is far behind in terms of experience.
Most of all Gordon is a formidable international politician and there is nobody near him.
I do not have £10,000 to bet but I do have a few hundred on Gordon which I got on at 1.46 earlier in the year.
By the way, I’ve just been invigilating an A level General Studies exam, the politics paper. It’s all about the 2005 elections with sources ranging from Anatole Kaletsky talking about the economic consensus to a Telegraph leader about Yougov, polling and the spiral of silence.
One question is about about PR and whether it was desirable or not, it’ll be interesting to see how they do.
13 Sorry to disagree Nick but your description of how Betfair works is incorrect . You can even out your position with the same money . For example £ 10,000 on GB would show green against him and Red £ 10,000 on everyone elsr . If you then lay £ 5,000 against GB then both the Green and Red figures will decrease . Your green on GB may turn red depending on your new bet but as long as it does not exceed £ 10,000 you are still playing with your original stake/”investment”
20. AS or A2 level?
Main thread. No; I expect Brown to be leader, but the date of the contest is too uncertain and there are too many possible problems for the DO. Would be too much of a risk for 10K, unless JH had lots of 10Ks to play with.
A2 (AQA board). I was almost tempted to write a couple of the essays myself!
I’ve long thought that Brown taking over the Labour leadership is as close to a sure thing as you can get in political betting. I’m not sure I fully agree with the David Davis comparison as Brown appears to be in a far stronger position than DD ever was and having waited so long I can’t see him blowing it now.
I’d also like to join Mike in thanking David for his excellent tip WRT the Ivory Coast never would have thought of it myself. Betting wise I’m having a very good World Cup so far. Not quite up to £10,000 though!
QT
David Dimbleby will be joined in King’s Lynn by Alan Johnson MP, Oliver Letwin MP, Charles Kennedy MP and writer and broadcaster Germaine Greer
Apologies if already posted.
Interesting panel - Johnson has the nuts to go on QT - something GB doesn’t lower himself to do.
Hope CK can catch the right train
NickP, so you are asking Mike S to ban me. Well that’s New Labour for you, I guess I’m the equivalent of the man shouting at the Labour Party Conference. Rather than deal with his sincere anger - you’d like to get the heavies to cart him off and kick him out.
So much easier, isn’t it? Then you just don’t have to face the nasty voter who might not actually like you.
Two points. If you look at my posts above, the ones you say are over-the-top, you will see that they were both in response to fairly harsh remarks by ‘lefties’. Tabman first made an enlightening remark about lefty attitudes to Tories - saying that you people basically hate us, because of what happened in the 80s, you think we believe we are ‘to the manor born’. There is maybe some truth in this left perception, which I acknowledged, but it is also a pretty nasty remark about rightwing people. So I responded - with an examination of what the right suspects underlie some leftwing motives. I think this must have hit home with some of you, hence the outraged reactions by you - ban him! - and Roger.
Yes, Roger. After reading my post Roger accused me of writing garbage. Again, quite harsh. So I responded again, in similar but I hope more amusing style. I may have failed, but there you go.
I always try to keep my posts witty and to-the-point, I never descend to base personal abuse of people actually on the site. Unlike some others. The only people I will roundly diss are our lords-and-masters, who at the moment happen to be Labour - in particular people like Peter Mandelson. And quite frankly, Peter Mandelson deserves it - he is an unelected official weilding enormous power over me as a European Commissioner, despite being a man who has had to resign TWICE from the Cabinet because of his dubious behaviour. These people deserve our brickbats. This is democracy. This is the people talking. And this is what you want to ban, Nick.
I admit I am sometimes excitable. I admit I will sometimes descend to punch & judy stuff. To my mind this is all good knockabout, and a sign of healthy debate, others may differ of course.
At least I don’t try to present egregious New Labour spin in the form of supposedly well-mannered comments.
I am going to post this comment on two threads, just in case Mike S takes your advice, Nick, and bans me personally. As that is what you wish to happen. If I am banned, then these are my closing and concluding remarks on this site. Of course, I may write a newspaper article about this little exchange between you and me Nick - i.e. your attempt to have me banned - but if I do I won’t be able to discuss it with you, as I will have been banned at your behest. So here are my final thoughts.
It is possible that because of the time of your posting, Nick, you said something which you now regret - in asking for me to be banned. Nonetheless, even if that is the explanation, what you said is very revelatory of New Labour’s style, of how you guys work.
Essentially, when you meet serious and articulate opposition, people who can actually bring you to book, and ask you searching questions, you get very very annoyed. And you like to silence them.
No demos outside Parliament. The man hauled out of the Labour Conference. Religious hatred acts to muzzle free speech. And now - this picayune little attempt at censorship.
Ban it! Ban them! Stop them! Shut them up! Teacher make the nasty voter go away!
Tut.
UKpaul - I have seen some of your posts. You should bear in mind that I do (still) have some other social life.
I´m very pleased to hear that you are a real person and not a troll.
I don´t know what insinuation you have in mind. If you go back to the original thread you will see that I simply answered your (rather bad-tempered I have to say) post. If you still can´t work it out, you are very welcome to e-mail me
peter@liberalreview.com
23.
Only did AS level GS myself…there’s a qualification I will never use or need!
7. “Has Gordon given the Lib Dems a lifeline with the Trident issue, or will they miss the boat again”
Yes and yes by my reckoning. What odds that Ming comes out for a replacement for Trident?
25 - ” Hope CK can catch the right train ” - A typical snide remark from one of the nasty Tory branch that the majority of us have agreed is not in the new spirit of the board .
Trident.
Nothing to do with Scottish jobs…
20. “One question is about about PR and whether it was desirable or not”
I chose that very same question in A-level General Studies twenty years ago this month! The heyday of the Alliance…or is it on every year?
RE 26 SeanT, I have had similar problems running discussion forums my self. You set up one to discuss knitting, and pretty soon there are people beating each other up about say the Iraq war.
You then try to point out that the aim was to discuss knitting, and people complain that this is just silencing the critics.
Your other points are noted and yes there are some “lefties” who don’t so much have a chip on thier shoulders but a whole 50lb bag.
30. Is all humour banned now ? That was meant to be light hearted and it was hardly defamatory.
25/30. In slight defence of Jamie, leading Lib Dems have a long-standing problem with getting on/off the right train. The stories of Shirley Williams are too numerous to mention, but are capped by David Steel getting out of a train on the wrong side and falling onto the track.
34 - The trouble is that what is humorous to one may not be so to someone else but in the new spirit of the board I will not respond with something I may consider humorous but Conservatives may consider offensive .
35 he was breaking the mould
35 I was there in Shoreham when David Steel alighted on the wrong side of the train !!!!
Regarding Gordon Brown as a bet. Some observations.
I agree with Mikes thrust over many articles hear, which is that whilst he looks a shoe in that does not mean he will get in.
After being Chancellor for 9 years he has made several enimies, and whilst what he said is not unequivical about Trident, it is enough to irk (according to news night) some 100 Labour MP’s. That means there is going to be some challenge.
Also apparently we are told the Blairites don’t like him so there could be trouble ahead.
that said there is money it betting on good price and selling up and profit taking as the situation changes. I would not hold the bet till the bitter end.
SeanT: Give it a break. We’ve already been blessed with acres of your text on the injustice of this, that, and every other issue. Same for the others too.
Of course the odds on the Lib Dems winning Dunfermline were much longer than that on the grounds that it was ‘certain’ that Labour would hold the seat.
Some of us did very nicely out of them, thankyou!
Certainty in politics is often a lot less certain than it seems.
(My logic for betting on Dunferline was that while I thought it was unlikely that the Lib Dems would win, I knew it was more likely than the one in eleven chance the odds were suggesting. I have placed a few small bets on the LDs winning Bromley on the same logic.)
30 typical snide remark from socialists on this board…etc etc
Back to the thread - I’m sure AJ will be asked by Dimblers tonight about his leadership aspirations - the subtleness of his reply may twitch the odds perhaps ?
I though the required number was 40 MPs rather than 70.
42. “socialists on this board”
Er…who?
The Bromley betting market ‘has expired or no longer exists.’
46. Still there on betfair for me.
BG bye election has some very different odds for the two elections - Labour fave for Westminster but nowhere for the WA.
Only serious ill health can stop Brown now. Not being an actuary I don’t know the actual chance of that but I’d be suprised if it was 38%.
So a good bet if you have neough money to make it worthwhile.
Keep the £ 10,000 to use on next year’s local elections,better odds and much better chances for significant winnings.
48 I think that you have hit on something important.
Browns betting odd’s are 0.38/1. Not sure I have “a feel” for what this actually means.
Does it mean that if three identical leadership elections were held, in three parallel universes, Brown would be expected to lose one. If so it seems a bit high to me. Is that offset by the (very) imperfect information in this betting market?
What other circumstances (outside politics) can you get odds that are comparable to this. Can anyone help?
50. Lose one or retire through health or scandal or family trauma or hit by lightning etc etc
With regard to the topic in hand, Mikes advice is very sound. One of the things that people struggle with in betting is getting the appropriate relationship between risk and reward. With the Gordon Brown bet - is he likely to do it - Yes. Are you being sufficiently rewarded for the (many, individually small, but cumulative) risks that he doesn’t - No. Now obviously peoples definition of ‘risk’ is different and is what makes a market, but particularly in politics time risk is usually larger than people give credit for.
The other aspect that hasn’t really been mentioned yet is the ‘time value of money’. That is, the interest you are fore-going by placing your money with Betfair instead. This can be signigicant due to the potential time involved. If you assume that you wont get paid out for 2 years, and you could get 4.5% for 2 years, then you are fore-going just over £900 of cumulative interest. This means that your effective profit is £3,800 - £900 = £2,900. (and thus your ‘time value adjusted’ odds are 0.29 rather than 0.38 - quite a significant difference!)
btw - I would like to add to the praise for David Kendrick on his Ivory Coast bet - any further World Cup thoughts welcomed
A couple of points:
1) the real money to be made, of course, is when something is mispriced. Just a few weeks before the last GE I put £5000 on Labour at 1.2 on Betfair. At the time it seemed inconceivable that another party would win more seats. The people laying Labour at that price must have been people who badly wanted Labour to lose, and let that cloud their judgement. I don’t think there are many political betters who are so passionate about preferring (e.g.) Johnson to Brown that their judgement is similarly clouded, and the Betfair price seems about right to me. I.e. not much betting value.
2) re: 26. I don’t think this is the place to be holding our MPs to account, it’s a discussion forum. I for one enjoy Nick P’s posts and it would be a shame if he felt unable to post here because other posters thought that their role was to ‘bring [him] to book’
I have a question for Mike or any other habitual bettors here. Over the long term, have you made significant amounts of money gambling? By significant I mean enough to replace a salaried job. Thanks - I’m curious.
O/T. a member of the monetary policy committee, 43-year old David Watson has died suddenly. He was the guy who voted for an interest rate rise. Spooky. I would not risk £10,000 on anyone becoming anything. The grim reaper has a habit of getting in the way. Remember Smith, Dewar, Cook? All Scottish as well…..
55. Its the deep fried mars bars
[55] Where can I put on a bet on which candidate in the Scottish Parliamentary election will be the first to be seen eating one of those
?
25 - Alan Johnson is also a man who isn’t afraid to use the tube either! Saw the man himself, impressed - I would have thought a member of the cabinet would be very happy with his cushy government all expenses paid car! Much more a man of the people than Brown but nevertheless - Brown will win.
55. sorry, that should be David Walton….
52. A very good point on the time factor.
betfair - thanks for the correction, Mark. It wasn’t my impression from when I dabbled in the Italian election - when I covered an earlier bet my available funds seemed to go down accordingly. But I was fiddling about with a few pounds either way, just for fun, so I probably confused myself.
“Should I risk £10,000 of my pension cash on Gordon?”
No. Never bet your pension anything.
61 Hi Nick - What you cannot do is having placed your £10K on GB then even out your position by betting say £5K on someone else . Although your position on GB and the subject of your new bet would improve , that on any other runners would go up to £15k .
58. I think it’s time inter-city bus travel was rehabilitated, with the help of politicians. It’s not the fastest (unless you leave from the edge of town) but you get good walkabout opportunities at service stations…
64 -
The image of Blair or Brown on a MegaBus…
sean: I’m not trying to take away your right to free speech - that’s why I suggested a dual thread, so that you can rant freely on the general discussion thread while those who want a friendly discussion can talk on the other thread. However, your position is essentially that of the guest who turns up at a no-alcohol party carrying a crate of booze, and claiming it’s your right as a free man. Mike’s the host here, and he’s asked us not to hijack the site with rants and abuse.
You apparently believe that your posts are in a Swiftian tradition of literary satire of people in power. But you don’t deny that they are abusive (and nobody who read your comments on Mandelson would believe it if you did), on a forum where the host has asked us not to be abusive. The fact that you think your targets deserve it evades this central point.
65. We can maybe spare Ming the overnighter from Scotland, but Nick Clegg should start using the Sheffield service pronto.
67 Perhaps the shoe chauffeur could come on the bus too.
(Are we still allowed to say things like this? :wink:)
Re. Mike’s point on journalists looking for a better story in the Labour leadership - how likely is Labour to give them one, though? It seems that there was a modernising cabal in the Tories preparing to run against Davis, with a good reason to do so - but there seems to be nothing quite so organised and motivated within Labour. Not that organisation/motivation is the be-all and end-all, but still.
66. I missed yesterday’s late string, and Sean’s comments on Mandelson (other than that above, which seems fine to me), but there is surely a difference between being abusive to fellow posters on the one hand, and about third parties - especially ones in public life. Sure, even there the site operates better if people don’t go over the top, but I’d hate to see a lot of the humour stripped out in a PC clampdown.
I’m just glad it was Peter Mandelson and not Robin Cook SeanT referred to
69 Valerie - surely there are enough disgruntled ex-Ministers and hard-lefties to put forward some candidate. The question mark probably hangs over financing a rival campaign and uniting the various anti-Brown factions.
Random thought: might not one or two unions lend support to a challenger? They haven’t always seemed entirely comfortable with GB to me…
32 Same timescale here except it was a question on the A Level Govt and Politics paper for me
71. I don’t think the rest of the party could be persuaded that a solid-left challenge would be the best way for Labour to hang on to power, though. But as you say, it’s a question of uniting any Brown opposition, and that doesn’t seem to be there.
Re. the Tory modernisers - was Cameron always a foregone conclusion as candidate? I can’t remember how it was now.
I was angry because you had attempted to claim that all of my beliefs were in actual fact a lie, something which anyone would take great exception to.
I have posted my simple question to you privately as well and it is one that, if answered, will allow me to clear up your misconception.
“What is the other identity on pb.com that you think I post under?”
That I don’t actually have one (which I presume can be proved by the logs) is a pretty good starting point.
To try and deny someone a voice by claiming that they don’t mean what they say is neither liberal nor democratic in my opinion
70 I missed yesterday’s palavar too… Might I suggest that insulting fellow posters should be totally taboo; being rude about ex-politicians (whether Maggie or Mandelson) should be considered unnecessary and nastiness towards current politicians should only be tolerated if accompanied by extraordinary insight?
73 Valerie - I think that Cameron wasn’t a front-runner before the race started… Admittedly I was a little distracted from politics after the GE, but when a friend asked whether I was supporting DC in the leadership election, my first thought was “Who’s that?”. Amongst my (excuse the expression) wetter friends, Clarke was a strong favourite IIRC.
74. Fine. Let us clear it all up by e-mail and not bother the good people of pb.c.
73. IIRC that group in the party wanted to put someone forward to represent them in the leadership challenge. I heard both GO and DC mentioned before the contest, but I think that GO ruled himself out as a possible contender and that it was felt DC would be the strongest candidate.
Who is betting on the Lib Dems at Bromley, now down to 4-1, or is this the Rennard comment, “moving the LD’s way”. Could mean instead of being 40% behind they are 39!
Could be a plot to bring the Cons price back a bit, so someone can make a bigger profit!
70. I agree Anna. And I like to think I never stoop to vulgar abuse of fellow commenters - at least, not unless they start it.
If we are to rein in the banter, some of the lefties here might also like to look at the beam in their own eyes. In the last day or two I have been accused of being ’shit’, of ‘talking garbage’, etc; and rightwing people in general have been accused of being ‘nasty’, ’snide’, and ‘verging on racist for being eurosceptic’. That’s in the last day or two alone.
It seems to me that both sides are quite capable of dishing it out - we are all guilty of invective when it suits us, or when we get angry. Mea culpa. You culpa, too.
But I haven’t noticed any rightwing people asking for commenters to be banned, as Nick P did yesterdy. That censorship thing, that’s more a lefty kind of tactic, isn’t it? And you lefties wonder why we think you illiberal.
But enough. It’s a sunny day, my new daughter looks cute, let’s all chill. In the end it’s up to Mike S to moderate - or not - as he sees fit. It’s his site. I do though think it would be a shame if all the boisterous humour was banned from the site. I don’t mind what people call me, I think the more sensitive types should try and be equally robust. We are all grown-ups. Apart from ColinW.
Only joking. Pax.
76&8. Thanks. I remember it being a GO/DC thing - was anyone else in the picture earlier? Of the two, which was felt to be stronger before GO ruled himself out? The most I can remember (as a media-follower alone) is that at one point GO was considered more likely, and that there was general talk about them round about the election - the ‘bed-blockers’ thing. The person whose name stood out from that was Rachel Whetstone - I hadn’t realised she was Steve Hilton’s partner! (and was now with Google).
80 SeanT: I agree mea very culpa…
Have a lovely afternoon with your daughter!
No idea david , but I am trying to bet on them at 10-1 so I can lay them at a lower price . You coud also ask why no Conservatives are prepared to lay the Lib Dems at 5/6/7 to 1 if they are certain they will win .
Guido says Simon Heffer is to endorse UKIP?!
79 I (just like many other LDs on this site I’m sure) got a Bromley by election email from Chris Rennard yesterday. It is the first I’ve received since the start of the campaign so I wasn’t going to post to the site for fear of being accused of ramping, and after all, as I said I’ve received nothing previous other than at the start of the campaign. Maybe it motivated someone to bet.
I also heard some rather good news on the campaign today apparently emanating from a very authoritative source. On further interrogation I found it had come through so many people it almost certainly falls into the category of Chinese whispers (and one of those in the chain predicted the LDs doing very well in Islington during the Locals).
If I were Gordon Brown (and there’s a strange thought!) I would positively want a leadership election. I can’t really imagine how he could be in any danger of losing, and surely an overwhelming victory would greatly strengthen his position in the party.
Rightly or wrongly, without an election the whole thing might start to look (not least to many Labour Party members) as a bit of a carve up.
Going back to the o/r topic I can only echo Sean Fear’s comment, NO – don’t bet your pension on anything! I think Brown is a pretty near certainty to be the next Labour leader, but who know what’s going to happen in the next couple of years. I imagine the odds on John Smith leading Labour into the next GE were even shorter in early 1994.
Going back to DC, what position did he have in the shadow cabinet before starting his leadership bid?
87. Education, but I hadn’t realised he’d also been responsible for local government finance for a short while.
Joking apart, he doesn’t seem to have taken to it…
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1177533,00.html
Slightly O/T, but I notice that Lord Avebury (for the younger amongst you, formerly Eric Lubbock, Liberal winner of the Orpington by-election)lists amongst his many interests in his blog membership of the “Cameroon Campaign Group”. Make of that what you will!
http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/2006/06/bromley-chislehurst-by-election.html
83 Whilst acres of abuse are not desirable, they can be easily skipped. I personally prefer a site where I do such moderating myself (rather than have it externally imposed).
I am not close to seanT on the political spectrum, but I enjoy his postings very much. They are boisterous, humourous … tigger-ish.
I don’t want to see all the tiggers in a cage.
Ben Abbotts, fighting for Bromley by meeting, the Cheeky Girls. Classic picture!!!
Fifth one down on the left
http://www.ben4bromley.org.uk/photos/?PHPSESSID=576434b3ab35b7669da5406572534417
RE 88, Thnaks for that, the article shows how engaging and charming he can be in my view. I also found it funny. “But I thought we were friends?”
So DC came from nowhere in education to lead the party in opposition. Umm.. Who does that remind me of?
92. I like ‘The tax that has people dancing for joy has not yet been invented.’
91. I think Ben Abbotts has run up a rather more impressive set of photos than Bob Neill. (I was going to say ‘active’, but let’s hope not for that CG photo…)
92. It did give me a slight sense that Cameron isn’t happy doing things in which you can’t be warm and fuzzy, though.
92 Alan Johnson
RE 94, I take your point, but what I think that says is that he realises that tax gets up peoples noses, so you had better do it well and spend it well. I did also like your quote at 93.
There is a problem with local government though in that it feels pointless to the voter so they don’t get involved enough.
95, Interesting point, but no I was not thinking of him as correct me if I am wrong Labour are not yet in opposition.
97 And Alan Johnson is not yet leader.
Johnson is a good candidate for a post Brown/GE defeat leader IMO.
Or will he be too old in 2014?
RE 98, No there is a point. is there a market in that leadership race yet?
Perhaps Gordon is more astute than many here think. Getting Claire Short to say she is removing her support from him is surely a masterstroke.
90. Gwynfa. SeanT has a website devoted to himself. If you want to get more of him why not try there?
GB is even more of a certainty now, when the usual suspects are not supporting him.
I believe he wants a hard left candidate to stand against him, so he can demolish, who ever it is and re-assure middle britain.
RE 102, Dez, you are right that a challenge by a left wing candidate would help in the next GE.
I still am not sure it is quite the shoe in people think it is though.
David Herdson at 70: well, in a series of posts in the last few days sean has called someone:
- a slimy and sinister weirdo
- a slimeball fish-face
- a devious, lying, self-serving, greedy, snobbish, oleaginous, insecure, nauseating hypocrite
and there was a post earlier that went beyond all of these. sean feels that he is wittily challenging people in power and that if we don’t like this sort of thing it shows we lack a sense of humour, or have a psychological defect, or are fearful of dissent.
There are three problems with this, which IMO is of a different order of magnitude from accusing someone of ‘talking garbage’.
First, those of us who like the man being criticised find it deeply unpleasant, difficult to ignore/shrug off, and encouraging retaliation of the kind that drags the site down. Exactly the same would apply if it was someone writing about David Cameron.
Second, it tells us nothing substantive except that sean doesn’t like him and enjoys finding new ways to say so in post after post.
Third, it is really inconsistent with the host’s request that we should discuss political trends and avoid abuse.
I don’t want to discourage the odd jibe or off-topic comment, we’ve all done it. But this is something else, and I doubt if I’m the only regular contributor who is thinking of calling it a day to avoid wading through this sort of c*ap. It’s like being on a bus with a shouting drunk - the usual reaction is simply to get off. printz’s dual-thread solution would be a neat way out if it can be done.
Instead of 2 threads - why not 2 websites. One politicalbetting.com and the other politicalbragging.com
105. and what about politicalbrawling.com?
… and thereby endeth the lesson.
We, 30 pupils turned up to Government & Politics introduction lesson, split 17-13 in favour of boys. All aged 16 years old. I ended up running a Luntz style focus group.
Voting Intention. If there were an election today how would you vote?
Labour - 2
Conservative - 6
Liberal Democrat - 1
Don’t Know - 20
Other - 1 (Green Party)
Would you describe yourself as…
Left-Wing: 11
Right-Wing: 7
Neither: 12
Blair: 30/30 knew who he was. Even the two Labour voters said he should resign. Called a “liar” a lot. Was incompetent. However, 8 out of 30 said they “admired” him. When asked his achievements, only Northern Ireland and the minimum wage were mentioned. Failings included immigration, crime and the NHS - Iraq NOT mentioned under failings.
Cameron: 30/30 Saw by most as “young” “new” “fresh”. 11 thought he was a “winner”. However they also said he was “false” and “all image”. 20 said he was “too much like Tony Blair”. Overall, 21 said they liked him and 7 did not. Other words that came up were “chameleon”, “eco-friendly” and “bike riding”. One very clever girl said that it was bias as they were asked to judge Cameron, not the Conservatives!
Campbell: 9/30 Interesting split here. 19 said he was “too old” and “sounded frail”. 8 said he seemed “statesman like”. Nobody could tell me what he did before being LibDem leader. Several domplained that CK was “hard done by”. Most (16) said that the LibDems were “losers”. However 18 said they were the “nice party”.
Blair - 30/30
Cameron - 30/30
Prescott - 30/30
Brown - 27/30
Galloway - 25/30
Clarke - 24/30 (he is our local MP)
Hague - 11/30
Reid - 10/30
Kilroy Silk - 10/30
David Davis - 8/30
Osbourne - 4/30 (although he won the who looks the nicest competition)
Livingstone - 3/30
Alan Duncan - 1/30
Vince Cable - 0
Viscount Thurso - 0
Oh dear, Jack W, oh dear…
It seems they have a lot to learn, Antony!
RE 107, Thank you very much, very interesting.
Posted a tip from Dad at Royal Ascot on the previous thread. Just as well - it lost!
Antony @ 107. Dad would say Johns result is a victory for taste and decency. Cheers all.
107. Cllr Little, can I just ask whether, Luntz-style, you asked them ‘Are the Lib Dems losers?’ What were the questions you asked for each party/leader?
There used to be an expression “Sent to Coventry” - probably now banned under the Anti Anti Coventry Act. I am not sure of the internet equivalent but lets try it.
The best thing about PB and probably other similar sites (Not sure the technical name for such a site? - Is it a blog or a chat room?) is to know that someone has considered what you have uttered and thought it worth while responding - Ignore those who offend and they will soon find somewhere else, or get the message that what they consider as humour isn’t funny.
I asked for a show of hands on Prescott. 11 wanted him to quit, 19 to stay (”for comedy value”!) although a full 30 couldn’t tell me what his job was. No his job title, but what he actually did!
106 Perhaps we can bet on the outcome of politicalbrawling.com
107 Perhaps Vince Cable should get on Celeb Big Brother next year!!
113, Well not knowing what Prescott does? I am sure NO one, including himself could really answer that.
54 - I have made a profit on political betting, not least thanks to the tips on this site esp re the London council elections. The problem with making enough to stop working is that you need the liquidity to be able to tie up large stakes for an extended (and often uncertain) period. For example suppose someone offered Labour most seats at 15/8. Obviously there is value in it and if I had money lying around I would lump on, but you would have to tie up your stake till possibly 2010. I haven’t that flexibility. An alternative is to trade on the movement in prices on betfair, but this is much easier to do in markets like football than thinly traded markets like say Lib Dem leadership.
I asked for a mallet-smallet style word association. They came up withe key words and where they were good once I asked them to all express an opinion. Words in brackets ALL came from the students themselves.
MOVED TO THE ARGUMENT THREAD
Interesting that NHS was mentioned under failings - by several people? Iraq I’m pretty sure has now been subsumed into ‘liar.’
MOVED TO THE ARGUMENT THREAD
117. Thanks - I haven’t heard of mallet-smallet but I see what you mean.
Printz. Why don’t you take your petty prejudices elsewhere. You are the classic talkbpoard bore.
I know! Immigration came our first, followed the release of foreign criminals and then the NHS. 4 out of 30 thought it was Labour’s biggest failure - behind 7 for crime and 9 for immigration, but ahead of education, transport, the environment, ID cards (?!?) and tax. All of those were mentioned by two or more people.
MOVED TO THE ARGUMENT THREAD
Anthony. I think we need better and further particulars on the make up of the 30 people other than their sex…..
Other figures of interest.
From the survey at the beginning.
Where do you get your news?
TV 8
Newspaper 7
Internet 7
Radio 2
Does the media have too much power?
Yes 29
No 1
When I probed why Prescott shouldn’t resign most said it was because the media wanted him to and it isn’t up to the media to decide who comes and goes.
104 I believe the quotations come from seanT’s description of Mandelson.
But, to describe Mandelson as “…lying….” is just plain accurate, isn’t it. My understanding is that is why he resigned …. and resigned.
Your analogy of seanT as a drunk on a bus is not fair. You cannot ignore a drunk on a bus. You can ignore seanT by skipping his post. (I didn’t bother reading his posts on mandelson, so I had to go back just now to check your quotes).
Our host has a perfect right to set boundaries to a discussion. But, it is up to him — and not you or me — to act against posters he believes may have transgressed.
Sorry Roger, I’m sure there is a law that doesn’t allow me to probe that deeply! We know their age, sex, political allegances, rough ideology. What else do you think I should have asked?
…..You always sink to that level Printz. Perhaps you just can’t see it? You are clearly obsessed by Nick P ….and in chasing your obsession you bore the rest of us stiff.
Why not just write to him at his own website and leave the rest of us alone. You are pathetic
C’mon Roger I thought was all pledged to be more like the old-style pb.c threads.
112 - Icarus. Spot on.
Roger you are yet again being abusive, but that is what I have come to expect.
I’ve opened a new thread called the ARGUMENT THREAD
Comments that are not in keeping with the general spirit of the site are being moved there.
107 That’s fascinating Anthony. 60% of those who expressed a preference, opted for the Tories! That’s quite a commanding lead and they will be able to vote in the next election!
Do you think all of those that did not knows the names of specific politicians were prepared to admit it?
133 - Will there be a prize or punishment for whoever has the most posts transferred to the new thread ?
129
Roger,change the record you are getting very tedious & boring.
135
Surely you are hoping for a prize for the dullest posts which you would win easily?
Roger, Gwynfa, those who would like more of my headbanging rhetoric don’t just have to check my website, they can buy my memoir!
Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You, published by Bloomsbury at £9.99. Or you can buy it even cheaper at Tescos, where I note it is still in their top 30 hardback chart.
Or you can wait until the US version comes out, which it will, seeing as I have just sold the book in New York, this very afernoon, for a goodly sum.
Or you can wait for the German versions, or the Norwegian, Spanish, Italian, Australian…
I must be doing something right. Roger I’ll send you a signed copy if you like. With a discount for calling me a garbage-talking idiot.
Yes, peace to all. Even Colin. I’m in a very sweet mood, due to my American sale. Yay!!!!
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
135 Depends whether you like being in the naughty corner really…
BTW Mike, excellent idea!
128 etc.. Cllr Little: Did you show a picture of each person to your class, or a video clip?
Roger,give us a break and turn it off and stop your winging.
In the past some of your posts have been the most provocative and rude,please move to the argument blog on the additional thread.
This is for serious punters!
PS Nick, I take your point (I told you I was in a good mood!) re the abuse of politicians, I was pretty down on Mandelson. But the truth is I would not inveigh in quite that fashion against most politicians - because I can vote them out. An important point. If I don’t like Jack Straw or Ming Campbell, or Dave Cameron for that matter, I can go to their constituencies and try and persuade the electors not to vote for them - rather than dissing them on here.
Mandelson is different. He is a crony of Tony Blair’s who has been raised to a position of serious power over me, in the EU Commission, yet he is totally unelected. I cannot throw him out. There is nothing I can do, as a voter, to get rid of a man I consider a fraud, a poseur, and a liar. And I do not say that lightly. Mandelson is a twice-disgraced Minister, who got caught lying in public.
Saying ‘he’s my friend’ just will not wash. If Mandelson wants to weild power over me he should put himself to the electors. As he does not care to do that, the only thing I have left to express my dissatisfaction with tbhe man is my satire and spleen.
And you would ban that, too. Hm.
OT - especially for Andrea - Borrowed from the Guardian Italy Czech match report
http://multimedia.repubblica.it/home/144910
Each politican had a set of photos - mostly stolen from pb.com plus a clip of each. Sir Ming Campbell and David Cameron’s victory speeches in March 06 and December 05. Plus Tony Blair’s conference speech in 05. They got roughly 1-2minutes of each, including the main soundbite sections.
Interestingly of 7 right-wingers, 6 were voting Tory. Of 11 out-and-out lefties only 2 for Labour. Of course this is a tiny sample and “all a bit of fun” but worth a look. Last year my class of 22 were rabid Tories - 2 Tory members included!
133 - Well done Mike.
I find the different political perspectives on pb.com very useful - across all parties. The personal abuse though, from the usual posters, had not only become tedious and infantile but was beginning to get in the way of what is, in my opinion, still the best political/betting website bar none.
By the way - Ming has written to TB asking for an apology for his wilfull misrepresentation of the Lib Dems vote on the criminal justice act re ASBO’s at yesterdays PMQ’s.
I cannot be the only one struck by the grotesque unfairness of a system that allows a Party Leader of a Party that got 22.5% of the vote at the last GE to have only two questions. It means a PM, of whatever persuasion, can just rant out an attack of any dubious worth and Ming has to just sit there and take it. Absurd, unfair and makes me even more determined to win down my neck of the woods. Which I will!
43 “I’m sure AJ will be asked by Dimblers tonight about his leadership aspirations”
but will he ask Charles Kennedy the same question?
141. Wayne ankers. I havent come across you before. What name were you posting under then?
145 - That is interesting. Blair also got “10%” nuclear waste wrong the other week.