Bromley - now the money goes on the Tories
June 29th, 2006-
It’s now down to 0.06/1 that Bob Neil will do it for the Conservatives
After a long period when the only question about the Bromley betting was why punters were not rushing to pick up what was apparently free money on the Tories things have started to happen. The chart show the implied probability based on best betting prices on the Betfair betting exchange.
At 3.55pm the prices were CON 0.06/1: LD 11/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Guido Fawkes scoop on Ben Abbott, most likely. Or else reality.
I do hope the mainstream press pick up the story, but I doubt it.
I think it was only a couple of bets that took all the available money down to 1.06 on the Conservatives but there is little available on anyone now at decent odds . I have turned my initial big £ 2 bet into all green plus £ 53 on Conservatives plus £ 28 on Lib Dems and big plusses on Labour/ANO by repeated alternate laying of Conservatives and Lib Dems . Hard work but a decent profit .
Mark (or someone), would you kindly explain to me (a new, green, amateur gambler) how you ‘lay’ a bet?
Ok Marcus . If you look at the Betfair Bromley screen You will see on the left you can back the Conservatives at 1.07 £ 100 to win £ 7 and on the right lay the Conservatives at 1.15 ie you risk £ 15 to win £ 100 . If you click on the lay button you can change the odds to say 1.08 and bet say 100 . This would then appear on the left as available to back at 1.08 £ 100 . If I did this it would mean that I would be offering you and anyone else the opportunity to risk £ 100 to win my £ 8 . At the moment there is also a small lay offer on the Lib Dems at 13.5 but only £ 2 so if someone took up my lay at 1.08 I could then immediately re bet some at a very small profit by laying that offer on the Lib Dems .
4 Marcus. Effectively in laying a bet you become the bookmaker and offer odds on an event and wait for takers.
Betfair has a fairly straightforward idiots guide that you can link to on the right side bar >>>>
In simple terms you act as the bookie.
You offer to take £10 from someone at what ever odds you think he (or she) will accept. If they like your odds, say 2-1 (shown as 3.0 on Betfair) then you will have to pay out £20 (and they get their stake back) if the horse/party wins. If it loses you (the layer) collects their £10.
So you have risked £20 for a possible reward of £10.
Ok I have laid the Conservatives at 1.08 . Someone please take it as I can then lay the Lib Dems at 9 for an immediate profit !!
8 - Why would I not just lay the Libs myself as the profits are greater?
9 Ah but you know what you are doing but there are others who do not understand laying LOL .
1. I doubt it - as much as Guido is an influential individual, his intervention was far too late in the day to change the course of events. Anyone changing their betting preferences based on Guido’s story is essentially assuming that a significant number of Bromley voters will read Guido’s blog before voting and will change their voting intention as a result. He’s good, but he’s not that good!
You jsut have to look at the photo for a few seconds and realise its a fake.. the photoshopping is poor
Just hope that it’s a solid majoirty
, neither a thumping win nor a close shave would be helpful IMHO.
Amazed that anyone would expect the Lib dems to win, let alone put money on it. After all was it jusat one out of over 80 on this site, said the Lib Dem might win. Everyone else, including me, say it will the Cons be varying majorities of what between I guess, 5 and 15,000
14 david(s) That post has all the merit of carefully crafted logic and then I think Dunfermline !!
O/T BBC’s “Breakfast” progamme this morning quoted Rupert Murdoch in the Australian media as saying he was thinking of switching his support to the Tories at the next General Election and also as “insisting” that should Brown succeed Blair, he should not contemplate calling an election within one year of taking office.
Interesting that most posts on the ConservativeHome Bromley 2:00pm update predict the Tories under 50% and some in the high 30%. Ramping or not ?????
17 - Managing expectations downwards such that they can then be beaten… not exactly new. I still reckon the collective predictive wisdom of pb.com is about right.
18- I don’t think it really is managing down expectations- I think they just feel a bit flat after the campaign and the idiocy of the false declaration. Pb ers may have also predicted a little on the toppy side for the Tories. So On the Mike Smithson measure of a majority of less than 10%, it actually might well be a rather disappointing night for the Tories.
Is it me, or does seem to have been a particularly dirty campaign down in B & C ?
18 - You mean like some Lib Dems are suggesting that the Tories need to achieve 70% to avoid meltdown? Tell me about it…
19 - Why don’t you direct that query to Ben Abbotts’ campaign headquarters, Senator?
So how’s turnout in the by-elections? I see there’s also two Tory, two Labour and a Residents’ seat up in local by-elections tonight
(http://www.aldc.org.uk/resources/sites/217.160.173.25-3f422e59952ad6.14700535/Forthcoming%20By-Elections:/Forthcoming+By-Elections.pdf)
NEC election: a lot of MPs voted for Michael Cashman partly because it’s clearly a good idea for MEPs to have a voice on the NEC. In addition, he keeps people well-briefed and has a good record on equalities campaigning. In the end I voted for the others myself, but found it very difficult as I liked Michael roo.
Does anyone know when the results are likely to be declared?
Mark, Jack, thanks - I geddit now. Even though I had read the betfair idiots guide it was not as clear as you have made it, thanks.
20. I don’t think anyone’s suggested (certainly not I) the Tories need 70% to avoid meltdown - but rather to win a majority at the next GE.
Big Difference….
20 AHM. Far too early for you to come and play Alastair. Back to the red benches for nap please.
……………………………….
19 Cicero. Lots of the campaign has been all puff and wind, but enough of Ben Abbotts meal time habits.
I don’t think Bromley is much different from most, they are usually unedifying spectacles from all concerned.
Or…. to put it another way, they’ve been in meltdown since 1997, so to be going backwards now would be quite something….
26 - Absolutely. I’ve been involved in a number of by-elections. All three main parties have conducted shameful campaigns at some point or another.
Labour - Hodge Hill
Conservatives - Cheadle
Liberals - Brent (attacking the Labour candidate for working in Brussels when he was an MEP!)
27. You are discounting “events” though Rod …
27 - For someone who claims to know as much about electoral arithmetic and strategy as you do, it should be blindingly obvious that fighting a by-election and fighting a general election are two different things - even at the constituency level. In view of those differences, one cannot necessarily apply General Election style expectations to a by-election scenario.
I’m going to take Jack’s advice and go and find something productive to do. I will be back nearer declaration time.
30. Lots of things are blindingly obvious, including the fact that you neither read or understand my posts before you start barking like one of Pavlov’s dogs.
I’ve never said you must necessarily “apply General Election style expectations to a by-election scenario.” (whatever that means) What I do say is that you can draw General Election conclusions from by-election results(note plural.)
I also say that you can give an objective opinion as to whether a single by-election is a good or bad result(based on the objectives of the parties involved, which is usually obtaining a majority at Westminster.)
Most of the people betting didn’t see any of the postal votes
I don’t quite see how the Lib Dems pointing out that (a) Bob Neil doesn’t live in the constituency (b) has no intention of giving up his £47k London Assembly job if he is elected as the MP for Bromley is inappropriate. Classic by-election detail that any of the three main parties would use if the situation arose.
Funnily enough - the most unpleasent leaflet I saw when I was in Bromley at the weekend was a Labour one. Saying the Lib Dems supported murderers, rapists and paedophiles being given the vote when in prison and did not back the mimimum wage. Failing to mention of course our reasons for not backing it the first time was we did not think it was high enough! And the old, old LD policy of giving ’some’ prisoners the vote was an idea to assist those getting back into society a belief they had a stake in it. So much for the progressive alliance…ho - hum.
28 - Labour had a dirty campaign in Hartlepool in the by-election 2004, too.
Betting on Betfair is not simply betting on who you think wil win . There is money to be made by betting on who you think may lose to win at one price then laying them to lose at a lower price .
More Lib Dems leave the sinking ship:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/5128902.stm
I thought Labour were OK in Hartlepool. I am sorry we didnt beat them and Jody’s dog moment was an error but full marks to Labour for exploiting it, I am sure we would have done the same!
36. well, at least Labour is getting someone new….maybe after the new rule to give the Chief Whip more powers, it’ll start to lose MPs. Jacquie Smith wants the power to suspend MPs. Could we bet on the first MP who will be suspended by Mrs Smith and the first CLP to start a fight with the leadership?
36- as we made gains in both 2005 and 2006 in Oxford, it is tough to say that in that city we are a sinking ship. And I would hardly call Labour a party on the up!
Remind me how the Tories do in Oxford, a city represented by a Tory MP until 1997?
36 Rik W. Not sure it’s a good analogy in saying the Lib Dems in Oxford with 17 councillors are a “sinking ship” as the Tories have precisely diddly squat on the council.
Thus the local Oxford Tories must be cross between the Titantic and the Marie Celeste !!
14 Jack, I bet on the Lib Dems at Dunfermline at 10-1 with Hills and won. Wouldn’t repeat that with Bromley.
Lib Dems on Monday said to me it would not be the shoe in, overwhelming win, for the Conservatives that they thought at the beginnning. I think that probably summarises the position.
At Bromley the most interesting aspect could be if UKIP carry out their threat of legal action, Bob is disqualified and there is another by election, with the Lib Dems starting perhaps in a handy 25-35% second place.
just noticed that the combined BGPC and Labour vote in 2005 was a whopping 90%, fully 18% up on the 2001 Labour share. It will make it harder to draw any conclusions, whatever the result.
41 david(s). I think you are broadly correct on the result tonight. I’m waiting on a call to get a little inside info, but I’m not expecting any explosive intel.
UKIP will have to be careful with a challenge as the experience of Winchester doesn’t bode well for the litigant.
43. true, but they’ve nothing really to lose, have they?
43.”UKIP will have to be careful with a challenge as the experience of Winchester doesn’t bode well for the litigant. ”
Jack, but if someone like Mr Hemming-Clark will challenge the resutl, what do you think it’ll happen?
44 RodCrosby. Only a little more credibility in the eyes of some.
45 Andrea. Well the courts are an enigma at times. In Winchester you just got the impression that the very closeness of the vote gave the court an element of pragmatic discretion and they ordered a re-run. If the Bromley Tories win comfortably perhaps their Honours might also use a element of commonsense ……. but don’t bet on it !!
I think the title of the article is a bit misleading as only 27K has been bet on the by-election (and about 5K on BG combined).
It does however seem to confirm that there should be a comfortable Tory victory with them winning with a higher percentage than last year. Whether that’s enough to say they’re on their way I doubt (and as Sean Fear rightly said there’s little to tell from a single result).
But it is historically clear that oppositions that go on to become governments do start winning (and holding) by-elections well - 92-97 and 74-79.
48. Well said, Dan.. you could add 66-70, 59-64 - and oppositions that don’t, don’t! It’s an Iron Law…
BROMLEY UPDATE :
As promised a quick update via a senior Lib Dem.
They are pleased with the campaign and feel they have given the Tories a good run for their money but not enough to cause the Tories any undue concern about losing the seat. The 3 Jobs Bob attack has also hit home and played well to the voters. UKIP noisy and effective at times and spliting off Tory voters disproportianately. Nevertheless a comfortablish Tory hold.
Nothing too exciting there then.
………………………….
Further to the above Andrew Kennedy a veteran Tory campaigner having been in Bromley today expressed concern that there was apathy in the core Tory vote, partly caused by confusion over the Tory nomination fiasco and the 3 Job Bob attack. He also states that the Lib Dems are very active. Kennedy predicts a 42%/36% Tory win over the Lib Dems.
…………………………..
So two slightly different slants. You pays your money ………..
A Lab win in the BG Assembly seat is considered a hold or a gain?
50 - It’s a pretty strange tack, telling the electors that the election is worthless. I wouldn’t be surprised if it skewed the result some way, although who knows how (presumably it’s hitting the tory vote). One of those random things that make all the hot air about figures and precedents aboslutely meaningless.
45. Andrea of course UKIP do not have to challenge the result. They can wait for the police to prosecute Mr Neill (win or lose) for the offence of making a false declaration. Then if he gets six months or more (should be more for a barrister who claimsto have made his declaration after ‘advice’) there will be an immediate disqualification and another by-election.
50. If your final Kennedy prediction is correct, the Lib Dems are up by the same amount as in Dunfermline….stunning. And probably the biggest drop in support in a Tory seat, while in opposition, since the War…..
n.b., Tory rampers, that’s the Second World War, not the Iraq war….
could even be the First World War…. still checking the stats
I think you misunderstand the term ramping. It isn’t the same as spinning.
54 RodCrosby. If Kennedy is correct, it’ll be a mighty poor show for the Tories and quite some fillip for Ming.
……………………………………
ConservativeHome via the FT is reporting that the Tories will leave the EPP next month. A senior Shadow Cabinet source indicates that the Tories will link up with the Czech ODS and the Polish Law and Justice Party.
WUTSR - Wait until the sodding result!
56 - Save your time Rod, nobody cares. Watch the tennis, read a book, come up with a positive political platform rather than a relentlessly negative one.
Just trying to help.
FYI If that is photoshopped it wasn’t by me.
The hand is nearer the flash hence it is brighter. Simple. No one claiming it is photoshopped has explained how it is that someone decided to take a picture of a bit of graffiti that was going to be used in LibDem propaganda.
Am err, balls deep in Bob-a-Job. My only caution is that Labour have not campaigned at all, as if they would rather their voters went to LibDems. UKIP have made an effort as well.
60.”Watch the tennis”
At the moment there’s Andy Murray playing with a Scotland flag cuff….Jack, are you proud?!
61. “Am err, balls deep in Bob-a-Job.”
Is that not an actionable statement? Or was there something the evil by-election spinners missed altogether?
62 Andrea. Can’t you hear me singing !!
58. Without the Czech ODS, the story says. The ODS negotiator (Zahradil) told William Hague a bit over a week ago that it was off for now.
Historical note: apart from the inner city seats of Newcastle and Liverpool Edge Hill, during the 1974-1979 Parliament the Liberal vote fell at every Westminster by-election.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-059.pdf
(pages 40-41)
65. Well I suppose if the Tories go for Polish Law and Justice and dud Czechs we will be sleeping comfortably in our beds. . . . not!
And all the genuine centre-right parties in Europe will be rankling at this prissy little man who felt he had to ditch them in order to buy of his right-wingers while he was shifting to the left of Blair (ie somewhere between Blair and Thatcher).
65. although I see Cameron and Hague got on a plane to Prague in desperation on Wednesday night…
67 - That means you think Blair is more right wing than Thatcher!
58. Jack, the FT is saying that the new grouping will not include the Czech ODS.
I am not posting this to get at anyone, or try to feel superior. It is just a little misunderstanding of a term which is irritating me.
Sorry to be a pedant, but for anyone else who wants to use the American term “Shoo-in” to describe an event that is seemingly certain to happen, please check out this definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: shoo-in
Pronunciation: ’shü-”in
Function: noun
: one that is a certain and easy winner
You have probably heard it on US TV, or from American friends. Note that it is not “Shoe-in”. It has nothing to do with feet.
Sorry to be picky, but other people have picked up in errors in my own posts, and far from being annoyed, I have been grateful.
Really quite baffled how people honestly think the Lib Dems have a chance. Since the last thumping majority in the seat, Menzies Campbell has done worse and the tories far better.
Of course tomorrow, all the other parties will be declaring victory and saying this is a serious setback for Cameron because of the reduced majority.
Naturellment. Thatcher was quite happy to spend a greater share of GDP on public services than Blair and would not have dreamt of thinking about introducing laws that said: “If we THIMK you’re bad we can lock you up - that’s if we don’t shoot you first.” She was of course a great pioneer of pan-European Federalism with her Maastricht treaty (or was it Nice?). She also would not have dared to privatise public services the way Blair has been doing. Not quite Joe Stalin, but at least you knew where you were with Maggie T!
72. Er Cropstar, presumably you were not among those on here who said that the Lib Dems’ failure to make much progress in the local elections was a disaster. But apparently, for the Conservatives (who, remember, start with less seats than they had in 1945!), going backwards in a by-election is a sign of great things.
George been getting ‘liberal’ with his white powder again has he?
53. ‘Andrea of course UKIP do not have to challenge the result. They can wait for the police to prosecute Mr Neill (win or lose) for the offence of making a false declaration. Then if he gets six months or more (should be more for a barrister who claimsto have made his declaration after ‘advice’) there will be an immediate disqualification and another by-election.’
Unfortunately I wouldn’t bank on that. I have personal experience of a serious offence during a local election. There was clear photographic evidence of the offence taking place (I took the photo!) and plenty of witnesses who were all interviewed by the police. It was cut and dry. It took over a year for the police to investigate and the CPS to consider (it could have taken a matter of weeks!). They decided not to prosecute.
I got the impression they don’t want to get involved in this sort of stuff.
Yes, you are right kjh, to expect the Metropolitan Police and CPS to investigate and administer the laws of the land impartially is sometimes a bit of a far jump from reality. Not quite the same as shooting innocent brown-skinned Brazilians. Incidentally, there is a presently aone year deadline for prosecutions arising from false election declarations/ statements, so all the CPS or police have to do is drag their fet and it’s all over.
74 – zebidee
The reverse must also be true, one could not credibly dismiss the LibDem’s poor performance in May and then site a good result in Bromley as a significant event as some LibDems certainly seem to intend to.
As things stand I’m amazed how little information is really coming out of the constituency on polling day! What sort of time can we expect declarations both in Bromley and BG?
77. Long after I’ve gone to bed! As a spectator event these two elections are paint drying observation territory unless you live in a certain Welsh vally.
Ben, I cannot remember any Lib Dems ‘dismissing’ one of their best local election set of results ever: as I recall it the most that was said was that they were ‘all right’.
77 See my exchange with Commentator on the previous thread . The Lib Dem performance was disappointing but certainly not bad .
ukpaul - speak for yourself. Rod at least uses some figures to back up his case and I am at least one reader of this site who *is* interested in what he has to say.
Your posts, by contrast, are remorsely negative and smug. Perhaps uou might try looking in the mirror …
80,
I agree,Rod uses figures to back up his case, and it is intresting to get a different perspective, than the usual we are going to win partisan posts.
My own personal update (finally back from a long day’s campaigning and feeling pretty shattered).
Well, things seem to be getting pretty tense and tempers fraying - but in a good way, I think. There seems to be a real sense of urgency and relentless effort to get our vote out - and it seems to be working.
I think the hot weather has been helpful and the turnout seems pretty healthy (certainly more people at polling stations where I was than in May).
The feedback on the doorstep (such as it is) was universally positive. I was encouraged to see that our voters hadn’t been taken in one bit about the Liberal lies. Bob seems genuinely popular and a couple of people mentioned his work for the area on the GLA - a lot more than some newly elected councillor from Clockhouse!
Of course I haven’t seen any hard figures but if my experiences are in any way representative I don’t think we’ll have any trouble here at all. I’d stick with the prediction I’ve made all along: we ought to win with 55-60pc of the vote.
Off to put my feet up …!
80 - Better than being Polly Toynbee with a calculator. I am a liberal, he isn’t, we’re never going to agree.
Life cannot be mechanistically reduced to figures, I take the romantic (and positive view). If you can point to any of your man’s posiive suggestions as to the way forward in this country I’d be very pleased to see them. My wishes for PR/A more federal UK/slowdown and repeal of unnecessary legislation/halt of ID cards/a flatter, simpler tax system etc etc are all things that you must have missed or (probably) dismissed as you don’t agree with them. So where are your ideas? What do you want?
I take the time to attack the negative ones, those who like to pooh pooh others without giving of themselves, someone needs to do it otherwise the relentless downward spiral of politics will continue. Those who agree with negativity won’t like it and I’m proud of that.
Maybe you like politics the way it is but I certainly don’t.
I looked in the mirror just now, by the way, and I’m looking mighty fine!
“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.”
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
80. Thanks, Ironbridge….there are too many people here who substitute for FACT or ANALYSIS what they merely hope-for or believe-in, and when presented with FACTS or ANALYSIS which is at odds with their “theological” position, turn nasty and abusive or petulantly accuse you of what they manifestly are - partisan ignoramuses. It’s like questioning their religion or something.
This forum is all about predicting elections (presumably analytically rather than via chicken-entrails), and for those brave (or foolish) enough to back their predictions with hard cash.
Anyone who can’t either contribute in the ethos of the forum, or ask sensible questions of those who can, should keep away… or set-up their own forum and call it politicalguessing or politicaldreaming or politicalramping……
btw, if the Kennedy prediction is correct, Bromley is looking like the worst comparable by-election since Paddington South 1930 or Liverpool West Toxteth 1924, neither of which are, ahem, comparable!!.
Given we have the by-elections in Wales where a Labour defeat will be nicely pumped up, are any of the media channels giving a bit of dedicated coverage?
86. I would be interesting to see how the media will play a Labour win in Blaenau Gwent.
87. ops, my grammar is rubbish tonight……
Just thought I’d check back over the threads on the front page and (apart from attacking those who are being negative, sniping and hiding behind manipulated statistics, which is a necessary evil at the mo) I called Tebbit the ’spawn of the devil’ and had words with colinw who, quite franfully deserves it, and he wears it as a badge of honour anyway. I stand by those (especially Tebbbit
)
What are your politics Ironbridge (seeing as your username is new here)?
85 - As an atheist I agree, get rid of those who rely on faith and not their fellow human beings (and yes, that means you Rubert Kilroy Silk!)
84. “Opinions are like arseholes: everyone’s got one, and they all stink….”
SAC: I was there during the Minimum Wage debate and my recollection is that the LDs did argue it was dangerous and would cost jobs. They may have also said ‘and anyway it’s a footling amount’ but the thrust of the argument was against having it. But it’s a while back and I could be wrong - check Hansard if you like.
Must say I’m still pessimistic about BG - it seems to be so unlikely that at a time when we’re getting roasted in the media every day, and there is an absolutely clear non-Labour option to soak up any other party’s sympathisers with no other potential rival, we would still win it. I’ll be pleased to be proved wrong, though as Rod observes the 90% total of Labour plus Independent makes it a special case either way.
ukpaul….Kilroy Silk depnds on himself..though I suppose he thinks he’s a ety….I believe there are Branch Silkians in parts of Asia….
Seeing as you didn’t manage to get a prediction in Rod you can tell us here so we can see how you measure up. It’s only fair you know.
France played Spain the other night in the World Cup by the way - Spain were the favourites - they should have won - I bet on France - Statistics say I was wrong to do so - France won - So did I.
92. Nick, I agree it’s a special case, but it seems you put lots of resources in BG.
Nick Palmer, much history suggests that factors that bring stunning victories like those of Peter Law are short lived and often don’t repeat 2nd time around. Despite how crap Labour is doing right now, a loss at BG would suggest that the rot has set in. Ok, you might argue maybe not overall but certainly in one corner of the structure, add that to some other corners…and as we know it spreads.
Post 93..i typeddiety and it came out as ety…my keyboard’s fault, I swear
97 - I thought you meant he was an ET which I thought was a pretty good description!
94. OK my prediction is….
France won’t win Bromley and the LibDems won’t win the World Cup….
99 - A predictor without a prediction? Rather like a eunuch in a bordello
ukpaul: you’re sounding consistently cheesed off with all the parties, but maybe you’re just getting an overdose of us committed activists?
Look, I know that you disagree with me on lots of things (Iraq, ID cards…), and if you were living in Broxtowe and voted it’d definitely be for someone else, but I think you’re seeing too much of the football-fan side of politics and it’s obscuring what gets most of us involved. Anyone who stands for Parliasment is mad unless they genuinely think they’ll be able to do more for people than in whatever they did before - the work level is far too high and the much-vaunted pay is less than most MPs could get by working as hard at something else (I was getting £90K back in 1997 in my old job), but the basic dream of making millions of people a bit happier is what pulls nearly everyone in. Once you’re in politics, you get sucked into the rivalry and the plotting and all the rest, but if you don’t still believe in it the energy drains away - I’ve seen it happen on all sides sometimes.
This invites a sarcastic comment, I know - “so your policy X has made millions happier, huh?” - but my point is that too many people judge politics through the prism of what the media think they want, namely rows and cock-ups and scandals and posturing. It’s not all like that for any of the parties (well, maybe Veritas), and I don’t think it ever will be. Don’t despair!
100. I don’t DO by-elections… too personal, too private, and certainly not with the light on!
When was the last time Labour gained a parliamentary seat at a Westminster by-election while in government?
In 1929 T.P. O’Connor, the Irish Nationalist MP for Liverpool Scotland died and the Labour candidate was returned unopposed. Is this the only precedent?
Polls have closed. It’s all over bar the declaration, eating of humble pie and possible prosecutions……..
01 - You might want to sit down Nick for this but you come across as a decent and liberal guy on most things (and yes Iraq and ID cards are something we would not be able to agree on), talking about treatment of prisoners for example it was nice to have a voice of sanity amongst the tabloidesque responses from some. I may not vote for the labour party at the moment but things may change and it’s the people at the top who may make it change (impressed by Johnson so far, for example).
On the subject of activists I don’t think that your common or garden voter comes cross many and I have to say I’ve been shocked by the attitude shown to each other and, especially, as to how it is seen as more important to trash your opponent than it is to say something of worth themselves. There *has* been a degeneration in the way that politics is viewed, and spin, the centralisation of power to a few people and so on all contribute to this. I have no doubt that there is a heart of belief in those involved in politics, it is also true, however, that it is much more difficult to access that heart.
If only there was one party that reflected my views I might even consider joining the activist ranks!
And the money is going on the Tories on Betfair: 1.04 and shortening
104. One thing you may be clear about is that there won’t be much eating of humble pie on this site, regardless of the result.
103. Liverpool West Toxteth, 1924. (from Conservatives)
Liverpool Scotland was not really comparable, as O’Connor was mostly unopposed throughout his tenure(i.e. Labour supported). It was always going to be a Labour seat, where they would weigh the votes. My ancestors were the constituents and activists of “Tay-Pay” O’Connor for 44 years…..
That’s in Liverpool, the capital of Ireland!!
Rod, he also spent five years as an MP for Galway before he moved to Liverpool.
Would be intersted to hear your theory on by-elections as general election predictors.
103. btw, If you’re coming from where I think you’re coming from, forget it. Blaenau is - in reality - a Labour gain from… er, Labour (ex-Labour)…. Nice try!
105. ukpaul, don’t despair. You are not alone. I, too, am also looking for a home for my vote. I agree with a lot of your core beliefs, as stated in previous posts, and also your dislike of the nasyiness shown by some (not all) of the partisan figures.
And please, Nick Palmer, if the voters of Broxtowe are foolish enough not to vote you back in at the next election, please come down to North London. I would happily vote for you to remove the Tory clot we have representing us right now.
109. True - in 1885 he was elected for both constituencies (a not uncommon practice then), and chose Liverpool, hence becoming the only Irish nationalist ever to sit for a seat OUTSIDE the island of Ireland. (the nationalists very nearly won a second seat in Liverpool too!) Bit like the SNP winning Bromley, I suppose.
“Tay-Pay” went on to become Father of the House of Commons. His successor, Labour’s David Logan went on to be the oldest MP in modern times, 93 when he died in 1964, and Liverpool Scotland therefore only had TWO MPs during a span of 79 years!!!! Several unbeatable and unique records wrapped up in one fascinating constituency….
112..unbvelieveable..like voting for the germans during WW2…
113. Good Joke told to me by an Irishman(a Protestant Nationalist, as it happens) a few years ago…. (at the Time of the Good Friday agreement)
Bertie Aherne and Tony Blair are on the phone….
Blair: “Bertie, I think I’ve come up with the solution to the Northern Ireland problem….”
Aherne: “Really, Tony? What’s that?”
Blair: “We’ll give you back the 6 counties, if you give us back Liverpool….”
113. De Jermans!, De Jermans! We wouldn’t do that, like. Dey bombed our chippie!!!
New thread by the way……..
RodCrosby….no doubt you got Stan Boardmans classic England World Cup song on yer mind..
112. Rod, to get back slightly on topic in a roundabout way, I was looking at by-elections prior to 1945 and also the Disqualification Acts which prevented holders of an ‘Office of Profit under the Crown’ becoming MPs. There is a connection here -MPs taking up ministerial positions had to stand down and fight a by-election. After 1918 Tories and Liberals started getting tonked by Labour in these by-elections. Unsurprisingly an Act exempting government ministers was introduced in short order.
ukpaul - fwiw I am not currently a member of any party; I have voted both Cons and Lab.
None of that is relevant to my comment though. I don’t need a party allegience to spot rank hypocrisy when I see it - and I see it in you.
You’re the kind of person of clearly fancies himself as a cut above the rest and an intellectual cynic.
In fact you are far more unpleasant in your postings than those you tar with that brush - only you’re careful to do it with cutting words rather than expletives.
Meanwhile, you’re worse than any politician I know when it comes to arrogant self-conviction. If you’re the embodiment of a Liberal, they’re welcome to you.
Ps - I think you mentioned that you’re a teacher. When it comes to your preachy, superior postings, it shows!
19 - thank you for your kind words, none of them being in any way accurate but you can’t expect everything.
That you slander the teaching profession tells me all I need to know.
Philistinism is never pretty.
118. Yes, it became confusing, ambiguous and inconvenient around 1911, when MPs were first paid a salary. Prior to this time, since about 1623, all MPs were supposed to exist without any financial relationship with the King or State, to guarantee their supposed independence. When ministerial positions were paid though, MPs had to go through the motions of submitting themselves to the electorate, on appointment to office. This frequently proved inconvenient, as when Winston Churchill was defeated in North West Manchester in 1908, upon his appointment to the Board of Trade. He underwent the ordeal again, this time successfully in Dundee in 1917. Eventually an all-pary consensus was agreed that ministerial salaries were no longer an impediment to continuous tenure as an MP. I think this was sometime in the early 1920s, but don’t have an exact date. The “office of profit” remains however, as a mechanism for MPs to leave the House of Commons. Since MPs can’t resign, they must instead render themselves ineligible to sit, by taking the nominal office of profit, Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds (or similar)
BROMLEY & CHISLEHURST RESULT reported on BBC News website
BROMLEY & CHISLEHURST RESULT reported on BBC News website