Is now the moment to bet on Brown?
September 11th, 2006-
Does the latest price of 0.62/1 offer good value?
The chart above shows the odds on Gordon Brown succeeding from just after the General Election until this afternoon. As can be seen in the immediate aftermath of May 5th 2005 there was a very high expectancy that the Chancellor would move into No 10 within a very short period and there was no real suggestion that anybody else could pose a challenge.
At the time I argued that prices of 0.23/1 were probably not good value because you did not know when the transition would take place and you could, conceivably, be locking up your cash for years. Before the past week the biggest event to impact on the betting was the arrival of David Cameron in December and for a time the Brown price eased to 0.5/1.
Last week, as soon as it became clear that a 2007 departure for Blair was now a certainty the first reaction of the markets was to bet on Brown. The price moved to 0.38/1. Since then there has been a considerable easing to this afternoon’s 0.62/1.
For those not too familiar with the way betting works a price of 0.38/1 means that your profit on a winning bet of £100 would be £38. This afternoon you could get potential winnings of £62 for the same stake level.
For those who are convinced that Brown is a certainty these latest prices are starting to look attractive. The question is will it ease beyond this level or will there be a tightening? What Gordon needs is a period of relative quiet and one or two good polls. If that happened then today’s price could look good value. My instinct is that the Brown price will go beyond 0.62/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
This time, Mike, my instincts are the same as yours but if we are wrong, blame Icarus! (See end of previous thread.)
I think the price will move both in and out, so if people are buying positions to profit take before the event this is probably good value.
The price will be tighter after a few months of calm, but there is bound to be another reason for it to lenghthen.
I think it is definitely better to have the line going upwards - an increase in implied probability reflects “the stock” of that eventuality rising…
Depends upon whether another candidate announces (officially or through briefings).
My guess is that it won’t go much beyond this (but a great conference speech by AJ - as his team knows him - might push it a bit).
Laddies have posted deputy labour leader odds as follows…any thoughts?
Milliband 3/1
Balls 3/1
Johnson 4/1
Hain 6/1
H.Benn 8/1
Kelly 10/1
Straw 12/1
Darling 20/1
Browne 20/1
Harmann 33/1
Watson 66/1
Mandelson 100/1
“What Gordon needs is a period of relative quiet and one or two good polls. ”
Maybe he won’t get (at least in the short term) those couple of good polls he would need….I think last week hasn’t been good for him and those events can still be fresh in people’s mind.
5. Balls at 3/1?!!!
Btw, I bet a Gordon/Mandy leader/deputy team would be funny to watch. Would they last a week?
Definately time to get on Gordon. An implied 5/8 is way too generous for the clear front runner at a time when there’s no other serious candidate. I’d still rate him as better than two chances in three.
On the graph style - it does depend on the context. Usually, implied probability is by far the better - especially if there’s more than one variable on the graph, but in this case, I think you’re right to concentrate on the actual returns.
5. Milliband 3/1 - stingy. Deputy on what ticket?
Balls 3/1 - balls!
Johnson 4/1 - value
Hain 6/1 - will he stand? Sounds about right.
H.Benn 8/1 - probably generous if he can get a bit more profile.
Kelly 10/1 - only if the wimmin’s lobby gets vocal, and even then unlikely.
Straw 12/1 - can’t see it.
Darling 20/1 - unlikely, but probably value as an outside bet.
Just so as I can clarify, taking a position at .62 then prifit taking would involve laying at a lower number (say .4) and if you did that on the same betting market you could walk away with the profit months ahead of the event?
8. David Herdson, I’m going to have you put in the stocks next to Icarus. How am I ever going to make money on this market if people like you keep on pointing out the bleeding obvious to everybody?!
http://dizzythinks.blogspot.com/2006/09/david-taylor-registers-johnson4leader.html
Update and LOL !
9. Benn was ahead in the Yougov poll of Labour members (but IIRC they didn’t present Hain as an option). At this stage the recognition factor still affects the results, but I think Benn/Johnson/Milliband are more or less at the same level in terms of being known. So if Benn is interested, I think he can make it.
I think Hain will almost certainly stand. According to Guido’s blog Martin Linton from Battarsea is his campaign manager.
10. Correct Benedict. You could fine tune it various ways - e.g. you could effectively give yourself a free bet on one or t’other outcome, or you could lock in a small profit on either result, but basically you’ve got the idea right.
12. Jamie, not a good start?
11. Speed, my friend - the money’s there for the taking! Besides, if it’s bleeding obvious then it’s bleeding obvious innit?
15. Yes - best prediction I’ve seen on this site for a while
Re 14 Peter, the question is can I close a position and walk with the money before the contest? (Presumably dependent on where you are betting, trad book makers only paying out after the result is called.)
18. Yes - betfair is the place to go.
17. not sure if Johnson benefits to have those people around his campaign.
Clare Short won’t certainly like it..considering he was behind the website to deselect and throw her (that “confused” woman) out of the party.
18. Fraid not, Benedict, whether you are using a traditional bookmaker or the exchanges.
The situation is a little more complicated with the latter. For example, suppose you start by laying £100 at 2.5. You now have a theoretical liability of £150. The Exchange will want you to keep at least that amount deposited with them as a precaution against you defaulting. If the price then drifts and you now back £100 at, say, 3.5, you have eliminated your potential liability. You have a potential win of £100 and loss of zero. Your £150 deposited with the exhange is thus freed up to speculate on other bets. Naturally enough, you won’t pick up the profit until the event is over and the result is declared in your favour.
OK?
9 / 13 - yes Hain is a definite starter, he announced as much in the Observer this weekend. He got a couple of digs in at Johnson who he must feel is the front runner in the same article (said the deputy should be someone who did not harbour ambitions for the top job and also said that it was disloyal to declare candidacy when Johnson did because it was a time when Prescott was low and struggling to hang on).
RE 21, Peter, No, or rather I know understand that I can’t walk early with the money, but can free some up…
The maths of the betting lost me.
Don’t worry about the maths, you’ve got the principle right and that’s important because to a very large extent it does avoid the problem of tying up funds long term.
Has anyone mentioned this little snippet from Jackie Ashley in the Guardian:
Amid the furious allegations of plotting, it is all too easy to forget the problems surrounding Blair on all fronts. There he was in the Middle East, having lost the trust of the Palestinians because of his unequivocal pro-American line. Alongside him was Lord Levy, recently arrested as part of the police investigation into cash-for-peerages. According to one member of the public administration committee, which has put its own inquiry on hold pending the police investigation, the pace is about to accelerate and “the trail isn’t going to lead anywhere except No 10″.
But in another form of betting it is possible to pick up your profits even though the event has not taken place. Thus in June 2005 I “bought” Ken Clarke at the then level of 9 on IG’s Binary spread market. If that bet had been correct I would have won (100 - 9) times my stake level. If I had kept the bet open I would have lost 9 times my stake level.
But during the first part of June 2005 the sentiment moved towards Clarke and his price - the spread - moved to 22-26. Here the high figure is the buy price and the low one the sell price. Thus I was then able to sell at the 22 level making a profit of (22-9) times my stake level.
Thus even though the leadership campaign still had six months to run and Clarke ended up a loser I was able to collect a very nice profit there and then.
Even better, from my personal cash flow perspective, I have a credit account and did not have to put any money up front at all.
Two months ago I “sold” Labour to win most seats at the next election at the level of 48. Now the buy price is 42-47 so I could close my bet and pocket a profit today.
26. Yes, of course, that’s absolutely right. A spread is different. Once you close out a spread, you ‘realise’ the profit (or loss) and either receive or send your cheque, as appropriate.
I think I am right in saying that you cannot do that with the Exchanges. Thus, in my example at 21 above, if we change the second part of the transaction to a bet of £80 (at said price of 3.5), the punter stands to win whatever the outcome - either £20 or £50. The Exchange will not however cough up either sum until the event is over.
Yes?
27 - I believe that on Betfair you cannot withdraw the £20 in your example, but you can use it to place other bets.
28 - Only if those bets are in the same market.
28. Yes, that’s the way I understand it Lennon. Makes sense when you think about it.
The difference is that in the traditional spread markets you are betting against the bookie, so whatever you win they lose - hence they will pay out when you have a guaranteed profit.
With Betfair you are betting against other punters, so your “guaranteed profits” do not equate to someone else’s guaranteed losses. So they do not pay out.
29. Thanks Alex, I had never appreciated that point but it makes sense, as do your further remarks at 31.
21 - But imagine that rather than backing £100 at 3.5 you back £80 at 3.5; wouldn’t that make your positions +£50 for a win, +£20 for a loss? In other words a profit of at least £20, with only the extra £30 in doubt. At that point could you take the minimum profit of £20 out of the exchange without waiting for the event to complete?
Jan, If you are still around, did you notice that the 2/5 on 2007 has been wiped off the board again? Maybe it was a special offer. It certainly got me to sign up a W Hill account, so maybe they’re prepared to wear the losses on that particular bet.
Drat - must refresh more often :-/
33. My answer is No, Ewan, but I would be interested to hear what others think - especially Alex, who seems to be the in-house expert.
36 You are correct Peter the answer is No , I suppose something could happen that means all bets were voided and there was no actual profit .
I had a complex situation with the World Snooker Championships on Betfair . I was in a very healthy all green position but could not place any more bets to juggle my positions because when someone was eliminated it added to both my green figure and liabilty and although the green figure was much greater than the liability their system did not recognise it . They never did solve this problem .
The way Betfair works, it settles every bet you make with another punter individually, and commission is then charged from an amalgamation of all these bets. When you trade into an “all green” (guaranteed profit) situation you will have made a combination of opposing bets (some which will ultimately be winners and some losers). To give you your guaranteed profit early could only be done (according to the way they operate) by settling winning bets before they have won and losing bets before they have lost. Which is obviously not appropriate.
And then of course there is the void market point made by Mark.
Right, lets have some sort of worked example here, and we will assume taht we are going from right to left on Mikes graph.
So today I back Gordon at 0.62, with £100, so I presume if he wins I get £62 + £100 (stake) if he gets the job, and nothing if he loses. I think he is not going to get the job but he is going to look more likely.
His price then drops 0.3 so he is more fancied. What do I have to do to get a garanteed profit, and using a simlar example how do you do that on IG index and get out with thge money well in advance?
37. Thanks Mark. You beat Alex to the punch this time.
I suppose you also have to bear in mind the possibilty of the occasional system breakdown, as happened at Betfair a few weeks back.
Btw, are you the same Mark Senior who was shown the yellow card by Anthony Wells recently?
Tch..tch….;-)
I must say I’m delighted to see more betting posts on here lately. Excellent stuff.
Benedict @ 39 (and others) - you needn’t fry your head too much with complicated arithmetic. I find that two things help me greatly when trading:
1 - in the ‘options’ panel on the Betfair market screen, ensure that you select the ‘what if’ option. This shows you simply and clearly how your position on a market would alter if a proposed bet were to be matched.
2 - http://www.arbcruncher.com. Click onto the pop-up calculator. This is a splendid little tool that, with a bit of practice, will help you to create all-green books. In my view, its best use is to help with laying every selection, displaying the odds, stakes, over-round and profits/losses from laying or backing.
Good luck.
38/40 In the World Snooker Market betfair tried to modify thing by settling some bets early when a player was knocked out but this ended up with instead of me being say £100 green on player A it showed me £900 green with £800 liabilities . My method of betting involes multiple small bets of repeated betting and laying to build up the all green position .
Yes Peter the one and only though it was Rik W who started it LOL .
39 Benedict
You actually mean you back at 1.62 ( 0.62 doesn’t exist) but no matter - I follow you.
If he gets the job, you win £62 - correct.
Now imagine his chances visibly improve and the price drops to 1.3. This is a movement in your favour and you can, if you wish, exploit the new situation by laying off. How much and how far would be a matter of choice but to give a middling sort of example, lets say you now lay £150 at said odds of 1.3. Result?
If he does get the job, you win £62, as we said before, but you have to pay out £45 (£150 x 0.3) on the £150 you laid. You are therefore a net £17 (£62 less £45) in profit.
If he does not get the job, you lose the £100 from the original bet, but you have won £150 from laying off. i.e. You make a net profit of £50.
So, you stand to win either £17 or £50, according to whether he does or doesn’t get the job.
Nice, eh?
42. You were lucky Anthony was the referee. I would have given you a straight red. And the same to that old rascal, Rik W!
41. Thanks Andy for that useful contribution to our little seminar here.
It seems Clare Short is going to stand down at next election (and it also seems she wants to be controversial until the end):
http://thedaily.wordpress.com/2006/09/11/exclusive-clare-short-to-step-down/
Dip into the market but dont commit a full bet. It seems a certainty that a substantive candidate will run against Brown. As this prospect of a challenge solidifies I’d expect his price to drift again.
Gotta go for an hour or so but if anybody’s got any more comments I’ll try to pick them up later.
On the other hand, if anybody is bored to tears, just tell me and I’ll shut up.
Just read the Brown Biography over the last two days - OMG - that man must nor be allowed to run a dinner party let alone the Party or the country!
RE 43, Peter, so by hedging you can win either way. Yes nice.
I wonder if Mike can explain spread betting in leadership contest, and how to profit take.
Peter: Willhill has been this way since Friday - the Blair market comes and goes. Maybe it’s back tomorrow.
Irish-based Tradesports is a betting exchange where you can pocket your profits immediately, unlike Betfair. A Labour leader market was established today, but liquidity is awfull, so for those betting on UK politics only, it is not attractive to open an account. US political markets are more liquid, thought, and there is often some arbitrage to be made against Betfair. In addition, Tradesports has some cool markets, such as Fidel, Rumsfeld, airstrikes on Iran and capture of bin Laden.
Re 46 Yokel, I do expect his price to drift further, but I also expect it at some point to be tighter than now, hence the discussion.
RE 48, Mandy, Why? Can you cite an example?
As regards Deputy..Hain looks decent value at 6-1. Rumour has it Johnson is seriously looking at the main chance but has still to decide. If he doesn’t go for leader he might stand as deputy but would Brown have him and thus influence against him? Is he an inside the tent peeing our or outside peeing in kind of person? The evidence is that Gordon doesn’t keep his enemies close, he’s got a Pol Pot mentality om that score.
Thus If Johnson goes for chief then Hain’s price will shorten.
As regards the next two in the betting,
a) Milliband and Balls are pure cabinet, not Deputy Leader ,aterial at this stage.
b)It isn’t going to help them at this stage either in progressing their careers. There’s no benefit to either, in fact it pigeon holes them.
c)It’s a senior member kind of role and I don’t think they’ve been around long enough.
If those 2 of those 3 (which I’d believe is probable) don’t run for Deputy, Hain then looks very good value right now. If anything the most likely to run for Deputy is Johnson if he feels the chief post is beyond him, the other 2 I’d be surprised if they stand.
Hain on the other hand is an almost definite runner, seems reasonably popular (impeccable background, anti apartheid and so on), poses no threat to Brown and has been working away for some time. Also appears clean and stable, I think the party will be wary of another Prescott.
Finally I’d like his ass hauled out of Noethrn Ireland he’s about as nationalist as they come, so crap as an honest broker and a low level bully to boot.
If the Treasury goes announces a zero VAT rating for tanning products then Hains a certainty for deputy….
51 - Basically he comes across as utterly vindictive, economical with the truth - especially with regards to his own economic policies and those of others, petty minded, frequently putting himself before others to the point of dismissing policy initiatives thought up by others, regardless of their merits, just because they impede on Treasury areas which is his and his alone to plan for - though he might ‘invent’ the idea himself a while later!
As much of a team player as Boycott, and about as wishy-washy as it gets with regards to firm convictions. The number of u-turns he has made with out ever really being exposed over it is astounding.
Two years of him in power and the Labour Party will be a divided shambles and the country in an economic and social standstill
Benedict
From what I can see here, if you are entering the market at this stage for the first time, is that hedging potential might be limited at the current price for Brown unless he is genuinely in danger of losing. Thats purely based on a very cursory look so someone can correct me.
Quiz question. Who can identify seats where there have been long term pockets of Conservative support in Lab strongholds say 20%, but that have always been safe for Labour, where the Lib Dems either broke into second or were a near tie for second with the Tories. This by election in Somerset makes me think Tory voters may be starting to go the way Lab voters did in the 90’s in areas their “chosen” party can not win, by breaking long term allegiance to help hurt their “real” enemy. I think this sort of seat maybe good betting teritory.
55 - Did that really happen much in the 90s? My impression was that it was the 2001 election where the Liberals really benefitted from this sort of switching. In 1997 there were many seats where Labour came from nowhere into second or even first place. A large number of the seats that the Libs picked up had as much to do with the simple fact of the Tory collapse as Lab-> Lib switching.
56. I thought so too; wasn’t there a slight swing LD-Con in 1997?
What I think we are seeing is a decline in the Labour vote in seats where they were previously second place and a corresponding rise in the LD vote. This pattern is evident in lots of East Anglian seats. In political terms it means little since these seats are largely very safe Tory seats. I suppose if it were possible to bet on second place in these seats one could make some money on betting on the LDs.
RE 53, Mandy, can you give some examples of U turns and or ideas he slamed only to take up later?
58 - you really must read the book LOL
One shining example might well be the idea of tax credits that he ridiculed when proposed by the Tories, but then invented himself later…
Also, his support for entry into the ERM and opposition to withdrawal didn’t quite appear to be remembered a few days later after the Tories withdrawal, when he lambasted Lawson for not acting fast enough over the ERM!
57 Ok perhaps later, I’m referring to Labour voters voting tactically in seats where they’d always had a pocket of support but never enough to threaten the Tories seizing the opportunity prsented by a Lib Dem surge to vote differently to oust the Tory. Cheadle, North Norfolk etc. We saw in Cardiff Central last time a reduction in the Tory vote helping propel a Lib Dem win over Lab. I’m looking for other seats that could do this. IIRC the Lib Dems took second from the Tories in many places in 2005 where there are still significant % Tory votes but which have always been Lab safe. I think these represent value possibly.
“Always” is a long time, Punter (55). But having a look at the new seats on Baxter - though you have to take into account that his calculations are still highly flawed, and need adjusting - you might consider the following 2005 hypothetical results:
Blackburn: Lab 42% Con 22% Lib Dem 20%
Bristol East: 46% 24% 22%
And a couple where there is a substantial Tory vote, but the Lib Dems were notionally second:
Bristol South: 48% 20% 22%
Birmingham Hall Green: Lab 42% Tory 19% Lib Dem 20%
Good scope for bar charts here…..
And one very interesting seat, where the second place tie is very much within Baxter´s margin of error:
Bristol North West: 39% 27% 27%
I didn´t go beyond the fist page of Baxter, but there seem to be plenty of seats which meet your criteria. Lots for the Lib Dems to be cheerful about!
61. Hall Green can actually be even more complex. Respect polled 21% in local elections (winning a ward).
61- Jonny. That’s it, keep the faith. Hope will see your leader in to the GE… We might be more preoccupied with trying to keep the Labour leader in place but we still have time for OMCS/CDS.
60 Don’t a number of London seats come into this category?
“In the past I have converted betting odds into an implied probability of success so that a price tightening sees the graph move upwards. This chart is on the prices themselves so a tightening would mean the line would go downwards. Which is best? I would be grateful for your views.”
I have always thought of betting odds in terms of what you refer to as “implied probabilities”. I think of it as the percentage of people who have bet on something (subject to the total being slightly more than 100% in order for the bookies to make their profit). But I have never done a bet, and my mind started boggling as soon as I read “a price tightening sees the graph move upwards”. Tightening? What does that mean? Does “tightening” mean that something is becoming more likely, or less likely? I was also confuzzled by your reference to “the prices themselves”. To me, that is meaningless. If the odds are (e.g.) 4/1, then the fraction is 1/5 and the % is 20%. Which is the “price”?
I am not sure what you are talking about sometimes in your obiter dicta, but the answer to the question is: keep using the so-called “implied probabilities”.
A few days back I suggested a strategy of backing Brown when he drifted to about 1.5 and then waiting for THE challenger to be clearer and backing him/her asap, hopefully at > 5. But the swing against Brown has been more rapid than expected. And it’s too soon to be sure Johnson is THE challenger (my hypothesis being that a combination of core Brown support and the lack of strong alternatives and the system all but rules out two genuine contenders).
So I’m waiting to see if Brown suffers more damage. If not, latest prices look attractive not least ’cause it should be possible to hedge it (unless Brown suffers a sudden calamity).
61- Birmingham seats are particularly interesting with regard to your theory as Birmingham council is currently run by a Con/LD coalition .
I would expect Hall green to come under heavy campaigning from the LD’s as it Borders Yardley- largely seen as the LD powerbase (its Hemmings seat).
61- And as Andrea pointed out it also borders Sparkbrook which is where Respect are strongest (and Salma Yacub has a council seat)
67. Crossland, do you think that Salma I don’t recall her surname can create some problems to the LDs (assuming she stands for Respect there)? From local elections results it seems Respect has taken votes away more from the LDs than Labour in Springfield and Sparkbrook wards .
ON the subject of getting one’s money out…or not in the case of Betfair:
1. I think Betfair should be pressured to eliminate or cut commission on long-term markets like US 2008 and next UK GE. It’s a bit of a an insult to give them the interest on your cash and then to lose 5% of winnings. ‘Banking’ all greens would also be welcome but I see from above there are complications.
2. I saw an add for Extrabet which seemed to offer early access to £££ - anyone know anything?
sorry ‘add’ should be ‘advert’
69- Andrea. Its complicated…I think that the Respect vote is very strong in the Sparkbrook constituency. She was very close to winning it at the last election.- As you suggest this effectively wipes out any other opposition in that constituency .
However ,Some (now ex!) councillors I have spoken to in the neighbouring council wards (Moseley/Kings heath for example) are of the view that because the Respect vote is strongly influenced by Family/clan ties there is a sort of spill over effect and in those wards it tends to be the Lab vote that drops while the Ld and Con vote holds.
49. Jan
Since Friday? Incredible. Anyway, I’m fully committed now so I don’t mind if they wipe the market off their boards but I can still scarcely believe this opportunity existed.
I will check out Tradesport. It sounds like the Irish equivalent of Extrabet with whom I opened an account a while back. I haven’t used it much. The idea sounds good in theory but in practice I found it a bit disappointing. Maybe I should start using it again.
72. Thanks Crossland.
Do you have any news (that can be reported on a public forum!) about Birmingham Labour selections?
74 -The old Selly Oak has dissolved and we are now waiting to hear from Region about when we can start the ball rolling.
It seems that Lynne Jones and Steve Mcabe will stand as they both have ties to the new constituency ( two wards each).
Once the ball does get rolling who knows who else will enter the fray ?
Id have thought its still a safe seat so we may become invaded by Spads, Policy Wonks and PPS’s with tight majorities !
I think you’re right 61. I expect net Liberal Democrat losses v the Tories but net gains V Labour. Did you leave out Bristol East and Swansea West. Regards.
73 - I will check out Tradesport. It sounds like the Irish equivalent of Extrabet with whom I opened an account a while back.
A version of Spreadfair where most (all?) of the contracts are binaries is probably the best UK parallel.
75. Thanks Crossland. How does it work when there’re boundary changes? Will you have an open selection? Or just a McCabe-Jones straight fight?
Do you think Ladywood will have an interesting selection process now that Short is standing down?
78 - Open selection, I think. Ladywood will be particularly interesting, because there’d be immense pressure to select a Muslim candidate, and, if one isn’t chosen, Labour could be fatally weakened.
I see Betfair price already back down to 1.54.
This year’s local election votes in Birmingham Hall Green were Con 4145 Lab 8259 LibDem 9410 Green 1295 BNP 1435 Respect 6615 Others 84 . Conservatives 4th behind Respect .
79. Thanks, Observer. I suspected it from Croosland’last line, but I wanted to be sure.
79..So Muslims vote Muslim then?
re. 80. Yes - I think there was speculation last night that something was going to be announced or trailed today. That something was probably an indication of interest by another serious candidate (most likely Johnson).
I think the decline in the price today is simply a reflection of a quiet news day.
The price for Darling as Chancellor has stuck at a lower level - has Brown given informal assurances to other Cabinet members of who might get the top jobs, in order to shore up his support?
85. It’s a long-term market, Arb. It has to go above 1.60 at some point. I’d wait.
Punter (at 76). No - I made a specific reference to Bristol East…. It could well be a Lib Dem gain, falling within the criteria you mention.
But I admit I did not get as far as Swansea West, since I looked only at the first page of Baxter - and there are so many Labour-held seats where the Lib Dems have a good vote on the new boundaries, and there is 20%ish Tory vote (yet permanently hopeless for them) to eat into.
Thanks, Darren, “DC”, for your good wishes for the Lib Dem cause…. You Tories have a fundamental weakness, which is the disconnect between your Leader and his followers. I don´t know just how he can manage to keep walking on water, with none of you realising just what the trick is………..
re. 85. Sure - but it’s interesting that quiet days might see the price tighten. Could be a decent market to pick your spots for trading in and out.
RE 86 Sage, I thought both DC, AH Matlock, myself and others had made it as clear as we can that we are behind David Cameron.
Don’t read Conhome to much, it is not that representative.
Sage - I am also supportive of Cameron. Im not sure who you think isnt from PB.com!
RE 88
You’re quite right when it comes to ConHome- I’ve posted in there a few times how disgruntled I am at some party members for being so petty and picky when it comes to what Cameron does or does not do. I think he is doing a fine job.
Tories have never liked voting tactically - they dont see why they should stoop to voting for a non-Conservative. How the Tories play the next election strategically as well as tactically could be crucial, since the high likelihood of a hung parliament means that this time it will not just matter how many seats the Tories win, but also how many Labour lose. In the case of a hung parliament, it becomes strategically advantageous to the Tories if LibDems take Labour seats, since it increases the probability of Con being largest party without gaining extra Con seats. Therefore, will Tory HQ bear that in mind when looking at campaigning in the inner cities in places like Bristol E and S? They sould be happy to see their vote collapse to the LibDems if it defeats Labour. Somehow I just cant see them biting that bullet. This is part of the reason why they will still lose in 2009.
88. You have to be right behind someone to stab them in the back.
But Cameron is against everything that the Tories have stood for for 20 years - fine by me but surprised that you are all following his tune.
93 - Icarus & all, as I ahve said on previous ocasions the Tories have sold their souls to get back to power. They loved Howard last year and love DC now, dosn’t matter about policy or principle just power.
and yes, yes you’ll all go off on one abot no we belive, we have changed and the country is ready for us…but deep down in your very heart&soul is what DC doing really the party you all signed up to X years ago, I seriously doubt it.
You are quite right, Icarus (93). The problem is that Darren (”DC”), Benedict, AH Matlock and our very own Rik are all 100% behind Chammie. All that means is that they all - including Chammie himself - were previously 100% at odds with the Old Tory Party, as was under Thatcher, and Major, and Hague, and Duncan Smith, and Howard - and yet, in the latter case, even composed his manifesto and stood on his platform. Is it a matter of mass hypnosis or what?
Do they stand on policies only because they have the label “Tory”, and it does not matter to them what the content is? How is it possible for Chammie (and them, the now supposedly decent Tories) to be so totally inconsistent? And when will the penny drop?
Just read Darling Daves first foreign policy speech, still vomiting. The US is our one and only reliable ally, and Dave is arse licking the Guardian readers. God that man is sickening, calls himself a Tory, he is one Neville Chamberlain incarnate.
RE 93 Icarus, In what way is Cameron against everything we have tood for in the last 20 years, and also, the Conservative party is a little older than the last 20 years.
What you mean by that I think, IhateDC (92), is that Chameron was once wholly behind Howard and his policies? And now, he stabs his former leader in the back? Well, yes, they are Tories after all, aren´t they?
95 - so every who backs Ming was against Kennedy? Everyone who backs Blair was against Foot and Kinnock?
That is the argument of the playground!
RE 96, David, Alexander Hague was not absolutly on our side in 1982. (Though the US did provide satelite pictures.
The only people to be long time reliable are us and the Portugease.
However, I do not see what DC said as anti American, nor anything like Chanberlain.
RE 99, RikW, times have moved on, most playgrounds are according to the latest government statistics more mature than that
99 - Oh Rik calm down dear, I think whatthe boys mean is that while Ming has done not much to move away from previous party policy(more just tweaking) Blair invented NEW Labour but still OLD Labour exist on mass on the backbenches waiting to take revenge. However both other parties took years not months in the making.
For DC to do this in under 12 months? he has ripped up his very own 2005 manifesto, in 9 bloddy months since he took over, now that seems to me and a lot of others as a snath for power above any true conversion…we shall see.
The Americans did not only provide us with satellite pictures they also provided us with the sidewinder aim 9 the most uptodate air to air missile which gave the sea harriers a drop on the skyhawks and mirages. Look doesn’t matter which way you cut it, you can nick pick about the US all you like, when it comes to it they are the only ones we can count on. Problem with people like you is your so besotted with darling Dave you can’t see he’s nothing more than Neville Chamberlain on a bike.
Once upon a time, Benedict (97), the Tories were nice, and fair, and being one-nation Tories, were concerned for the well-being of the less fortunate. A bit of a fairy-story of course, Benedict, but not all that many people saw through them, and so they managed to get themselves elected, time after time.
This lasted until the days of the sainted Edward Heath.
Then came the evil Thatcher, who blew away the cobwebs, and declared that it was OK for everybody to be selfish, money-grabbing, inconsiderate - and it was no crime to be self-centred. The only people who mattered were the very rich. She re-defined the Tory Party - and in public too.
And so it was that all the selfish, greedy, money-centred people voted Tory; and the Tories of long-standing threw off their disguises, and declared themselves selfish, greedy and money-centred as well, after all.
And when finally, in the 1990s, people saw through the lunacy and destructiveness of Thatcherism and wanted something better, more considerate of others, they discarded Toryism for the evil that it was.
And the problem that Chameron has now is that somehow he has to convince the people of this country that the thoroughly evil Toryism that they experienced in the 1980s was somehow not after all the real thing, the Toryism really is the complete opposite of everything that the Tories did in the 1980s and 1990s.
Now you, Benedict, seem to believe that the Tories never were as the rest of us saw them under Thatcher and Co. And the enchanter Chameron is persuading you that you never stood for selfishness etc - and somehow you new Tories are prepared to go along with his re-writing of history. And you argue that white is black, and black white. And the rest of us, who are impervious to Chammie´s latest marketing techniques, stand amazed at all you come and tell us.
RE 103, Tell me Dave, do you think we should support our friends in the USA by not saying they are doing the wrong thing, when some of what they are doing is making things worse rather than better? (See various articles on my blog) or do you think we should aim to deal with the current threat in the most effective way possible?
What is it Dave, tell our mates we are right behind them making the situation worse or actualy being right behind both them and us in winning?
RE 104 Sage, Yawn…
Tony Blair has locked in much of Thatcherism and has pointedly refused to repeal bits of it like those reforms which I and indeed some Labour supporters see as PRO union but the likes of Bob Crow see as anti union.
Thatcher did what she had to do to wake the country up. I’d have liked it to be done differently. Fact is that it is much easier to drive a car from the back seat rather than the front.
If you want my views on the Thatcher era read here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/06/ok-ben-howcome-you-ended-up-tory-as-68.html
The US stood by us in two world wars, was the lynch pin of the atlantic alliance, we stood together against the communist menace. What are you asking us to do, desert them in their hour of need, cos darling Dave thinks we should! Thank god for Tony Blair I’m no socialist, but if darling Dave had been PM on 9/11 we’d have joined those cheese eating surrender monkeys the French.
People like you make me ill. what ever the beloved leader comes up with you go along with.
107 - ok bit gee up I see, agree with your historical background but in all honesty the US need the UK(military or otherwise) like a dog needs toilet paper - nice to have someone wipe your ass but easier(and faster) to do it yourself.
Benedict, plase! “Thatcher did what she had to do to wake the country up. I’d have liked it to be done differently. Fact is that it is much easier to drive a car from the back seat rather than the front.”
I sometimes get the impression that you Tories don´t really know what you are talking about….. Perhaps you don´t drive a car. I assure you, it is much easier driving when you are in the front seat…..
RE 107, David, Forgive me for pointing this out, but what the US needed was not some lickspittle twit with no understnading of military or imperial history, no f*cking clue about how to win against Al Qaida, but an honest friend who could tell GWB that Donald Rumsfeld is a pratt, and if you want to invade Iraq, listen to Powel who would not have gone in without roughly double the forces.
Not only that but we have let Afghanistan slip, and underresourced it in favour of invading Iraq when we obviously did not have the resource to do both properly and need not have dealt with Iraq at that precise time.
If you think the job of a friendly government is to follow any foolishness, the sir you are a fool.
RE 109, Sage, so many people have drivern that car from the back seat and found it much easier that Thatcher did in the front.
Logic is with you on one level, but your comments indicate you would have been far happier driving from the back.
107- David. Of course not! Blair did do all the right things in the wake of 911 and so would have Cameron.
Agree with the points made that most if not all Conservatives here on PBC are 100% behind Cameron. Indeed, I coined the phrase “Cam the Man”. He is a new kind of Leader for us and I think we needed it. That does not take away my admiration for Howard, IDS, Hague, Major or Thatcher.
Mrs T will always have a special place in our hearts for moving this Country out of the mire and laying the foundations for much of what is good today about Britain.
Oh dear, Rik (99). Take time out to think a bit. As Big Mak says, there have been no major changes in Lib Dem policy between the leadership of Kennedy and Campbell: just a matter of emphasis. Apart from which, policy as policy is determined democratically by the Party Assembly. We do not depend totally on the caprices of our leader.
And because the Lib Dems are a democratic party, Rik, there are no great changes in direction from one minute to the next.
And that is precisely the problem that you Tories have. Because you have ceded all power to your Leader, and he takes decisions about your policies according to his latest caprice, or forum group, or the latest whispers of Boy George, or the marketing team, you Tories are on a helter-skelter, without the remotest idea of where you are going.
You have to discard all principle and just hang on, because it is now too late for you to get out.
Traditionally, for example, the Tories were the party that clung to the US coat-tails - the good old patriotic principle of the USA right or wrong, eh? And now?
And now you are anti-USA….
Remind me, was Chameron ever a member of CND?
“So many people have drivern (sic) that car from the back seat and found it much easier that Thatcher did in the front. Logic is with you on one level, but your comments indicate you would have been far happier driving from the back.”
No, Benedict (111). Most of us would have been much happier driving in the front seat. The route would have been quite different….. and Britain a much happier place to live.
Re 113, Sage, “And now you are anti-USA….”
Just how exactly is wanting to defeat this current terror threat in the most effective way possible antu USA?
RE 114, Sage you can see my blog entry on teh subject, I posted a link to it earlier.
Just how exactly would you have done it another way?
No realy I am interested.
For example, just how do you make unions accountable to their members?
Just how do you protect the rights of one set of workers over another?
Do you remember what the 70’s were like? Even Claghan recognised that needed to change.
113- Jonny. We will never be anti-USA however ‘fashionable’ it may be. I dread to think what the world would be like without them. That does not mean we cannot question some policy decisions. I was not a fan of Clinton but that never stopped me regarding them as a good ally and friend to our Country.
Just out of interest David, how do you feel about our intervention in Sierra Leone? We lost as far as I know 1 dead soldier, but managed to liberate the country.
Darren (alias DC) - you have lost me. Previously you claimed to be in your early thirties and gorgeous and bikini-clad. Now you are saying you have passed your 50th birthday… Can this be true? But the hips don´t lie, do they? And still bikini-clad? With the Tory axes all over? Wow!!!!
But then you go on to say…
“We will never be anti-USA however ‘fashionable’ it may be. I dread to think what the world would be like without them. That does not mean we cannot question some policy decisions. I was not a fan of Clinton but that never stopped me regarding them as a good ally and friend to our Country.”
I fear you are falling under the influence of Chamie - stating the — obvious. And then expecting everybody else to adopt the role of the baddie….
Who is anti-USA? Nobody. Who is anti-Bush? Almost everybody, even in the USA. And where precisely is your beloved Leader? I can´t remember….. Not worth bothering about really, because next week it will be something different….
I really do think, Darren, that you ought to ought to stick to political orangisation, and leave the thinking to Chamie….
118- You have got the wrong end of the stick Jonny. I am in my early thirties.
I’ve no idea where my leader is. I don’t keep tabs on him! He does tend to be a little more high profile than your leader…
I find this criticism of David Cameron misplaced. He has come out as a firm Atlanticist, has he not? As far as I can see he remains firmly in the Conservative tradition in that regard.
I must admit to some queasiness over hoodies and this ‘green’ obsession - and would have preferred David Davis to be our leader - but I think it’s stretching it to attack Cameron over foreign affairs which, after all, is hardly the prime concern for Conservatives.
113 - Sage that is the biggest load of rubbish I have read on here for some time. MIng apparently wants to abandon the Lib Dems tax policies en masse, from a higher top rate to a Local Imcome Tax. Not much a of a bleat there I hear!
DC is not abandoning all principles - if he does he will be unseated pretty quickly! He is repositioning the party by emphasis and tone.
Rik - witness the poster immediately above you. “Hug a hoodie”? “No to tax cuts?” Aren’t those pretty fundamental changes as your colleague observes?
RE 122, those people who critisise the hug a hoodie thing have not read the speach, or indeed the other one he gave on the same day about policing.
Gordo doesn’t need the latest Inflation figures.
Oops another rise in IR’s.
Oops borrowing stops.
Oops house prices fall.
Oh dear, Gordos economic growth is revealed by stagflation to be a mirage of gearing and debt.
… and the bank of England will put up interest rates which puts up mortgage rates which makes RPI rise faster. Wage rises are based on RPI so wages rise faster and eventually CPI (the Banks inflation measure, which doesn’t include mortgage costs) also rises - The economy collapses, but luckily its all the Bank of Englands fault not Gordons
re. 125 Icarus,
I presume that’s tongue-in-cheek… The overall impact of an increase in interest rates is to drive inflation down. There may be a tiny effect of the type you mention, but the overall impact is overwhelmingly negative, driven by constriction in the money supply / reduction in final demand.