My 50/1 shot says he’s considering running for the White House
October 23rd, 2006-
Could the only black Senator make it all the way?
Barack Obama, first tipped here when he was 50/1 in May 2005, has given a strong indication that he might run for the White House.
According to the BBC Obama told a TV interviewer that “Given the responses I’ve been getting… I have thought about the possibility” and he said he would give the matter more thought after the mid-term vote.
The Illionois Senator was recently featured on the cover of Time magazine, with the headline “Why Barack Obama could be the Next President.”
On Betfair he is down to 6/1 to get the Democratic nomination while you can still get a bookie price of 33/1 on him going all the way. That will probably tighten.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
More detailed article in this morning’s Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200220.html
Nope, Condi Rice is going to be the next President.
2 - I’ve thought for a while that Condi is what America needs. The US has a huge image problem on the world stage at the moment thanks to a certain George Bush. She’s the one member of the Bush administration that seems popular with voters over here. Most of my friends HATE Dubya, but are quite impressed with Condi. The fact that she’d be the first black president & first woman president at the same time is a bonus because of the way that America is now perceived as being so intolerant.
But - I have two problems with believing that Condi will get it:
1. The Republican Party. I think that they would only support her in primaries if they thought she was their only chance of holding on to the Presidency. Opinion polls show her as popular, but not perhaps popular enough.
2. She’s never stood for any elected office. She doesn’t act like she wants the job. If she won’t stand, she can’t win.
Fascinating.
The Democratic party needs moderates like Ken Salazar or Bill Richardson to ’step up to the crease’ not an anti-war candidate like Obama. Hillary Clinton would be bad enough but I think the lesson of last time was than we cannot field an anti-war candidate - especially against McCain. I think everyone is overestimating Rice’s chances in the GOP primaries - a possible VP candidate but she lacks any sort of charisma (though she is currently underpriced at Tradesports).
Spectacular easy arb if those prices are right. Lay the living daylights out of him at 6 and pile on at 33-1.
Jon, 33-1 is for President, not Democratic nomination. Need to cover yourself in that case by buying a Republican presidential victory.
W£hat were the odds on Bill Clinton at this stage in the process? Was he not similarly obscure at this stage - but possibly with the same communication skills?
Thanks Mike. Will Hill still showing 50s. I’ve had £50 worth. Please keep us posted on any developments.
Well Obama moving so far surely has to have given some people laying opporunities to lock in profit.
When I lived in the US (midwest) there was not as much hostility on the ground to Clinton that the media puts across. I was in the heart of the bible belt and many a Democrat and even the odd Republican were comfortable with her as a candidate. That may have changed in the last year of course.
Sadly Obama is now down to 20/1
7 Yes I know but if he were to win the Democratic nomination there is little chance the subsequent market would then price him at less than 20% to win the whole thing… so it is a soft arb but not much softer than diamond.
12. Sad? Oh yes, very sad.
12. More seriously, Mike, I checked back to your original advice in May (which I missed) and am astonished that the price of 50s has held up. It must be a very small market and I would have thought that the weight of PB betting alone on Obama would have shoved the price southward quite some way.
It all rather confirms my long-held belief that in the big firms, politics betting is given to the office junior.
Btw, I completed a Betfair customer satisfaction q-aire recently. Although generally complimentary, I criticised the lack of political betting and specifically in relation to the Deputy Labout Leadership. I know others have mentioned it. Let’s see if it has any effect.
15. Peter - haven’t seen you on the betfair forums - you can usually muster a head of steam for particular market there then email b/f - a busy thread can help your case.
Having a good champions trophy in the cricket - backing Sri Lanka tomorrow…
I doubt this guy would be worth a pop - bit of a waste.
Surley the bet at the moment is to lay the Conservatives as largest party next time. Currently 1.8 on Betfair, once the ICM poll is out (last month it was on Friday 22nd) the price should move out.
The comments on Condi seem to miss her real electoral problem - especially against Hillary - which is 9-11. She was quite badly hit by the reports showing her office dithered on the intelligence and I don’t think the Democrats would hesitate to attack her. Not only that but McCain would crucify her on it in any Primary run off.
I still think the US General Election will be McCain vs Gore/Clinton
I wouldn’t put it past Colin Powell for GOP VP? Especially if Gore of Clinton have a BME candidate for VP.
Icarus, why? I doubt it will be as bad as MORI. Let’s not get carried away.
ICM had Tories on 40% in August and 36% in September. Mori, who most people here have rubbished, has shown the Tories at 35% in September and October.
The problem for the Tories was the 36% in September - it just hasn’t sunk in yet!
re 18 and 20. I’m expecting that the ICM poll will be in tomorrow’s Guardian. Heaven knows what it will show.
Re 22, Well, Mike, when will you be able to let us know here?
About midnight or earlier?
Obama would most likely be great for fundraising for the party, but his age and inexperience would probably hold him back - 2012 oe 2016 look realistic for him.
A black/female candidate will only serve to buttress the GOP’s grip on the South.
Off to New York to review the Mid terms on Wednesday.
No not really, going to do the shops, restaurants, the odd museum/gallery and more shops with Mrs Icarus.
Any suggestions?
26. Leave your wallet behind!
No seriously it’s a great place and if you haven’t done the Met and/or Grand Central Station, tick the boxes this time.
Have a great time. I’m envious.
One further comment on the MORI poll - the MORI economic optimism index improved to -23 in October from 31 in August. Conceivably, this may explain some of Labour’s improved position. The improvement is almost certainly due to the drop in petrol prices, as movements in fuel costs tend to have a significant impact on consumer confidence indices of this type.
The index remains well below the average of -10 since May 1997 however, and it remains to be seen whether the improvement in October survives the likely further rate rise next month. Note also that the improved balance has come about wholly because of less people thinking the economy will deteriorate over the next year - those expecting an actual improvement have hardly budged.
23 Benedict- from the previous thread- I was simply trying to respond to the numerous Tory posters who were blaming the Tories lack of progress in the polls on Labour deliberately playing the race and fear cards- purely for electoral effect.
Rather than making the assumption that Labour is so sophisticated, and skilled to perpetuate such a manipulation of the public (and that the British public are gullible enough to go for it) I was making the simple point that perhaps the Tories are not making said progress because the public do not like them. I know which explanation is more plausible.
29 -
Not just tory posters, it does you no favours in believing that there is only one opposition party.
Re 29, Tyson, I hate to break this to you, but swing voters, (the ones who count) don’t hate the Conservatives the way you think they do, or Labour the way I’d like them too
Oh, and Tyson you still do not appear to have dealt with the question of why the CRE and BNP think Labour sucks on the veil issue.
See:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
And
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/857
(Who have also pickup up on what I said.)
Has Roy Hattersley ever written an article without some factual blunder? Here he is in Today’s Guardian:
‘Very clearly, Cameron wanted his taxation working party to come to the conclusion that massive tax reductions are possible, otherwise he would not have chosen Michael Forsyth - a wholly unregenerate Thatcherite - to lead it.’
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1929029,00.html)
Everyone elese seems to know that the tax commsion was set up under Michael Howard’s leadership with Howard appointing his old mate Forsyth to be in charge. This sort of sloppiness could just about be forgiven if it was part of some throw-away line, but Hattersley uses this untruth to suggest that Cameron has some sort of hidden agenda, that the commitment to put economic stability first is ‘double talk’ and that tax cutting proposals are in the offing. Shoddy stuff from Hattersley, I think.
Nothing I have read leads me to think the 2008 race will be anything other than a Hillary versus McCain showdown. McCain is polling far better numbers now, but as we all know a US campaign is fought and won in the last 6 weeks. Bush (senior)- easily outpolled Clinton, Dukakis had significant poll leads over Regan early in the campaign, as too did Bob Dole over Clinton.
At the end of the day the best campaigner usually wins a US
presidential campaign and I am not overly impressed by McCain’s skills in this department, and Hillary is pretty much untested. A risky punt either way.
33 ’shoddy stuff from Hattersley’
No change there, then. I remember with fondness Nigel Lawson’s memorable description of him as ‘that great economist..who I miss so much’ when he failed to turn up for Treasury questions. A clown.
30- ukPaul- sorry- I have made the mistake previously of prejudging your political affiliations (though not football ones).
Benedict- hate is a pretty strong word. Most people are just apathetic of politicians- it is only old lefties like myself who continue to hate the Tory party. The public just don’t particualrly care for them (neither Labour for that matter).
And by the way what was all that nonsense written before about communism, which I still consider a very noble, human aspiration; just not been particularly well applied. ??
36 - I doubt it’s just me, in fact it’s those of a liberal persuasion who should be the most annoyed at the government on this. Quite a few conservative posters also seem to be backing Straw et al over the affair so it appears to me that both parties are split on it.
Delayed comments as away from keyboard for a bit:
- A point that Anthony made a while back is that the normal pattern for new Tory leaders has been for an initial positive rating based on a fair number of don’t knows, and that when rthis declines it is usually because the DKs shift to anti. The same appears to happening to Cameron, if MORI is correct.
MORI compensates for the absence of past voting correction by only headlining ‘absolutely certain to vote’ people. I suspected the Labour improvement reflected better Labour morale since the end of the ‘plot’ stuff, rather than lots of people switching parties. But a close look shows this to be mostly false. Here are the last three MORI polls showing sympathies regardless of propensity to vote (Lab/Con/LD):
Aug: 37/32/23 (only ‘certain to vote’ made this (32/36/24))
Sep: 38/30/22 (36/35/19)
Oct: 41/32/18 (37/35/18)
So what has changed in the underlying sympathies is a 4.5% swing from LD to Lab, while the headline shift is a 5.5% swing. The Tory vote is drifting around unchanged. I’ve argued before that there is a big group of people who vote either Lab or LD but not Tory, and who swing back and forth according to current headlines. It’s encouraging but not a decisive shift.
- Yes, I grew up in Eurocommunism’s heyday and supported it, especially people like Berlinguer in Italy and Hermannsson in Sweden. Naturally I didn’t admire Stalin and Pol Pot - thanks to max for his friendly note on this. The basic concept of “from each according to ability to each according to need” still seems to me attractive and a good way for individuals to try to live, but I gradually came to accept that it doesn’t work as the basis for national economics. But I won’t bore this forum with more views on the rights and wrongs of the 60s.
Obama would only be putting down a marker in my view.
On the previous topic, isn´t the poor result for Cameron essentially the extrapolation of the trend since he became leader (or rather since May)? And has he done enough to modernise the Tories in his honeymoon period? My guess is that he hasn´t.
Tyson, I know you are teasing.
Communism was a machine for crushing the human spirit. A cocktail of poisonous envy and mechanical atheism, designed to industrialise misery, to manufacture unhappiness. Communism has failed and failed utterly wherever it has been applied; it is reponsible for more deaths than any other human thought-system; it is a grotesque perversion of the desire for fairness, it is a viciously corroded form of Christianity, it is evil to the Nth degree.
It is also simply wrong, and goes against the natural and wholesome human urge to better yourself, your family, your tribe and your nation without damaging others. It is the mirror image of fascism or Islamism, in that it seeks to attain a deeply dubious goal, and believes the rightness of its rotten cause allows it to murder and butcher.
Apart from that it sucks.
38. So you WERE a communist???
Blimey. I don’t know what to say, Nick. Perhaps we should just draw a polite veil over this revelation, but bear it in mind whenever you start lecturing other people about “extremist” views.
Here’s a reply from Mori (on Con Home) to the issue of what they actually did for the GE05 polls.
“In reply to hf (at 12:23), MORI applied no weighting to the final election poll in 2005 that was not applied to all our other election polls. There were two extra minor adjustments (not weightings) that accounted for the likely votes of those who refused to say how they would vote and for an anticipated higher “overclaim” of voting certainty among Labour and Lib Dem than Tory supporters. Each of these adjustments changed one party’s percentage support by one point and left the others unchanged.
In fact MORI’s final poll was less adjusted and weighted than any of the other companies’ final polls. The raw unweighted and unadjusted figures (excluding those expressing no voting intention at all) were Conservative 31%, Labour 38%, LD 23%; the final published projection was Conservative 33%, Labour 38% and LD 23%. No fiddling, no manipulation, just good sampling.
May I suggest that if you want factual information about polls and polling methods you ask the pollsters? All reputable polling companies are open about their methods and the details of their published polls; gossip about polls from other sources is frequently inaccurate.
Roger Mortimore
Senior Political Analyst, Ipsos MORI”
41.”Blimey. I don’t know what to say, Nick. Perhaps we should just draw a polite veil over this revelation, but bear it in mind whenever you start lecturing other people about “extremist” views. ”
He actually mentions Eurocommunism…He mentions Berlinguer and Hermannsson. I don’t know Hermannsson, but Berlinguer was a respected figure here. In the end in Italy more around 25% of voters usually voted for them and many of them weren’t dangerous extremists. Berlinguer’s death during the 1984 Euro Elections campaign led the communists to become the most voted party for the first time. It was probably just due to the emotional situation of the moment. I was just a couple of year old at the time, but from what I read the emotional impact of Berlinguer was pretty big for a politician (the funerals were showed lived on TV with more than a million of people attending them)
Mike; I hope this won’t be interptreted in the wrong way but thisis exactly what I meant by being, however subconsciously, influemced by your book. There is less than no chance of Obama ever being President and any serious US observer knows it (What’s the price on Tradesports?).
The only way you could ever make money here is on a Tradesports style contract where you can buy and sell the guy as he trades like a stock, up and down. In absolute terms, he has absolutely no chance whatsoever..
Nick MP said “So what has changed in the underlying sympathies is a 4.5% swing from LD to Lab, while the headline shift is a 5.5% swing. The Tory vote is drifting around unchanged. I’ve argued before that there is a big group of people who vote either Lab or LD but not Tory, and who swing back and forth according to current headlines. It’s encouraging but not a decisive shift.”
WIth the Lib Dem vote down to 18/19 from the GE 23%, that spells more problems for LDs. Yet the headline was all about the Tories lost lead……. the reality looks more like a two party squeeze of the 3rd party.
Good reply Roger Mortimore. I think you’ll find the respect your polls will be given-on here and Con.Home-will be in direct proportion to the Tory lead. Of course if you could manufacture one which suggested Cameron would humiliate Brown in leadership quality then that too would be certified as accurate.
Does anyone have theories on why Warner pulled out. Even if he really thought Hillary was unbeatable a strong run would have given him a strong bargaining position. Also BTW what time tonight is ICM out.
41 Sean T, you repel me. As a mainstream Conservative I disassociate myself utterly from you and your nastiness. You ought to be embarassed, with your effete sniping in earlier threads, so coy and so obvious “Oh my! I won’t believe Nick was a nasty Communist until I hear it first hand! Goodness no!’ and then your heavy handed effort at “shocked disbelief” when, yes, Nick says he has different views now from thirty years ago. Don’t we all? Didn’t Tony Blair’s recently revealed letters to Michael Foot express the same admiration for Marx and Engels? Yet who would suggest now that Blair is an extremist or a Communist.
I like Nick. At the same time, i both hope and expect that the excellent Anna Soubry will replace him as MP for Broxtowe. That is because I am a Conservative. But I have learned not to personally attack and smear my opponents - a Lib Dem speciality and something we Conservatives are supposed to be above. Nick’s views in the 60s are beyond irrelevant. Today he is a Blairite. They are failures on multiple levels, but extremism is not one of them.
Nick, fwiw, not all Conservatives are cut from Sean T’s cloth.
45. Don’t take Mori too seriously if I were you, in regard to any particular party.
19. Listen could Clinton be a VP candidate and I mean Bill not Hillary. Think about it if Gore got the nomination, I want someone who can step into my shoes, and who better, whil Bill I am always ready to serve. Do I read the US right, Bill could serve because it would not count as a “third term” as it would still be the other guys term which was being filled. Am I right.
19. McCain/Powell what a strong ticket, but could the GOP base stomach them. Only a real pumelling this November might make them acceptable to all.
re 38. I agree with that Nick. What we are seeing is the Tories fairly static, albeit at a higher level than they were a year ago, but with movement between the Lib Dems and Labour. Some of this can come from the polling methodology. So ICM tends to get higher Lib Dem numbers because it gives prompts for the main party names.
Populus and Mori don’t while YouGov is done online.
The October ICM poll should be interesting and I would guess that the Lib Dems and Tories would be doing a touch better than other recent surveys.
48.”But I have learned not to personally attack and smear my opponents - a Lib Dem speciality and something we Conservatives are supposed to be above.”
I’ve the suspect it’s tendency present (with various degrees) in all parties…it’s just that the Libdems are usually able to do it better.
48. I totally agree with this post.
Although I certainly don’t agree with Nick Palmer politically, I enjoy reading his postings (which are always good natured and informative) and I appreciate his integrity and honesty.
I really do admire Nick for the way in which he turns up here on a daily basis, knowing knowing full well that he’s likely going to be abused and insulted. I hope that he doesn’t find his visits here too unpleasant.
48. You are wrong. I was genuinely surprised to hear that Nick held the views he did. He and I have disagreed violently on many issues, but its not great in my mind hearing that anyone was a communist. It’s sad and depressing - to me. Not to others, fair enough.
However I myself held some dodgy views when I was young - I happily confess it. We all grow up. I hope.
Shalom.
Full figures from the latest MORI poll are now online.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/mpm061016.shtml
For those interested in polling volatility -
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmm/volatility-and-public-opinion.shtml
Apologies if I missed postings refering to these before.
Re 36 tyson so you will admit that were either of us to talk about the imminent demise of the other party because veryone hated that party we would be talking b*ll*cks? If you good, stop saying though if you want me to believe thats what you mean.
As by communism you mean “From each according to their ability to each according to their needs” I would agree its noble, however it doesn’t work on anything like a large scale.
55. Needs are infinite.
53. I think the problem here is that the accusation of a communist past is, for many people, not as serious as an accusation of a fascist past.
For me it just as serious, but I accept for others that is not the case.
Is it because communism has an allegedly noble ideal at its core? But so does Islamism - a brotherhood under God. Many fascists would say they are idealists.
Is it because communism is less serious than fascism in its evils? Clearly this is not so. Communism has killed 100s of millions. Perhaps more than extreme right wing beliefs.
Yet we do as a society smile upon teenage communism much more than the opposite. Joska Fischer was a violent leftwing radical in his youth, at a time when lefty terrorists like Baader Meinhof were threatening the state. Yet we all look indulgently on his indiscretions. If he’d been a simple Nazi skinhead he’d be way beyond the pale.
It’s very curious.
On the specific NickP thing I was, as I say, VERY surprised to hear of his past. It shocks me more than most people. However I have to confess I do bait Nick Palmer - and others - from time to time on this site, chiefly about Iraq (which gets me very angry). But I can see how my shock at this revelation might seem just part of that belligerent tone in my comments, and maybe there was an element crossover.
So I hereby apologise to Nick, and I shall endeavour to make my remarks - about Iraq etc - less directed in future.
Marxism, though it laughably used to present itself as ’scientific’, is in fact a religion. I think it is quite acceptable for people to dabble in odd philosophies and religions when young, before recognising their silliness. I don’t think it is acceptable to adhere to a political ideology that tried to justify mass murder and have no regrets about it. Dabbling in Marxist theory I would put in the former class, active membership of the Communist Party in the second.
Re 56, Julian they can be which is one of the downfalls of the system.
Shock at this “revelation”, nonsense. I read the last thread. If I could be bothered to go through it and to copy all the snide, fishing, nasty little posts you made enquiring if Nick had ever been a Communist (when nobody but you was talking about it) how many would I find? How many would I be able to copy and paste? It was clear to all that you knew he had been and you were hoping for a ‘gotcha’ moment. Except that it’s so utterly transparent that yet again it has backfired on you.
If you want to apologise, be a man and do it properly, ie without further accusations in the post which purports to apologise.
When I was twenty-one - even twenty-five - I thought very differently. i expect to be judged by who I am now, not who I was then. I do the same with my political opponents.
Let’s go on with this outings..Nick Palmer is not the only former communist here….I can reveal that Max once joined the “Herts Communist Fans Club”, AH Matlock donated money to the “Commie for the House of Lords” campaign (champagne communists), Jack W took part to a event of “Communist fans of Bonnie Dundee Association” (but he soon left them when he realized that the Bonnue Dundee in question was just a Drag Queen from Brighton) and Blue2Win helped to organize the “Communists 4 Dave- Save NHS” campaign
60. No, you’re wrong. Enough. Think what you will, I don’t give a flying f***.
I was totally surprised about Nick P’s past, I can’t open up my mind and prove that, you’ll just have to take it. Or not.
I have apologised to Nick because I think I have overdone the baiting recently, and this became part of that - I confess this readily. I shall in future desist from some of my more pointed remarks, because I know I can get too aggressive. And that is wrong.
But I do revile communism and I do despise the Iraq war and I shall continue to comment as I see fit.
60 - It was also the poster ‘peter2′.
Personally, having been on the left at a similar age the idea that it is a homogenous entity where support for one part equals support for all is laughable. Leninists hate Stalinists hate Maoists hate whoever etc, etc. Then within that you have groups who hate each other in ever decreasing circles.
Being a communist often meant despising the Soviet Union for the way it had sullied Marx, probably as much as any right winger, perhaps even more so.
61 Andrea.
33 Wasn’t it Roy Hattersley’s who said that “no ethnic group should be in a majority over overs”?
Speaks for itself
———————————–
1. 75. Nick Palmer was a communist????
by seanT October 22nd, 2006 at 2:34 pm
1. I still won’t believe Nick Palmer was a communist - until he admits it on here. It’s a pretty serious accusation.
I hope it isn’t true.
1. 85. But is this true? Nick Palmer was a communist???
It might explain why he is so keen on ID cards, and invading sovereign countries, but still
I shall refuse to believe this calumny until we see proof, as it’s a pretty serious charge. Fair’s fair.
by seanT October 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
1. 91. Nick, welcome! Some people on here are saying you were a communist?
I have seen no proof, and its a pretty nasty slur if it isn’t true. Though we disagree on so many things I won’t watch someone being unpleasantly libelled, especially if they aren’t around to defend themselves.
But…. were you?
by seanT October 22nd, 2006 at 3:48 pm
1. What is astonishing about the NickP case is that, if it is true, he became a communist after 1956, after the Maoist slaying
2. s, after the Cultural Revolution, after the Stalinist show trials, after the Prague brutality, after the purges and the Terror, after the deaths and oppression of millions.
That’s like becoming a Nazi after Auschwitz.
It is such a serious accusation I need to hear NickP admit it himself, rather than rely on hearsay. Hope it ain’t so.
by seanT October 23rd, 2006 at 2:40 pm
1. 38. So you WERE a communist???
Blimey. I don’t know what to say, Nick. Perhaps we should just draw a polite veil over this revelation, but bear it in mind whenever you start lecturing other people about “extremist” views.
by seanT October 23rd, 2006 at 6:18 pm
—————————————
Re: 54 - Interesting to view the MORI figures. LDs on 18% which is a shade disappointing but we shall await ICM. I was more interested in the second figure showing all naming a party with Labour in a healthy lead of 9% as against a 2% lead among the 56% apparently “certain to vote”.
I’m no fan of MORI overall but I am curious. Let’s look at the first set of figures based on 1,113 respondents or 56% of the total who say they are “absolutely certain to vote”. Even within that sample, 1% apparently they would not vote which is curious to begin with. A further 8% are undecided while 2% refused to name a party. How the 8% split COULD change the headline figures completely.
Now, the second poll of all 2,014 respondents is also interesting. 12% of these would not vote while a further 12% are undecided. With 2% undecided, that makes 26% (as I see it) NOT naming a party. The remaining 74% give Labour a clear advantage.
I don’t know if figures of 8% or 12% are historically high or not for those “Undecided” but they are significant numbers. The other conclusion I draw from this is the one I think has been relevant since 1997. The Conservatives need a low turnout to have any chance - in a high turnout election, Labour will win.
In a betting environment, it seems to me that judging turnout is the key to the next election. MORI say 56% are certain to vote - I think that suggests a real turnout figure in the high 60s but I could be wrong.
61 - Andrea I’m very impressed by your Edinburgh spelling of ‘Hearts’!
In fact my real secret shame from my past is I once stood for the Labour Party in a mock election in a Modern Studies class at school.
I won by promising the Lib Dems we’d vote for them if they voted for us. They did and we didn’t!
65 Of course that should be :
33 Wasn’t it Roy Hattersley’s who said that “no ethnic group should be in a majority over others”?
nothing to do with cricket
60. You are also getting it wrong on a point of philosophical fact.
What people were in their past must surely inform how we see them in the present. If David Cameron revealed he was a member of the National Front in the 1970s, would that not alter your perception of him a jot? Of course it would. And rightly so. And you can be damn sure the left would make enormous amounts of hay on the issue.
That doesn’t mean we should condemn people for their youthful beliefs. People do change - I have, you have, I’m sure Nick has. People mature and evolve, and they can sincerely regret their mistakes. But to say it doesn’t matter is plainly ludicrous.
And the hypocrisy remains that leftwing extremism is more tolerated than rightwing extremism.
66. Note that I never brought the subject up, each time. Nor did I ever make the accusation myself. Note my genuine surprise. Which you don’t believe. WTF.
Welcome to McCarthyism PB.Com style! Good bit of work Commentator. I wonder whether Sean realizes how he sounds when he writes that garbage?
On a related point, isn’t it interesting how many ex-communists have taken to Blairism, and also to Europhilia? Gramsci believed Marxists would best succeed by infiltrating the structures of power - it seems his disciples have followed this advice, conciously or unconciously.
68. Max
I made lots of typo in that post..not just Hearts, but alos Bonnie becoming Bonnue
Lefleat for Seant:
http://www.vladimirluxuria.it/06/manif.pdf
67 If you look at the historical figures on the Mori website you will see that the figures you give are quite typical of Mori Polls . Labour always do 7-10% better on the all naming a party question than the absolutely certain to vote question .
70. Er, is this “garbage”? -
“What is astonishing about the NickP case is that, if it is true, he became a communist after 1956, after the Maoist slayings, after the Cultural Revolution, after the Stalinist show trials, after the Prague brutality, after the purges and the Terror, after the deaths and oppression of millions.”
So we differ. To me, joining the communist party after all those things happened is pretty F-ing shocking. I don’t deny it.
That doesn’t mean I think we should condemn everyone who had these radical views when young. But nor should we cheerily ignore it.
If I confessed to a youthful membership of the BNP I am sure you would extend me the same charity. Not.
67. The same was predicte for the opposition in UK 1992, and America 2004. Take nothing for granted.
Re the whole Nick P being a former commie thing. Out of interest (and I’m not talking about right-wing societies like the Monday Club) are there are Tory MPs who were previously members of genuine fascist parties - any former NF members for example?
77. Eric Forth stood for the communist in a school’s mock election..does it count?
78. LOL. Excellently Googled.
78: Good effort Andrea… er, but no.
79. I already knew it without googling…which is even scarier than having google it!
80. Hermes Trismegistus, I tried…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6078788.stm
“Former Conservative leader Michael Howard has said he has been questioned by Scotland Yard as part of the cash-for-honours investigation.
He said he agreed to the police request for an interview and they stressed that he was “not under suspicion of having committed any offence”. “
82: Wonder if he said, ‘Nothing to do with me Guv, but there’s this geezer Tony Blair that it might be well worth your while…’
Hmm. Did the Daily Mirror really repoty Gb was planning to scrap FPTP in September, This is ******* right.
ICM poll results in tomorrows Guardian being reported on Sky News - but only in terms of 60+% wanting Britain to quit Iraq by end of year. Will we have to wait until Wednesday for state of parties?
No one accused anyone of anything. NP outed himself, I think the thread referred to John Reid’s communist past. The main issue is if David Cameron had been a NF street brawler in the 1970s would you still think this is an acceptable past? NF supporrters would declare that their goals are noble however much you disagree.
I suspect that some extremes are more acceptable than others. NP claimed he changed his views on economic grounds. Take this for example, “I” used to believe in gassing Jews/blacks.Muslms/xxx 30 years ago. Over time I came to realise that this was not the most economically viable option, and changed my mind.
Acceptable?
A previous postr referred to TB lauding Marxism in a letter to Foot. He was going up the greasy pole of politics and subscribing to Marxism seemed to be the way forward in the Labour party at the time. What greasy pole was NP going up in the communist party? Did he cheer as tanks rolled into Prague/Phnom Penh?
Back to Obama - just check out the video of his speech to the 2004 Democratic convention. It’s worth spending 15 minutes looking at.
Amazing - just before the war a majority say ‘go in’ and now they say ‘get out’.
As for me I said ‘don’t go on it’ll be chaos’ whilst I now say ‘we have to stay otherwise we will leave chaos and never be forgiven’.
Was it so difficult to foresee and is cowardice in the face of chaos you made yourself now the honourable thing?!?
Obama is not going to be president for the simple reason he’s black. Many “progressive” commentators may want him to be president. Just ain’t gonna happen!!
Shock news! Cameron throws the towel in and endorses Ming:
“We have to change our approach and our attitude and our behaviour towards older people in order to reap the benefits of an older and more mature society,” he said.
Squadron Leader Willis take note; no more “Grandpa” comments please!
90 Tabman. So it’s a Hug a Granny campaign ?!?!
91 - sponsored by Werthers
Tabman feels 103 …
I see that transcripts of the police interview of Howard are now being reported, with the questioning being conducted by one Sargeant ‘basher’ Paxman of the yard.
Paxman asks 12 times “Did you say that you would get him a Knighthood?” Howard does not give a direct answer, instead he repeatedly says that he “did not promise him”.
I’ve mentioned on the forum here before that I used to be a Communist, and I take seanT’s protestations that he had no idea of such a dreadful thing with a pinch of salt - it’s not as though he was an infrequent visitor. But salt is always jolly useful with sean - his promise above to desist from more pointed remarks lasted for the whole period from post 62 to post 75, where he recycles his own thoughts on “The NickP case”. Not to mention the one a while back where he said he was going to stop posting altogether and spend time looking after his child. Poor little mite - one day Daddy will turn round from the PC and say hello!
A black Republican could be President if sufficiently right-wing; a black Democrat, never. At least not the way I read the American electorate.
Nobody except maybe some fantastists on Kos think Obama could be President.
94 Nick P. Ouch !! …. saucer of milk please for the site’s favourite former commie.
Spooks was good tonight. Any one else see it?
Commentator (95): “A black Republican could be President if sufficiently right-wing; a black Democrat, never. At least not the way I read the American electorate.”
Why do you say that Obama is black? Possibly he is of mixed race, but from the photo, he looks 75% white and only 25% of African descent.
It reminds me of an incident at an airport (abroad), where an American had lost his luggage, and I gave him a hand to make a phone call. He almost broke down in tears. Why? “Nobody ever talks to me because I am black…” He seemed to me like a normal American - a bit lost abroad - and just a bit darker than most, but there is no way that most normal people would have classed him as “black”.
What percentage of US citizens are pure white? I wouldn´t mind betting that it is really pretty low, when all is said and done. (Andrea???)
97 Benedict. Saw it last week on Beeb3. Wonderful escapist rubbush …. next episode on in a couple of minutes on Beeb3 again.
95 - Nick P - In 87(?) I voted for John Peck - communist in Bulwell - John was one the nicest people you could ever wish to meet - didn’t he hold the balance of power between 27 Labour & 27 Tory on Nottingham City Council? - He turned Green on the demise on the Soviet block but retained his seat in 91 & 95 - a good lad.
88. I’m not sure there was ever majority support for invasion before it happened. Infact I seem to remember quite a majority against. A few months before the invasion I was speaking to one of my Lebanese friends who said that if the Americans invade and overthrow Saddam there will be a civil war that’ll make Lebanon’s 20 year war look like a stroll!
It was the accuracy of this prediction that makes me think that all the foreign armies should get out now. Though the invasion caused it I have little doubt it will not be resolved while they remain
88. I argued against the war because:
1. It would be a humanitarian disaster = 2006 650,000 extra dead, mass emigration, water, food and electricity supplies uncertain, children maimed etc etc
2. The war was fought for spurious reasons = no weapons mass destruction, 2 largest oilfields in western hands, no evidence of al quaeda etc etc.
3. It would cost British service lives = 119 dead and counting (+2800 Americans and an average 2000 Iraqi forces per month)
4. That it would cost money = 2005 at least £3.1bn extra, I am sure someone has more up to date data
5. It would cause anger / civil unrest / internal disaster in Britain = London bombing, mosques firebombed, racial attacks, BNP council victories, radical mosques recruiting, bbc endlessly blathering on about veils etc etc.
6. That the Govt would clamp down onfiltered= 28 day detention (still pushing for 90) ID cards, baby milk banned on planes, innocent people raided by terror police etc etc.
The war was an unmitigated disaster, brought about by a government for spurious reasons, and supported by an official opposition because of cheap politics.
My gut feeling, Ukpaul, although I understand your concern, is that the above will just go on and on until our country makes the decision to pull out of Iraq. Iraq is another in the long line of historical asymmetric wars where the ’superior’power has arrogantly thought that through use of firepower and conventional forces that resistance could be blown away. But the invading forces have failed because they could not win hearts and minds. They have already lost that opportunity. They are already distrusted, their presence hated. The longer they stay, the more likely that is to be the case.
This poorly thought out, pointless and meaningless war was lost the moment it was suggested.
Re 90. DC was on the Today programme this morning on the issue of
ageism and commented on the positive attitude of a couple of large
companies who welcome older workers. He sounded committed to the
cause. Great. He was asked to make a commitment to end automatic
retirement at 60 for civil servants and he said he couldn’t make that commitment.
Why not? For god sake commit to something. Commit to things I agree with. Commit to things I disagree with, but damn it commit to something.
I’m getting fed up with politics at present where there seems to be no underlying belief in anything. DC typifies it but Labour is little better now. A good example being their position on faith schools. Are you in favour or are you not? What do you believe in? What happened to a Tory and Labour party that believed in things and wanted change.
I refer below to post 187 on October 17th made by ‘I hate DC’. This post completely depressed me, but I have to say I it hit the nail right on the head.
“My campaign is driven by hate (the clue is in the name). Not personal hatred, but a hatred of the gradual scaling back of political ambition until democracy becomes a shell, hollowed out by vain and pointless men with no purpose but to further their own lot.
We are living, as always, in a time when decisions are being made that affect our lives and the futures of our children and grandchildren. Will my eight year old son (IhDC Jr shall we say) be sent on some religious war he did not choose in another eight years. Will the climate have changed so radically that I should sell my house as it will be flooded? Can I expect decent public service provision as I get older? People need to hear answers from their politicians on these questions.
The Cammy method of appealing through signals, a nod to the left, a wink to the right leaves us none the wiser, and sucks the intelligence out of politics. How can I vote for anyone when I don’t know what choices he will make? What would you do if a stranger came to your door and asked to come in, and you asked him what he was selling, and his only answer was he was ‘letting the sunshine in?’
The reduction of politics to this level, where we are considered too stupid to be told what our politicians really want to do is an insult to us the electorate. Most of us know what we believe, and what we think would generally be best. Politicians should lay their wears out and let us decide if it is what we want. Would you buy a tv if the salesman didn’t let you look in the box?
Because Cameron is trying this trick on the electorate. Because he thinks we do not have the wit to understand what he is doing, then I hate what he stands for. Because he stands for the debasement of democracy itself. “
88. It is called being wise after the event, or alternatively the fickleness of the easily-swayed mob. Thank goodness we don’t have that dreadful democratic system they have in America.
97, 99, Who needs this escapist nonsense when you can get the real thing on BBC2 with the Suez invasion. And ‘Egads, JackW is the spitting image (;) ) of Selwyn Lloyd and what a sprightly 53 year old he was then too.
I just wanted to thank all the friendly posts above, Commentator and Steven Whaley in particular - each party has supporters whom we could do without, but it’s not always easy to say so. I completely accept that sean isn’t a typical Tory.
test
I have always thought that Mike’s assertion that people are more likely to vote Conservative as they get older to be suspect.
However Nick Palmer’s admission that in 2008 he plans to vote for the merger of the Cameron Party (formerly the Conservative and Unionist Party) and New Labour clearly shows that I was wrong - I am sorry!
105 John O. Spitting image …
… of Anthony Eden so I’m told … or is that Sgt Wilson from “Dad’s Army” ??
106. I’m going to rise above that last remark, Nick. And post what I was about to post.
I really DIDN’T know you were a communist. I really WAS surprised to find this out. I really DO despise communism and object to the way it is tolerated where rightwing extremism isn’t.
However something in me really DID relish this expose of your past as useful ammo in a debate, and that really IS a bit cheap, which is why I apologised.
I also think I really HAVE overdone the baiting of you re Iraq, even though I loathe the war, and think you, as a passionate Commons supporter, should pay the price.
And you are right, I really SHOULD spend more time with my daughter!
Pax. For now.
106. Nick Palmer. we all love you (platonically) here*…probably unconsciously even Seant!
* yes, Jack, it’s part of the “creep” strategy!
Escapist rubbish Jack? Well its fiction but I thought it wasa rather good.
Even said so (breifly) on my blog.
As for the Nick P was a Commie. I would not hold it against him, but if were a former member of the NF or similar you can bet all on the left would do. That said I would rather it was not talked about endlessly.
100: Yes, John Peck seems to have been almost universally liked - a GP, I think. I believe he was the only Communist mayor in Britain, though as you say he switched to the Greens soon after.
101: The war did have majority support shortly before it happened - around 60-40 IIRC. There was a surge of support at about the time Parliament was deciding, but to be honest I think it’s hard to separate genuine persuasion from simply rallying round when it had become clear we were going in. I did my own survey in Broxtowe before finally deciding and got 600 replies, which were 3-1 in favour.
104 Viscount Sidmouth. Another peer of the realm on PB ?? …. and descendant of a Prime minister to boot !
87, 89
Mike and Peter2.
I have viewed the whole 15 min video of Obama and was impressed with Obama’s oratory. I have also always been impressed with Jesse Jackson’s oratory.
However, as Peter2 states, isn’t the fact that Obama is black a substantial impediment to either him, or else Condi Rice, becoming president of the United States?
Of course it shouldn’t be the case but historically this has been the assumed wisdom. What do others think?
112 Benedict. I did say “wonderful escapist rubbish”. I’m sure you wouldn’t mis-qoute me ?!?!
…. you’ll be producing bar charts next !
Re the comment in 110: “I really DO despise communism and object to the way it is tolerated where rightwing extremism isn’t.”
Surely the difference is that as an ideal communism isn’t evil, infact in an ideal world it is probably a good thing. Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world and human nature as it is at worst turns it into a dictatorship and often resultsd in genocide and at its best results in inefficient economies because humans are discouraged at doing what they do best which is competing.
So it is possible to think of communism as an ideal even if it never turns out like that. How is Facism ever justified even as an ideal?
Re 116, JackW I will be doing the bar charts when I get the software sorted out
Actualy I have been meaning to look at the ONS and doing some charts on what I find out.
117. I was thinking about this just now. Superficially that is a reasonable argument, but on analysis it falls apart.
Communism is essentially an economic theory which means the abolition of private property, state control of everything, domination by bureaucrats and apparatchiks (the dictatorship of the proletariat), ceaseless persecution of the bourgeois and the rich, and - because of the Marxist dialectic - an end to democracy as society will have reached a terminally perfect state, so there’s no need for elections.
That to me sounds like a vision of hell. But you don’t have to take my word for it, we’ve seen communism in action over 80 years, and it really is hell. Maoist China during the Cultural Revolution, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or Stalin’s Russia (etc etc) aren’t far away from Dante’s tenth circle.
To continue to espouse communism even though you know all this, even though you’ve seen the bodies and read about the Gulags, seems to me to be criminally stupid at best.
Hallo, hallo, hallo! Michael Howard helping the police with their enquiries? That makes 49 people interviewed! No wonder there’s no policemen available when your house is robbed. It’s unfair that politicians get blamed when the crime figures go up and yet they can do nothing about it when they see a ridiculous enquiry like this using an absurd amount of manpower for no purpose whatsoever.
119. Seant, you miss the point that embracing it from a theoretical point of views doesn’t mean embracing its practical (failed) attempts. It was the practical attempt of communism that failed and that produced those kinds of things like gulags and co.
The fact that Nick Palmer was edging toward Eurocommunism doesn’t mean he was supporting gulags.
Here we have 2 communists Cabinet Ministers but I don’t think we’re all in danger to end up in a gulug.
114. Your knowledge of the aristocracy is impressive! Is it an aspiration or a hobby?
119 - But I don’t disagree one iota with your analysis or the outcomes you describle - I beleive in capitalism.
However hindsight is a great thing, time has moved on and the ideals were great. I’m being devils advocate here as I have never held socialist views, let alone communist views, but I can respect them, even if a strongly disagree with them.
Now under what circumstances can anyone respect fascism?
I think we can all equally hate Nazis and Pol Pot. That is different to comapring Communism with Fascism.
121. But ‘theoretically’ it called for revolution and class conflict, and implied the use of force to dispossess people of their property. So even on this basis it wasn’t exactly a happy hippy sort of idea, it was an ideology of confrontation. Given that background it is hardly suprising its practical (sic) application turned out as it did.
121. Andrea, dude, I don’t miss the point. What I mean is, a political policy is nothing until it is put into practise. By the late 1960s we’d seen communism in practise across the world - from China to Russia to East Germany to Romania - and it was an ugly ugly sight. Right now on my TV they are broadcasting footage of Budapest in 1956. Vile and sad.
There was more than enough evidence for the most idiotic of people that the communist theory was a flawed theory, a dead theory, a theory that - while it might have sounded good on paper - led to dreadful, appalling suffering in practise.
How could anyone support anything like communism after Prague and Budapest and the Berlin Wall?
Moreover, even in theory communism is pretty nauseating, once you get over the adolescent appeal of ‘from each according to his means’. State ownership of everything? Dictatorship of the proletariat? Abolition of private property? State sponsored atheism?
Yuk.
Seanette T: waaaaah!
RE 120, Roger inbestigating corruption at the highest level is a waste of police time? Please tell me you are joking. What are they supposed to do. Ignore it?
(ps I have had more visitors to my blog today than any other day
)
Re 123, KJH if you can sum up communism as “from each according to their ability to each according to their need” how would you sum up facisms ideals (Other than reading the Daily Mail whoch is obvious)?
seanT: A Communist is someone who rejects the ownership of land, and who believes in collectivisation of work and society. The early Communists were among the first to call for the dismantling of the state - before they seperated from the Anarchists, and long before Karl Marx came along.
There are many people who still hold to those ideals, but who reject utterly not only Stalin and Mao, but also Marx and Engle. They are often pacifists, even hippies. It is possible to believe in “Communism” of this theoretical kind and still be a libertarian. These days these people tend to call themselves either “Communalists”, “Communitarians” “Social Anarchists” or “Libertarian Socialists”; e.g. Noam Chomsky.
I think it is to these people that people look romantically when they imagine the Communism of student youth. So, is there an equivalent for facism? Is there an equivalent non-violent ideology that ultimately has connections with facism? One that is OK to be a member of, but could in theory lead to facism? It’s not as easy as it is for Communism is it? Perhaps it is the religious ideologies: peaceful but fundamentalist Islamism, Catholocism, even Methodism. And it is OK to be a member of those isnt it?
RE 127 I did of course mean investigating
do we get an icm poll tonight, or do we have to wait?
On topic for a second http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=946 starts to get interesting about 1/2 way down. Commonsense would say the GOP choose McCain and The Dems choose Hilary (de facto Bill) and they battle it out for the ‘upbeats’and ‘disaffecteds’ for the White House.
On the news friends of of Michael Howard said he has nothing to hide. I’m not suggesting he has, but what a stupid thing to say.
If I were a mass murderer I’m certainly not going to tell my friends because, friends or not, they are going to shop me! So when I’m questioned they are going to be as surprised as anyone.
People who have committed crimes (if they have any sense) don’t tell other people. That is the way you get caught. So his friends have absolutely no idea if he has anything to hide (unless of course he has told them that he has something to hide - in which case they are lying!!!!).
Conclusion - There are only two options - they don’t know or they are lying. I suspect they don’t know.
129. Well, now you’re positing such a broad definition of communism as to include almost any airy-fairy kind of leftish hippyesque anrchichal share-your-toys-with-everyone-ology.
In those terms, yes communism does sound moderately groovy. But a communism that rejects Stain, Mao, Marx and Engels (the authors of the communist manifesto!) is not really a communism I recognise, nor is it, I submit, the communism we are talking about here.
The problem with applying my analysis to fascism is that he definition of fascism is terminally vague. Is it just ultra-conservative authoritarianism? - in that case you could class NuLabour as facist!
Or does it have to embody ideas of race and nation?
Fascism is not a coherent theory, with a body of literature, unlike communism. So my analysis does not apply.
Your analogy with Islamism is interesting though. There are people that Red Ken talks to - like Qaradawi - who in their authoritarianism and conservatism, their homophobia, patriarchalism and stridency, would easily fit under my first definition of fascism. Yet they are deemed acceptable.
Perhaps it is OK-ish to be fascist if you are not western.
Everyone knows that money given to a political party or indeed in great enough quantities to any charity will get you a title. It doesn’t take hundreds of police hours to get to know this.
Anthony Bamford a particularly thick Millfield schoolboy inherited sqillions from his father and gave some of it to a cause which got him a knighthood. He was recently in India with Osborne and Cameron on a fact finding mission which he probably financed.
While we live in a society where a thick character like that can inherit the means to buy that sort of influence then talk of corruption is laughable.
129. Nice try old chap but being old enough to remember the 1970s it was pictures of Marx, Lenin, and Guevara that were on the walls of the ‘idealists’, not posters of linguistic theorists.