Crystal ball gazing - who got 2006 most right?
December 19th, 2006-
How good were you at predicting the past 12 months?
Less than a fortnight to go and barring anything dramatic like a Tony Blair resignation the only issue still to be resolved in our “Predicting 2006” competition is the December ICM poll which should come out in the next day or so.
Looking back on the entries that were posted here almost a year ago it is amazing how positive people were about the prospects for Charles Kennedy who actually resigned only six days into the New Year. Quite a large number thought he would survive. As to who would replace him getting on for a fifth of the entries named Mark Oaten. Remember him now?
So how did you do? These are the questions and the probable outcomes. The winner will receive a copy of my new book on betting and politics that’s due to be published by Harriman House in the late spring.
The 2006 Questions and likely answers.
1. For how many weeks of 2006 will Tony Blair continue to be Labour leader? One hundred points for a correct answer losing ten points for each complete week out. LIKELY CORRECT ANSWER 52
2. For how many weeks of 2006 will Charles Kennedy continue to be Lib Dem leader? Fifty points for a correct answer losing five points for each complete week out. CORRECT ANSWER 0. (Kennedy resigned on January 6th without completing one week)
3. Who will be Labour leader on Christmas Day 2006? One hundred points for a correct answer. LIKELY CORRECT ANSWER Tony Blair
4. Who will be Lib Dem leader on Christmas Day 2006? Fifty points for a correct answer. LIKELY CORRECT ANSWER Sir Menzies Campbell
5. According to the BBC website on the Sunday after the May local elections what will be Labour’s net losses or gains of council seats? Indicate plus or minus. One hundred points for a correct answer losing one point for each three seats out. CORRECT ANSWER -319 seats
6. According to the BBC website on the Sunday after the May local elections what will be the Liberal Democrats’ net losses or gains of council seats? Indicate plus or minus. One hundred points for a correct answer losing one point for each three seats out. CORRECT ANSWER 2 seats
7. What will be Cameron’s Conservatives’ best position in relation to Labour in a Guardian ICM poll during 2006? Fifty for a correct answer losing 10 for each percentage point out. LIKELY CORRECT ANSWER 10%
8. What will be the Lib Dems’ best share in a Guardian ICM poll during 2006? Thirty for a correct answer losing 10 for each percentage point out. LIKELY CORRECT ANSWER 24%
9. By how many points will the Conservatives be below or above Labour in the February 2006 Guardian ICM poll? Indicate plus or minus. Fifty for a correct answer losing 10 for each percentage point out. CORRECT ANSWER 3%
10. By how many points will the Conservatives be below or above Labour in the June 2006 Guardian ICM poll? Indicate plus or minus. Fifty for a correct answer losing 10 for each percentage point out. CORRECT ANSWER 5%
11. By how many points will the Conservatives be below or above Labour in the September 2006 Guardian ICM poll? Indicate plus or minus. Fifty for a correct answer losing 10 for each percentage point out. CORRECT ANSWER 4%
12. By how many points will the Conservatives be below or above Labour in the December 2006 Guardian ICM poll? Indicate plus or minus. Fifty for a correct answer losing 10 for each percentage point out. LIKELY CORRECT ANSWER - we should know this week.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’ve just been going through yesterday’s thread and I just wanted to add my best wishes to Jack W. We are all rooting for you Jack. Get well soon.
315 points from the first 11 questions - as Ptp would say “I’ll get my coat”.
Do we know where Jack is in Hospital? Can we send cards, grapes, scotch?
As Tommy Doherty replied when asked who was likely to be United biggest challenger that season “To answer that I’d have to have crystal balls”
Ah…thinking there was no new article today, I’ve just posted a long de facto article about the pros and cons of party funding at the end of the last thread, in case anyone wants to look at it.
4 I thought this was well argued by Nick Palmer and I agree with most of it - always an unnerving experience but part of the joy of PB.com. However there would still exist the problem of soft money - the Wessex Industrial Council or the Trade Union Fund for a Fairer Britain ( hopefully both fictional organisations) could simply act as proxies for the main parties. I can’t think of a solution to this one so perhaps the only position is that anyone can give any amount but it must be done transparently and loans should be at a commercial rate of interest ( perhaps one agreed by the Electoral Commission as being genuinely commerical).
On Thread - the only prediction I can remember getting almost right was the number of Labour losses at the local elections.
Thanks for the article Mike. Who won?
Will the next competition include the question: Who will replace David Cameron as Tory leader in 2007?
I have decided, that I have won the above competition: my prize from now on I want to be known as, ‘Lord Coldstone of Coldstone’ nice ring don’t u think?
9 And on the subject of competitions, Mike, did we ever see a result of the US Mid-terms comp? I thought I was in the running and was rather hoping I might get a copy of your book for Christmas. Or two if I came second.
My scores:
1) 52 weeks vs 52 weeks = 100
24% vs 24% = 30
2) 39 weeks vs 0 weeks = -95 or 5 (dependent on wording)
3) Tony Blair vs Tony Blair = 100
4) Ed Davey vs Menzies Campbell = 0
5) lose 400 vs lose 319 = 73 or -27 (dependent on wording)
6) gain 50 vs gain 2 = 84 or 16 (dependent on wording)
7) Con lead of 3% vs Con lead of 10% = -20 or 30 (dependent on wording)
9) Con lead of 1% vs Con lead of 3% = 30 or -20 (dependent on wording)
10) Con lead of 4% vs Con lead of 5% = 40 or -10 (dependent on wording)
11) Level vs Con lead of 4% = 10 or -40 (dependent on wording)
12) Con lead of 1% vs Unknown = Unknown
Which means I have either scored 342 or 184 points. Could you clarify what you mean by “losing points for being out”. Do you mean that points get taken away from your total or that you lose points from those allocated?
Think I did Ok (nearly spot on with the Labour losses and only the odd % point out on the tory leads through the year) and get well soon Jack W.
Unfortunately I was one of those who went for Oaten as the next Lib Dem leader! Praise the Lord I was wrong!
6. As the competition isn’t finished we don’t know….but a quick glance at Roger’s answers suggests a strong candidate exists for the wooden spoon.
Jack W- “soon you’ll be out amid the cold world’s strife/soon you’ll be sliding down the razor blade of life” ooh…
A mobile lap top may be the source of much remedy… and indeed comedy.
And to Max from yesterday: I particularly enjoyed the weekend sport too. Can’t remember when we were last second and have been whistling a happy tune for three days- thank you, thank you, thank you Lithuania.
(although to be fair the game looked awfully drab…)
[4][5] Good piece from Nick Palmer at the end of the last thread and fair comment from Kingbongo too - I would have made the proxies point if he hadn’t.
There are two issues involved:
(1) the purchase of influence, which presumably we are all, wherever we place ourselves on the political spectrum, against;
(2) the centralisation of political campagining, where there are different views - to paraphrase Nick Palmer, a parliament full of Barry Monk localists wouldn’t provide effective government, yet no one sees the election of a small number of independents as a problem (if only because it shows that national campaigning isn’t the whole story).
I just noticed that to the “For how many weeks of 2006 will Charles Kennedy continue to be Lib Dem leader?” question, I replied “Blair”.
And to the “Who will be Labour leader on Christmas Day 2006?” question, I replied “22 weeks”
4: Yes, that’s a good posting Nick - I hope that more Labour MPs agree with you, though I suspect many dont.
A possible way to deal with soft money is to say that any advertisment that calls for voting for a party counts towards that party’s election expenses. To prevent the mischievous opposition from putting out deliverately crap/misleading ads that call for voting for the party (in order to bump up the enemy’s expenses bill over the limit) election law can be changed so that you must get the permission of a party before you can avertise a call to vote for it.
This still leaves the issue of purely negative ads, where there is no call to vote for any party, only an attack on one party. This is a problem in the US, but the two party system there makes it work because it is obvious what is going on. In the multiparty system in the UK a purely negative ad might not be desirable if it sent voters scurrying in the wrong direction…
11 Nick P
Many thanks for your contribution on Party Funding on the previous thread. For those of us who are interested but have little understanding of the issues, it helps us think seriously about them, even if we do not necessarily agree.
It is such a thoughtful piece that I wonder if you have published it elsewhere, in full or in part? PB anoraks like me benefit considerably from the views and information provided free of charge by yourself and other professional policians who contribute to this site. Whislt I, and others I’m sure, am grateful, it would be a pity that such informed views did not reach a wider audience.
12. So that’s political punditry out of the window! Did anyone else get every question wrong? I think I’m going to take a walk and I may be some time…………..
I honestly do not see why anyone/thing other than a registered elector should be able to give a penny. So no unions or corporates at all. Why would it ever happen except to buy favours?
I would much prefer opt-in state funding on the ballot paper.
Re: The Blair Switch betting market
In his long piece on the previous thread, Nick P reaffirmed his belief that the resignation will take effect ‘…around June or July’. This is my own view and also I believe of most of those I regard as the more serious punters on this site, e.g. Arb Seeker and the ailing Jack W, amongst many others.
The problem for punters is that the probable dates straddle quarters two and three. The solution I think is to ‘dutch’ them - i.e back both and be prepared to take a small profit for a very high probability of a return. At current prices of 1.84 (Q2) and 3.4 (Q3) you need to back in a ratio of approximately 2:1 to get a roughly equal return but you can fine tune this and make adjustments for any position you already hold.
Now would be a good time to do this because all the recent muckraking seems to have persuaded some punters that there remains a real chance of a Q1 resignation and there has been a slight relaxation of the price for Qs 2 & 3. This is unlikely to continue much longer as it becomes increasingly obvious that, absent an arrest, there is virtually no chance of TB going before the end of March. What slender hope Q1 punters once had, now rest on a second interview under caution some time soon. Personally, I would have thought England winning the next two Test Matches is more likely and at much better odds.
Re Hung Parliament betting - The price remains solid at 2.38 despite Rod Crosby’s excellent Guest Slot a few threads back and the subsequent lively debate which, as far as I could see, unearthed no flaws in Rod’s argument.
David H, another astute punter and commentator, suggested that the best strategy would be to wait because you don’t tie up funds and the price is likely to move. I can see his point. The other strategy, which I have adopted, is to stake a large amount now and buy and sell over a long period as the price rocks backwards and forwards, which it is almost certain to do if Rod’s thesis is anywwhere near the mark.
I’m on either 303 or 503, depending on whether minus scores are possible (I scored minus 200 on Charles Kennedy - unless the worst possible score on that question is 0).
May I add my best wishes for Jack W.
4. I broke my mouse by over enthusiastically clicking the ‘Back’ button to rush back and read it.
OT: Worst article I’ve seen in the Indy for years (excepting most stuff by Bruce Anderson!) today, backing Harman’s call to criminalise paying for sex:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/joan_smith/article2086711.ece
All the more astonishing that both Joan Smith and Harman have backgrounds in human rights and civil liberties. Very disappointing that intelligent people who believe in liberty of the individual should be so blind to the damage thay would cause…
Excellent piece by Nick Palmer on yesterday’s thread on party political funding.
22 Sue him, Simon.
23. The evidence that Harman and Smith are ‘intelligent people who believe in liberty’ is sparse! I heard Harman let the phrase ‘false consciousness’ slip out on the Daily Politics show a few months ago revealing her inner tankie.
22. My legal counsel is already occupied with a personal injury claim for split sides against The Excellent Roger as a result of reading his 2006 predictions.
I did read Nick P’s piece.
One of the matters I would disagree with is his assertion that funding the party through the mass membership (Constituencies) was not possible.
In my view he is wrong on this. It is very viable for an opposition (main ones) in a Constituency to fund £15,000 of newsletter campaigning in a non GE year. Expand that to the whole country, that is just under £10m pa.
It is all about organisation and focus (small F).
The Lib Dems already do this, albeit probably in only 100 constituencies.
23 That’s not surprising. Members of the Communist Party of Great Britain were active in the NCCL in the ‘thirties. Their view of civil liberties was entirely instrumental. One campaigned on these issues to bring down the British State, not out of any genuine commitment to individual freedom.
Whereas I doubt if Harman or Smith think in those terms, I imagine that they would both place group rights above individual freedoms. Men are oppressors; women are victims. Therefore the law should punish men who pay for sex. Being victims, women can’t be deemed to have consented to sex in those circumstances.
26. Where ‘feminist’ issues come to the fore, liberty often recedes rapidly into the background…a fine example is the argument used by extreme US feminists that ‘women don’t lie about rape’ and that any man accused of rape should therefore effectively be considered guilty.
30 I did once read an article along those lines, advocating that rape should be a crime of strict liability - ie provided that it was proved that sex had taken place, then the accusation should be sufficient to merit conviction.
31 - I suspect that that would have the side benefit of massively reducing STD’s, but with the means much worse than the end achieved.
It would probably cut our birthrate by about 75%.
I looked up the prediction thread and realised I had not made one. Probably just as well
If any one wants to nominate people for Tony’s last honours list see here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
I have so far had Prescott, Blunkett, Mandelson and Alistair Campbell, though Stephen hawking was mentioned as a serious suggestion
30/31: Even if that premise was true (which is obviously isnt; and actually the number of people who believe it to be true must be very small) the effect of implementing such a law would be to imediately create an arbitrary way of jailing men to any woman, just by accusation. Clearly such laws cant exist in a real society.
I was very disturbed by the suggestion in the article to jail men for rape for having sex with a trafficked woman. Again there is such an obvious flaw in this (man: “are you trafficked”; trafficked woman {in best English accent}:”no”) that the only reason I can see for proposing such ludicrous laws is an underlying and malevolent desire to see men who use prostitutes of any kind jailed; and that the issue of trafficking is just the contemporary implement to do this. I’d go as far to suspect that misandry is at work.
And the rest Sean blimey
There might be a bit of an unintended consequence with pornography sales though.
30 I have also heard it argued that the term rape should be removed from the statute book. Rape is an assault and we already have ample laws to deal with assaults of all kinds from minor to the most serious. By introducing the term rape, you add a sexual element with the consequence that it discourages victims from reporting it. Of course, any assault which involves the penetration of somebody’s body is automatically serious and should be dealt with accordingly. Calling it by a special term - rape - doesn’t strengthen the law, and discourages the victim, not the lawbreaker.
I heard this argument a long time ago and thought it sound. I have seldom heard it since despite the fact that I have never heard a convincing counter argument. Maybe I’m about to.
Morning all - haven’t been posting much recently - the small matter of an office move to attend to, but have tried to read the site every day. Will aim to bring an update on the US mid-terms (results still not all complete but will be sending Mike a competition update), Netherlands, Austria etc shortly (also think Canadian election very likely in 2007).
For now, just to wish Jack W all the very best for a speedy recovery and hope to see him posting again on pb.com soon.
Also very much enjoyed Rod Crosby’s excellent hung parliament article. Andrea, have read that Prodi faces a confidence vote in order to get the budget through, but that he is not expected to lose it. Finally, with the honours investigation seemingly gathering momentum, I’m wondering whether the current situation resembles Watergate in c. 1973 - with Levy in the Haldeman/Ehrlichman role?
I thought the Harman suggestion was quintessentially new Labour - one does not like something therefore one passes a law against it. Preferably one that is impossible to enforce, really expensive and causes a whole load more problems.
I think Yes Minister had it as “There is something we can do, therefore we should do it.”
“Jailing men who pay for sex”.
Would that not damage the restaurant business?
As this is likely to be my last period of posting this year- a fortnight in Italy beckons- I thought I would create some festive bonhemie. And as an avid anti Tory, I think it is pertinent to do some praising of the Conservatives.
Cameron has really done a terrific job for the Tories. He has singlehandedly pulled the Conservatives from the abyss into something more human; whether he has the mark of greatness, or is simply just an effective marketing man remains to be seen. If he is simply a marketing man, he is exceptional, but he is undoubtedly the best thing to have hit the party for a generation.
For the PBComers, Peter the Punter, Benedict White and Nick Palmer for me stand out for sheer decency. Andrea is the dynamo for the site- his research abilties, and minutiae knowledge of all things UK political are unbelievable. IMO seanT is the most literary poster, and in many ways the most complelling. Sean Fear’s lead slots are always well informed and, to his credit, always pretty much objective. But the intelligence and knowledge of the majority of the posters here, Mboy, Coldstone, Max, ukPaul, Cicero, JackW (best wishes), Snowflake5, Innocent, kingbongo, and the many, many others always makes for an interesting, hugely entertaining and informed read.
A particular word for Roger because out of all the posters here I almost always exclusivley agree with everything he says, and how he says it, and of course to Mike Smithson for doing such a magnificent job foe keeping the show on the road.
Happy Xmas to you all, and wishing you a lucrative, lucky 2007 political betting year.
[30 et seq] Ah yes, Dworkinism (Andrea, of course, not Ronald) - takes me back to the 1980s when I used to go around saying there were two kinds of feminist, gay and dim - of course, that was in my drinking days
Still, we must surely allow politicians of all stripes to trail their coats in front of any section of the electorate they fancy, and the number of (menopausal or older) women who are “off” men big-time is sadly large… so it’s Harman’s wolf-whistle, chaps
Re 41, Thank you very much Tyson! Hope you have a good Christmass too!
Don’t suppose I could get you to nominate someone for Tony Blair’s dis honours list;)
Happy Christmas too Tyson and thanks for the generous assessment of all of us - warm seasonal glow alll round! Happy holidays to everyone else too. I’ll be largely offline from Thursday for a couple of weeks.
Thanks very much to the people who liked my piece in the last threat. I’ve not tried to get it published elsewhere. Several attempts at having pieces published in the Guardian have all foundered without response, even when I’ve got friendly Guardian journalists to ask for one for me - my impression is that the opinion page editor simply doesn’t like New Labour MPs and can’t be bothered to respond. A few attempts in other outlets (the Indie, the New Statesman) got a similarly blank wall, so I gave up - not worth the hassle of pestering people when I can post here any time I feel like it.
It’s the big plus for blogs (there are minuses too, like limited quality control) - anyone can post, and it’s whether you’re interesting that counts, not whether you know the editor.
Oh, by the way, there was a firm (William Hill?) offering odds on TB leaving between June and December. Sounded good to me but I’ve forgotten where it was.
41 - Thanks.
RE 44, Nick Palmer, the brilliant thing about having your own blog is that you are on good terms with the editor
Thanks Tyson.
My Christmas wish is that Man City start winning again, I am sure that you will heartily concur!
[41] Thanks, Tyson - and seasonal greetings to you also (and to everyone else, I was going to leave it for a couple of days but I guess a few Peebies may be going off sun-wards so I’ll do it now, hey, I can always do it again …)
It’s quite brave to offer such a list, really - too easy to miss someone out by accident and give unintended offence.
And on a completely different subject, my commiserations to Sean T, a copy of whose book I saw in Paddington Library, no one had taken it out for months
(No, neither did I.)
Have a good trip Tyson. I hope the brisk wind that runs down Italy at this time of year will clear your mind of too many positive Cameron thoughts and on your return you will feel sufficiently invigorated to give him a characteristically robust tongue lashing!
41 That’s very kind of you, Tyson. And in this Season of godwill, it’s wholly appropriate that I should return the compliment by confirming, in case you didn’t know, that you are one of the posters I most like to read. Others are too numerous to mention but the sheer variety of opinions expressed here is of course one of the many reasons why the site is such a joy.
48. Hah! Innocent Abroad - I trust you didn’t borrow it because you’ve already bought a copy? Naturally?
On a happier note, my book has sold five times as many copies as David Blunkett’s.
51 Sean T
I work in Duke St, St James’s, which I believe is not a million miles from where you hang out. If I bought a copy of your book, would you sign it for me?
[51] I’ll have a good look next time I’m in Bell Street
51 - Oh dear…250 must be disappointing then.
52. Of course! Might have to be in the New Year though… as I’m a little scarce over Xmas. But yes - I’d be delighted!
41. Tyson, thanks. Happy Christmas and New Year to you too!
4. New Party funding ideas?
Why should tax payers fund a party that cant raise money from its own supporters?
So…Arrest members of the Labour party and continue funding as before.
251. LOL. Blunkett and I have the same publishers. His advance was, also, about twenty times the size of mine.
Don’t think he’s “earned out” quite yet.
Season’s Greetings and Best Wishes to all from a regular reader but infrequent poster.
Especially, I extend best wishes to Jack W, Kinkell and family. We had a very close call with my father about a month ago (we knew something was really wrong when the nurses no longer felt that safety in numbers was a required strategy!), so the memory of the desperate uncertainty of those days is still very fresh. I hope that Jack makes a swift and full recovery - I shall be reading avidly, waiting to see the comment that I’m sure so many of us want to see: that “Jack W is 103%”.
Cheers Tyson
It’s good to have some serious pro-Labour posters here these days, and you do that well…
Nick P: I thought your post on political funding looked interesting. A couple of thoughts/questions:
a)Re company funding - shareholders don’t have equal votes so for instance if the board was proposing a £1/’shareholders vote’ who voted for the donation one or two shareholders could vote through a massive donation. This could be argued as fair as that is their voting power after all in the company, but it could be a means of an organisation making effectively a huge ‘influential’ donation, which is what we are trying to get away from. However to make all shareholders have equal votes would go against the normal voting rights of the shareholders. Solution?
b)For all organisations I assume you are proposing that the executive makes the proposal on the donation and the members/shareholders indicate if the donation on their behalf is made. However this could be seen as undemocratic. For instance the executive could be very pro party ‘X’ and propose a donation to that party. If 5% of the members are in favour of party ‘X’ and agree then party ‘X’ will get the appropriate donation. However 95% of the members/shareholders may be in favour of party ‘Y’ or no party getting a donation so the majority opinion has been ignored. I suppose you can get around this by the members voting on whether political donations are allowed in the first place and how the decisions to make them are made? However at the end of the day if an organisation had 10 members who each paid £10 membership and half agreed to a donation of £5 to an organisation then it is not 5 who have donated £5 each, but all 10 who have donated £2.50 each, half of which are donating against their will!
c) You wanted to restrict donations to a constituency party to those living in the constituency. Often constituency parties have outside members. This would not allow them to donate. That would be a shame as they are usually members of that constituency because of particular ties. However I suspect your suggestion is the correct one as otherwise parties could ask donors to change their membership to target constituencies and a few extra £1000 in a target constituency would be very useful. Is that paranoia on my part?
I wanted to comment on a couple of points Rik made at the end on yesterday re Asil Nadir:
“and when precisely was Nadir PM - or what was his Minsterial responsibility? I must have forgotten that!”
Rik are you implying that it only matters if you do wrong if you are a minister. I know you are not so isn’t that statement illogical?
“For all those pompous Lib Dem posters on here, I would point out that the last person of Asil Nadir’s ilk to be jailed was Michael Brown - Lib Dem donor!”
Rik are you implying that it is alright to do wrong if someone else does? Again I know you are not so isn’t that statement also illogical?
42. I obviously need to increase my posting frequency to make it into Tyson’s 2007 eulogy.
55 Sean T
OK, I’ll pop into Waterstones and buy a copy. I can read it over Christmas and in the New Year we’ll meet up for a beer. You can sign the book then, and give me my money back if I didn’t enjoy it.
Have a very happy Christmas, Sean T. I don’t read your posts but I am sure they are very good! Ho ho ho !
;-)
63. Deal.
Every copy of my book comes with a money-back guarantee, anyway. If you don’t laugh on the last line of the second paragraph of page 155 I am happy to offer a refund…
Heh.
Happy Christmas and a good New Year to all - especially Jack.
Funny old year: lost (for not enough money) share in my company and job, but gained first Grandchild. So all in all positive. Off to see her in Australia (and a bit of the fourth test?!).
64 LOL Sean T! Nobody can ever accuse you of lacking a sense of humour. I’m sure I will enjoy the back - honestly, no need of money-back offers.
Until the New year then.
..the book even! Honestly…my eyes!
62-Simon-I have got to say what I enjoy most on this site is the wit and humour- there is always something to chuckle at.
Innocent at 48 sound advice
And Roger at 49- no worries, the knives are already sharpening, the gloves being prepared, the targets lined up for next years onslaught.
Anyway, planes to catch, presents to buy and all that….
[61] I was the “pompous Lib Dem poster” that Rik was getting at- I simply posted the wiki article on Asil Nadir.
Come off it Rik.
Asil Nadir is a wrong ‘un big style- the guy would be arrested the second he went anywhere with an extradition treaty with the UK. If you want to keep supporting him, then just remember what happened to Michael Mates’ reputation.
You are on thin ice- and you know it.
Michael Brown may be a crook of the first water, but the cash was a public donation that was declared at the time. It was accepted in good faith. No Lib Dem broke any law, even if they might have exercised questionable judgement. Your attempt to blacken the Lib Dems just makes the punters think “they’re all the same” and allows the really dubious stuff elsewhere to go unchallenged until years later.
I do not beleive that all politicos are crooks. Those very few that are, however, should get pretty exemplary punishment: Archer, Aitken and others and maybe one day a former Blairite minister, known to be litigious…
talking of misandry, which is not only alive and well in Nu Labour, but thriving, the anouncement of safe rooms by the Minister for Women did not mention once domestic violence by women on men.
Needless to say there is more on my blog
‘Your attempt to blacken the Lib Dems just makes the punters think “they’re all the same” and allows the really dubious stuff elsewhere to go unchallenged until years later.’
A very puzzling argument, Mr.Oates. Please explain how revealing that a party took an illegal donation encourages corruption elsewhere.
[65] Bonne voyage, Icarus, and for you & any other Peebie doing a long flight (or even not doing one) my non-political reading recommendation this solstice is “Sacred Games” by Vikram Chandra - all 900 pages of it!
14 - Cicero, other than One Man and his Dog it was a terrible sporting weekend:
Hearts got beaten, The Borders got beaten, we lost the Ashes and to top it all off I dislocated my shoulder (again!) whilst playing football!
kjh at 61: good point re shareholders. I’m not sure - but someone claimed that corporate donations are now rare?
On unions and other bodies, what I propose as a concession in the package (in return for limits on individual donations and an annuual cap on spending) is that the political fund ballot ask members specifically if they are willing for their money to go to party X (rather than just for political purposes, as now). The executive would still decide when and if to do it, thus retaining some collective decision-making (an important part of the Labour tradition) while retaining an individual veto on using the money at all. To avoid undue complexity, the union or whatever would only ballot on support for a specific party. If a member wanted to support some party of which the executive disapproved altogether, he would need to subscribe directly (or vote in a new executive).
This year I have sold twenty thousand copies of my book, visited ten countries, sold my memoirs in seven territories, finished a novel after five years work, done nothing but whinge and moan on here for twelve months, and had one child.
Busy year. No wonder I’m a little bit bushed.
Happy Xmas to all, from Roger to Matlock, from MBoy to Sean Fear, from Nick P to Tyson to Andrea to Benedict to Mike S - but most especially to Jack.
Not that I’m going away or anything. Just keeping in the spirit.
Well as everyone seems so full of Christmas spirit I thought it was only right to join in and have got a delightful Christmas card for each and everyone of you:
http://www.greetingsfromtheconservatives.co.uk/ecard/
Re 75, Yes Happy Christmass to all
JackW (Hope you get well soon) and family, SeanT, Sean Fear, DDC, Alistair Max, Marcus, Tyson, Roger, Nick, Snowflake, Icarus (Even if you don’t like my blog
) Innocent Abroad, tabman… the list goes on and on.
But a big special thanks to Mike Smithson and family for keeping the place going!
77 - “Even if you don’t like my blog”
Do you have a blog Benedict?
Tom Watson blog reports that there’re rumours of Jeremy Corbyn starting a Deputy Leadership bid….. I suppose he can count on John McDonnell’ support and not sure who else!
[73] One man and his dog…
At least you should have more luck at Dundee United than Aberdeen may against the ‘gers this week…
71 It has yet to be proven that the donation was illegal in either the giving , receiving or both .
Re 78, Max *cough*, I don’t usualy mention it, but yes as it happens I do. You can find it here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
Merry Xmas to all of you, happy posting for all, pleasure to read all of your comments.
83 Isn’t it Lord Coldstone? Or does that have to wait for the end of Yates’s inquiry?
Hi all
Have just caught up with a couple of days’ threads. Hope Jack W gets well soon.
In case I’m not able to pop back in before Christmas (am snowed under, wouldn’t you know), just thought I’ve wish everyone a Merry Christmas. I’ve really had a ball debating with you all, and look forward to some more in the New Year!
According to Andrea I’m on 504 points.
Also a belated best wishes to Jack W; this place won’t be the same until his return.
86. I deny to have reported that number to you!
It’s a leaked memo and its truth is unsure. It can be just spin
Andrea, you should know that a leaked memo is halfway round the world before the truth has even got its boots on.
Happy Christmas, or whatever they say in Italy.
88-”Happy Christmas, or whatever they say in Italy.”
Buon Natale
89. How do you say “Happy Winterval”?
74 Nick.
I think you are correct on Corporate donations and the biggest shareholdings are usually pension funds I guess, who I believe don’t tend to vote on these type of things so probably aren’t going to skew the donation. I’m trying to think if there is an avenue for abuse here (eg setting up dummy companies to do this) but my brain is hurting thinking about it.
I’m not sure if you have covered my point re other organisations/union. If an organisation decides to donate to party ‘X’ and asks each member if it may make a donation of say £5 on their behalf and say 1000 of the total of 10,000 agree, then in reality all 10,000 members have donated £0.5 and NOT 1,000 donating £5. That is the effect on the funds. This is undemocratic. Only 10% of the membership have agreed to the donation and 90% of the funds being donating is not attribuable to them but to others who at best could not be bothered to respond to the request to make a donation or at worst actually object to the donation.
Organisations should only be able to do this if they have a premium on the membership fee to cover this, the payment of which is optional and doesn’t disbar joining the organisation. This would be easy, but in this case the person might just as well pay directly themselves, although it could be argued that it is cheaper and more effective to collect donations this way.
91. Yes I have thought of an abuse of Corporate donors. Don’t know why I didn’t think of it before. I’m the sole shareholder of my company. I then vote for a massive donation and get around the limit on personal donations. So I think you would have to bar ‘Close’ companies and probably an even wider definition than that. But that is possible.
I thought Coldstone came up with some good ideas also a few threads ago on this topic.
41 and a happy Christmas to you too Tyson - could PB be returning to its civillised state?
I also think it’s good there are more Labour posters here than heretofore; it all adds to the unique mix of opinion that at some stage or another reminds us that for mainstream political thinking there are large areas of agreement, one of which I’m sure is to wish JackW all the best.
Chaps, I’ll be away form the computor over the next few days visiting the girlfriends family in Lincolnshire. So if I don’t get the chance to say so before merry Christmas and a happy new year.
I would also like to say good luck to Jack W. Keep your chin up and we’ll have a rum ration soon.
The Admiral
71.
CdF You have revealed more of your underwear than anything at all about any ‘illegal donation’. No party took any illegal donation from M. Brown. Where Brown got his cash from is an entirely separate matter! Pathetic silly game.
Party funding
I would like to see a wider spread of power within parties; less centralised power at HQ.
Since money = power, this means more encouragement of donations to local level.
So I disagree with Nick’s suggested £1,000 cap at that level.
I also agree with kjh at 61 concerning outside donations to constituencies. For example, in urban areas in particular Councillors don’t necessarily live in the constituencies they represent, (especially where there are silly boundaries).
In various other cases, I think we would lose more public good than we would gain through such a restriction, even though there is an opportunity to abuse the arrangement. (And bear in mind that even the people who passed the current legislation were at work finding loopholes in it before the ink was dry.)
For example, personal friends of a candidate, and even the candidate him/herself would be unable to spend on the campalgn. (Query: would a prospective candidate be required to reclaim every penny of personal expenses?)
For example, people who live in a seat for fifty years and are at the heart of the local party and then retire away.
What happens about people with more than one home? What about University students? What about people temporarily living abroad? What about travellers (ie caravan dwellers)? What about women in refuges who don’t want to reveal where they’re living?
How often are people allowed to move home?
And finally, are you seriously suggesting that a constituency party would not be allowed to donate funds to another constituency party, (which would be a necessary corollary)? Not even for a by-election in the same city.
This looks like kneejerk New Labour legislation :
96. I think Nick is trying to stop a situation where one person gets round a national restriction by donating to many constituency organisations.
The problem could be solved by limiting the number of constituencies an individual could donate more than £100 to (for example), to five. The limit of £1000 might be a bit on the low side though and would catch the Labour initiative to ‘tax’ their councillors at 10% in many cases.
The poll is out. Information from BBC News 24 (taken from the newspaper review at 10.55pm)
Con 40
Lab 32
Lib Dem 18
Con lead of 8%
10. I am not confused by the rules as stated, but I am confused by your confusion and your interpretation. I don’t get how you have reached different possible answers about what your scores are.
For example, question 5: Correct answer = 319; your answer = 400; error = 81; error /3 = 27; 100 minus 27 = 73; therefore your score for question 5 is 73.
I do not know what “Do you mean that points get taken away from your total or that you lose points from those allocated?” means.
Am I right?
My scores:
1) 52 weeks vs 52 weeks = 100
24% vs 24% = 30
2) 39 weeks vs 0 weeks = 5
3) Tony Blair vs Tony Blair = 100
4) Ed Davey vs Menzies Campbell = 0
5) lose 400 vs lose 319 = 73
6) gain 50 vs gain 2 = 84
7) Con lead of 3% vs Con lead of 10% = -20
9) Con lead of 1% vs Con lead of 3% = 30
10) Con lead of 4% vs Con lead of 5% = 40
11) Level vs Con lead of 4% = 10
12) Con lead of 1% vs Con lead of 8% = -20
Total Score: 432 points
Re: 99
That’s the calculation I had got as well. This confirms my score as 432. I think that means I might just be in a winning position
Could Mike clarify the position wrt to negative points? Does (for example) Harry score -20 for questions 7 and 12 as stated, or is the minimum for any question nil? This is of particular interest to those of us who predicted Kennedy would last the year (yeah, well Lib Dems don’t go in for anything as vicious as assassinations, do they!!), which would be a spectacular -150 for starters.
Hey all,
I’ve been a reader for a few months, but I felt I’d make my first post in light of this funding issue. As Nick said, a major issue is thw worry of buying influence into a political party but he fails to see that this is still an issue with large scale organisation donations. Even if there is a democratic vote and an opt out on whether or not to fund a political party, those voting and motions raised will always be tilted towards the more extremist members as they’re the ones most willing to take action. Thus the party supported will be influenced to keep the leadership of such a union happy. There is also something of a tyranny of the majority about it, as the majority voting decide the options put to everyone else. The individual member simply gets the choice of £X donation to Party Y, or not. Also, like others have said, if its an equal membership fee, then those not opting out are just reducing the size of the entire donation, while still effectively funding it.
However, having said that, there is the problem that Nick raises where, by completely banning union and corporation funding the Labour party would be massively affected and the Conservatives would have a monopoly on political advertising, which would undermine democracy. There is also the issue that it skews donations towards large single donations from rich people, and there is little purpose for lower income people donating seeing as the administrative cost for each donation would be so relatively high. Also, poorer people see little point in going through a lot of effort to make a donation when they perceive the donation as making such a small difference.
My solution to all this is simple. Have a standard section that any organisation can have at the end of its payment form asking “Would you like to donate to a political party?” The individual member can tick a box for the party and write in the amount of their donation. The cost would be charged with their membership fee, recorded as an individual donation, and paid by the organisation, with documentation of each donor, to the relevant parties. Thus we have a low cost and easy way for many small donations to be made.
Also, I see no need for an absolute spending cap to be made. If a particular issue comes up which is very important to both parties in a particular election year, why should they be held back from this? Why not just have legislation banning any party from spending more than twice the amount any other major party? (The “major party” restriction would stop say, Labour of the Tories simply funding their additional funds to ideologically related parties, like RESPECT or UKIP.)