Cash in on Cannabis Cameron
February 12th, 2007
Peter the Punter’s Political Pointer
In a light news week, the focus has been heavily on David Cameron’s past and the possibility he used illegal drugs. Have Dave’s ambitions gone up in a puff of smoke? Is his future on the line? Are his chances shot? Not a bit of it, if PB.com posters are anything to go by!
On the evidence of last night’s thread you would have to say his prospects had been if anything enhanced, as commentators from all sides of the political spectrum rallied to his cause.
We also recommend a Boris Johnson buy, mainly because of his typically robust and witty support for his leader. Apparently, Goldilocks warned that he would not be best pleased if anybody insinuated he may not have taken drugs. Buy Boris – 1 point at 91.8.
Finally, we recommend a sell of Reid, again 1 point. He hasn’t done anything especially wrong for a while but after last week’s surprise rise, he looks hugely overpriced at 73.
Last Week’s results My first week in charge and our first loss! This is all the more irksome because we were bang on with our Blair recommendation. Sadly, this was outweighed by the better scores for Harman and Reid. The net loss for those who took the prices when we went to press last Tuesday was 1.7 (£17 at a £10 stake):
IG Price Result Gain/(loss)
Blair - buy 55.8 57.0 1.2
Reid - sell 69.8 71.7 (1.9)
Harman - sell 77.0 78.0 (1.0)Net loss (1.7)
Those who got on a bit earlier will have made less of a loss, possibly as little as 0.2 points but it’s disappointing nevertheless. I guess the lesson, if any, is that if the leader has a good week then the rest of his Party is likely to follow. Against all expectations, Labour had a good week generally.
We will try to post our recommendations as early as possible in future, usually on Monday but this depends to a large extent on YouGov publishing results promptly. (They were very late today.) For record keeping purposes, we will always take the price available at the time of going to post, not any earlier price that might have been available. Thus, the 1.7 loss recorded as above reduces our overall profit since we began to a net 3.4 – not bad, but can do better.
This is the link to the YouGov index but make sure you check the dates! They put the wrong week’s figures up earlier, causing much confusion.
Good luck!
Peter Smith - (Peter the Punter)
MessageSpace Advertising
oooh first comment? hmmm what shall I use it for? Hmmm I’ll contra on Boris, I think a lot of people will dislike that comment, even though the media find it hilarious, since he’s already at 91, I’m assuming there’s not a lot of upside for him.
Incidentally, longterm surely betting against Hague has to be a winner.
Peter the Punter’s Political Pointer….
I only have one question, did you Pick a Pepper Peter?
I have to say Reid is a real difficult case. He averages one crap headline a fortnight yet he’s still hanging in there above 70. The Home Office is due another pounding on the next 2 weeks on current form.
Cameron at a rating of around 90, thats pretty damn high to begin with. Is it realistic that he can really rise at all?
As for Tony I fear that guy is just going to go down, other than keeping quiet, where is the upside posibility for him?
Be interesting to see.
Brit Spin, I’d agree, Hague is currently bullet proof and the public do have time for him but something tricky is bound to rise in the longer term.
Thing is when do you open a position to get the biggest profit potential?
I agree the publicity can only do Cameron good, and I have to say, don’t you just love Borris! Typically witty and robust response from him! I might not want him as PM, but politics would be dull with out these sorts of charactors
So, team Cameron, concerned that his brand identity was starting to falter, tapped up a few school friends and got them to ‘leak’ this story, a story he would refuse to die.
Voila, instant ‘cred’ points, a small poll rebound, and you irritate the Daily Mail set to boot! No downside.
A masterful political move, Dave, and well-timed too.
How many other yoof-pleasing revelations have you got scheduled?
Melanure Phillips is cross with Dave. Dave soars in polls with beautiful people and bombs with the ugly mob.
I see over on Conservative Home that Zac Goldsmith has decided to pull out of running for a safe Tory seat (Hampshire East) in order to go for the candidacy in Lib Dem-held Richmond.
He’s either very brave or a complete nutter. Susan Kramer will be very hard to beat.
[7] Or he only wants to be an MP if he’s got a chance of being a Minister - no interest in the Opposition benches. But a celeb candidate of his ilk is probably a good move for the Tories in Richmond Park. I wonder what the policy differences between SK and ZG are - if any …
Peter - this is a fantastic pointer, you are to be congratulated.
There is a real possibility that betting on the popularity of front running figures today could be a very accurate pointer to the way polls are going to turn out tomorrow.
Interesting possibilities abound…
Just a thought - but is there a rule that Peter the Punters Headlines have to have an amazing amount of awkward alliteration in them? On a serious note - think this is a very good tip, and expect the Cameron price to rise with the weight of money from pbers over the next few days, meaning some may be able to lay-off on Friday or Saturday.
Seriously, how could this have really hurt Cameron? Maybe 20-30 years ago, but not today. It should never have been given any real prominence by the media.
As I’m around for a bit, I’ll try to field some of the queries.
This was a difficult week in which to find recommendations. We all agreed there wasn’t much value to be had anywhere. Strictly, I should have said ‘No bets’ , but where’s the fun in that?
We all agreed Dave was ‘the big issue’ but were split on how the hash thing would play. Next week I’ll tell you who said buy and who said sell, but let me make it clear that I take the responsibility for any bet that goes up as a recommendation, whether it’s my idea or not.
We discussed Yokel’s point a lot…well for thirty seconds at least. Both DC and Boris are high (…oops, no pun intended
) and normally you would avoid buying at the top of the market. Remember however that the top of this particular market is actually 200, so in theory at least there is still plenty of upside. The relatively low number for *all* the names (none is over 100) seems to me to reflect a widespread disenchantment with politicians generally. I think it can be argued that there’s plenty of scope for any individual politican to enhance his or her score, if they catch the public mood right.
Yokel (and others) may well be proved right, not only in respect of DC but other ‘high-fliers’ (there we go again!) like Hague and Benn.
Thanks for all your comments. Please keep them coming and if you want to take up a point with me personally, email me at arklebar@talktalk.net …..unless your name is Snowflake, in which case the address is farage@chatchat.co.ukip
Cheers
You are being a bit previous here aren’t you? Cameron’s drug use in the past is neither here nor there to me, but his party might take umbrage to any further revelations.
His actual words were that he “had done some things in the past” that he wasn’t proud of. I think it would be safer to assume that use of the plural was deliberate.
Peter, Blair made up at 58.7 so actually you have broken even on the week, I think.
Kudos to Zac Goldsmith for making a fight of it in Richmond. His mum lives along the road from us. One to watch at the general election, assuming he gets selected. The local Tories would be mad not to but, believe me, they are prats.
Upto 200?
Oh bugger, i havent been watching this market at all.
On the plus side I haven’t put any of my money anywhere near it as yet.
Still can’t see Cameron going up much by this business, can’t see him going down much either.
14 That’s right…he did, Aaron! I’m off the hook then? Suppose I ought to admit I was the one who opposed the Blair choice last week!
I’ll adjuct the records to nil gain/nil loss for this week.
Sorry PTP I will go against you on this one though to be honest I have not yet placed any bets on this market . I think hug a druggie will bomb just as much as hug a hoodie did .
TNS SOFRES for Le Figaro Magazine. Carried out before Sego’s speech:
First Round
Sarko 33 ( +4)
Sego 26 (-8)
Bayrou 14(+5)
Le Pen 13 (-1)
Second round
Sarko 54
Sego 46
I think the big changes indicate that the previous survey was conducted a month ago but it shows how badly Sego’s campaign has crumbled since the beginning of the year.
Re 12, Thanks for the feedback Peter. Can I take it Snowflake has *cough* ruffled some feathers? I will be reading back over that thread later
Forget Cameron and cannabis.
Burnly Brunshaw by election Thursday may throw up another BNP result
May 2006
Lab 703 Lib Dem 635
BNP 606
Lab 526
Lib Dem 453
Con 335
May need good tough campaigning by either Labour or the Lib Dems or both, to hold the BNP back.
Certainly will be an interesting result to watch.
On paper the Lib Dems should hold the other Burnley ward by election also on Thurday.
8.”But a celeb candidate of his ilk is probably a good move for the Tories in Richmond Park. I wonder what the policy differences between SK and ZG are - if any … ”
At this point I suggest to Richmond Park CLP to fill Walter Wolfgang as candidate…he even has PPC experience having stood in Croydon (don’t recall which Croydon seats) ages ago
cameron got quite a slagging on a few phone in shows i heard today. maybe those outside the metropolis are less impressed. a few seemed to think he looked smug and arrogant during his awful ‘outside the front gate’ press conference.
21 BNP won this ward in 2003 but their candidate subsequently sat as an Independent before resigning in 2004 . Thet hopefully may still suffer from this .
22. It was Croydon NE, 1959. He lost by 9000 votes…
23 I saw that clip too, Bally Eric, and thought he didn’t look or sound entirely convincing. I’d be wary of ‘phone-in’ shows though. You don’t know who the callers are or what motivates them. Sometimes I suspect they are hired hands.
On PB.com however, we know the familiar names and when posters as diverse as Sean T, Tyson, Benedict, myself and many others all start reflecting the same kind of view, you know pretty much where you are.
Time may prove me wrong, but I’m prepared to trust ‘the PB sample’ this time.
Surely Cameron couldn’t get much higher? wanna bet!
25 Rod
I just referred to you in a post I put on Anthony Wells’s YouGov site. You may as well check it - make sure I’m not misrepresenting you.
It would also help if you could give them a url to your famous ‘thesis’.
Cheers
27 Thought I’d already done all the ‘high’ jokes, Coldstone!
26. Phone ins are about as representative as Ceefax polls. Still, when grasping at straws…
30 One of the reasons I stopped watching QT, Wag, was that I got fed up with the partisan audiences. Phone-ins are worse, except the callers are stupider.
It is fair to say that PBC isn’t very representative either… David Cameron would have a 300 seat majority if it were. I would say the average UK voter is significantly less liberal and probably a bit older than the average poster on this site.
….And the callers are stupider. Sorry. Headache.
Re 26, Peter well said and I come from a ruralish part of the world.
Re 27, Coldstone, you are naughty!
32. Fair enough, but I wasn’t suggesting a PB.com straw poll would be ideal either.
Re Cameron and drugs…(and speaking as an “abnormal” member of society according to SeanT and various posters yesterday) I can’t see it having much of an impact either way (so won’t follow the ‘buy’ advice). However, if more stuff emerges this week (and you can bet the search is on) it will be adverse. Would say that DC’s acknowledged love of the fags appears to answer questions over whether he is an addict - or has an addictive personality. But nicotine is a legal (if disgusting to a non-smoker) drug and it does not make him a pot-head or a coke-head per se. Should it be suggested that he was, however - not sure whether that is a normal university experience - then all bets are off
36 But laptop, all the indications are that he is a perfectly normal guy who functions well in his own particular well. It doesn’t matter what noxious substances he may or may not have experienced, it’s what he is now that matters. More to the point, it’s whether he can do his job and possibly the next one that matters.
Personally, I wouldn’t care if he was a mainline heroin addict if he could demonstrate his ability to run the show better than anybody else. OK, that’s unlikely to happen. But there is a wholly appropriate comparison with Churchill as War Leader. He was a very serious drinker - and prone to chronic bouts of depression.
It really is time to move on.
…His own world.
Headache’s worse and I’m having spam filter problems.
21 and 24 Tony Greeves on Vote 2007 reckons it’s a clear fight between the Lib Dems and BNP. The BNP vote share recovered somewhat in 2006.
For something that isn’t important, we seem to be spending an abnormally long time discussing Mr Cameron’s drug habits. If nothing else appears, then it will fizzle out, if something more serious pops up, then its back on the front burner. When he gave his channel4 interview and the subject was brought up he was emphatic that he had not touched an illegal substance since becoming an MP, ‘Law makers shouldn’t be law breakers’ is what he said. If it transpires he had taken an illegal drug since becoming an MP, he’s toast!
20 Benedict - you HAVE to read snowflake’s comments on the Royal thread; there is nothing on TV tonight and her deranged musings (which I think at times bordered on libellous) are a delight. A genuine living example of the authoritarian statist mindset, coupled with an inability to realise at what point it is best to stop digging.
After his football photoshoot SELL Brown. If Cameron gets a bounce at all it’ll be very small. Reid might be worth buying though - he came over well on Sunday.
36. Blair was an airhead at university spending much time with the ugly rumours. Did not seem to hurt him (Ever watch that channel 4 production on it?).
Having said that, when Cameron moves into Number 10 I think they will give parading his possessions in public a miss. Besides in this parallel they would have to get someone to walk up with a rolled up joint! Now that would be something to bet on, whether the ‘joint carrier’ got nicked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6355081.stm
He is ’smoking’ at the moment - politically!
O/T - Watching Sky Sports news it seems GB has totally lost the plot and seems to think Scotland won the World Cup in 1966. Who else could he mean by ‘we’?
44. Football is such a boring sport..can’t figure out why people always get over-excited by it
45 Andrea. You should concerntrate on the thighs and not the ball !
45 My view too. Now cricket…
I tend to agree that drugs will hurt Cameron with some people, but not the people who particiapte in Brandindex surveys.
47. I’ve still to undertand the rules.
45 - Think of the repercussions though Andrea. Using this same spurious logic Hibs fans could claim ‘they’ won the Scottish Cup last year and on a further six occasions on the grounds they share a city with the mighty Heart of Midlothian.
The reality being they haven’t won it since Buffalo Bill visited Edinburgh and have still to better the total of two won by both Third Lanark and Renton!
[49] It’s dead simple, Andrea. One side is in and the other is out, and the side that is out (in the field) tries to get the side that is in out, while the side that is in hits out.
Andrea-how many residents of Italy are NOT football barmy? (I understood it was a national obsession!)
50.”Think of the repercussions though ”
Football..repercussions…I suppose it’s a big physical fights with different teams’ supporters….
51. IA…in, out, out, in….:-)
52. Patrick, yes, it is a national obsession. At some points it seems it is the only sport on earth
51 - Having explained the Hokey-Cokey (and no Snowflake it’s not a Tory policy to get primary school kids on drugs) to Andrea perhaps you could tell him a little about cricket.
55. Do you regularly dance it, Max? I would bet you’re good at it
[55] Well, he could look here:
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/239756.html
Refereshing to discover that even the experts don’t seem to know exactly what a yorker is …
28. ptp, I’ve followed up your post on UK polling report. Thanks
Re 41, kingbongo, I have a video to fix, and I think you mean the yougov thread.
42 “Blair was an airhead at university”
He graduated with a 2nd in Jurisprudence - not exactly the mark of an airhead.
Could it be more accurate to say that he was apolitical at univesity, and has been going downhill every since?
55.
Dave does the Hokey-Cokey and he turns around,
- That’s cos he cares ’bout nowt!?
oh. . . Hokey Cokey Cokey…
Re 41, kingbongo, I have fixed the video, and now have read some very libelous stuff. Snowflake just does not know when to stop digging!
62. Some of it read like she was blogging from the inside of a padded cell.
Re 63, Wag, Quite, though I liked this reply from Max going a bit over Snowflake:
“218 - Not just Charles Clarke Sean. Fellow home office ministers Vernon Coaker and Caroline Flint also admitted to smoking cannabis. It wouldn’t surprise me if the home office now resembled a crack house and was resonsible for 99% of Al Quedas income, the madrid bombing, 7/7, 9/11, the second world war and the black death.
This country is going to the dogs I tell you. ”
Max, ChrisD, other Scottish posters…any of you is expert of Glasgow politics?
I see that SNP is fielding 21 candidates in the 20 Glasgow wards (Balliestos will have 2 candidates). They seem to think they’ll get between 15 and 18 councillors…are their predictions realistic?
61 You put your left wing in…your rightwing out…you do the Hokey Cokey and you turnaround…never tell what you’re all about…Ohh…
65 - cannot see why they cannot in these multi-member wards get at least one seat based on current polling.
49 It is just like baseball but more linear, and more fun.
67. Marcia, from the Glasgow Evening Times: “Mr Mason said while their targets were to return 21 councillors he admitted he believed a more realistic figure was between 15 and 18″ (Mason is SNP leader on the council).
65. Andrea, I am not an expert on Glasgow politics but that news does not surprise me. I really think that the SNP will pick up votes from Labour in their heartlands, I also expect to see them benefit from a lot of tactical voting by non Labour/SNP voters down there.
64. Yes Benedict, I thought that was a peach by Max as well. Incredibly, the ranting continued long afterwards.
67 - better that the 3 or 4 that they have at present. I have to say I don’t know much about the Glasgow political scene as it is on the other side of the country. In Baillieston which is to the East of the city they seem to have a very active SNP organisation run by Lachie MacNeil and Grant Thoms (who has set up the Tartan Hero blog).
http://www.tartanhero.blogspot.com/
oops first line should be than instead of that! off to bed - goodnight all.
62.Benedict, I thought it crossed the line and got progressively more bizarre.
73. Good Night, Marcia
re Glasgow City Council Elections. The SNP chances of taking the 21 seats arent unrealistic. Under the current fptp system there are 3 Liberals, 1 Independent (elected as a Liberal), 1 SSP, 4 SNP and 70 Labour- Labour took 70 out of 79 seats on under 50% of the vote- the SSP surge in 2003 lost the SNP about a dozen or so seats I think. This time round the SSP will be lucky to get 2 or 3 seats in the new Council- not the 11 predicted by some (based on their vote share in 2003). The Lib-Dems will get around 4, Tories 2, maybe 3 the SNP circa 20 and Labour 49, ensuring a Labour majority once again, but much reduced due to the move to STV voting!
67 - I don’t know a great deal about Glasgow but that seems reasonable. On the 2003 results they were estimated to get around 20 in any case IIRC.
FWIW we’re standing 13 candidates in the Borders. Don’t know about the other parties though.
re 45 but Andrea you’re probably too young to remember the early 1990s when the shorts really were short
78. Chris, I have vague memories…they’re probably the reasons I became gay though!
What about Edinburgh City Council- Labour held by majority of 1 (although has an SNP Depute Lord Provost due to a defection) I believe and on 26% of the vote- will be interesting to see what STV throws up in Edinburgh, interesting to see if the Greens can make the break through in local elections there!
Re 71 Wag. and 74, ChrisD, :lol:, but please don’t tell me I have to read it I am begining to lose the will to live!
76. Preliminary estimates of the effect of STV on 2003 results puts Labour on 43, the SNP on 20, 11 SSP, 3 Lib, 2 Con. Your own estimate suggests that 2007 would see better results for Labour and no advance for the SNP. Surely that can’t be right? The fact the SNP only has 21 candidates may hurt it come election night.
For those interested in the impact of Barak Obama’s name…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SX3f2KmOiI&mode=related&search
yes I think only putting 21 candidates for the 20 wards may prove to be a mistake for the SNP- I dont know what the strategy is there. The SSP may poll better in Glasgow than nationally- however the unknown factor is Tommy Sheridan’s Solidarity- remember Glasgow is the electoral heartland of the SSP- many SSP voters may vote for Solidarity!Who knows! I dont see any real advance for the Tories or Lib-Dems in Glasgow! Although privately Labour are worried they may not have a majority in Glasgow- they will be less worried knowing the SNP are only fielding 21 candidates!
82 - 2007 should be different. The only evidence is from a very small sample of a recent poll.
‘The latest available poll of the Scottish Parliament voting intentions of Glasgow voters by ICM in November 2006 showed the SNP and Labour Neck and neck in the city.’
Constituency Regional
Vote Vote
SNP 34% 31%
Labour 34% 31%
Tory 6% 8%
LibDem 16% 14%
SSP 5% 4%
Ind 4% 5%
Green 1% 6%
84.”The SSP may poll better in Glasgow than nationally- however the unknown factor is Tommy Sheridan’s Solidarity- remember Glasgow is the electoral heartland of the SSP- many SSP voters may vote for Solidarity!”
Even if they poll well on first vote, SNP can always get their transfer, right?
If Glasgow is neck and neck then Labour are in utter meltdown! I cant see it! Labour will poll 5-10% more than the SNP in Glasgow- it is a Labour city through and through. The best the SNP can hope for in Glasow is winning 2 of the 10 fptp parliamentary seats- that would be a fantastic result for the SNP!
86. Yes they could transfer to the SNP of course! I think they should have maybe opted for 25 or so candidates- but many parts of Glasgow have never had any SNP Cllrs, even in the 1970s when the SNP were in administration in Glasgow, so I guess the party in Glasgow is not wanting to run too many candidates and end up with no-one elected in seats they could have got 1 cllr elected!
Anyone with any news from their Scottish local council relative to the May elections?
86 - They could do, I would think their vote is more interchangable with the SNP rather than Labour. If the SNP poll over 25% of the vote in each ward they should take one seat. I believe the quota in 3 member wards is just 25% in 4 member wards then the quota is even lower at 20%+1.
90 - I believe in Dundee where my wife is campaigning that things are going to plan and they hope to remain the largest party on the Council. How does it go in South Lanarkshire?
2. As for Tony I fear that guy is just going to go down, other than keeping quiet, where is the upside posibility for him? Be interesting to see.
by Yokel February 12th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Don’t be daft, Northern Ireland and the Stormont power sharing.
Blair should jump at least a couple of points. 10 years in the making, he has achieved what was once thought impossible. And that is with Paisley and Adams, not the moderates Hume SDLP and Trimble UUP.
All going well so far in South Lanarkshire, we are fielding 26 candidates, realistically we will get between 20-23 on the 67 seat council. I expect Tories to get 5, Lib-Dems 4-5, Independents 3 ( although a new party called the EastKilbride Alliance are fielding candidates there which could put the Independent/ others tally up a bit- I dont see them making the breakthrough in May as they are generally a bunch of people agrieved at Planning decisions- they have got a bit of cash behind them so I hear)and Labour to get 31-35. So it will be either NOC or a very small Labour maority
92 - You mean he should actually be proud of having consistently deceived, let down and marginalised the true heroes of the peace process like David Trimble?
Contemptible.
89.HamiltonNat, I really don’t know how it will play in my area because of STV, not sure how this will effect the independents of which we have 14. The Libdems are in charge with the SNP 2nd, although the conservatives only have 11 councillors they have made steady progress since the dark days of the late 90’s. At Westminster level the conservatives were 2nd, and I know there are some local issues which may swing votes in this part of the constituency.
89 etc - I don’t think much will change in the Borders to be quite honest. The SNP may pick up 1-2 and Labour may win a single seat (although that is doubtful) but other than that I expect it to stay pretty much the same.
Right I’m off to my kip- leafleting my ward after work tomorrow!
95. The demographics of my constituency have been changing very fast over the last few years because of the housing boom in Aberdeen, and it really makes it hard to predict the election outcome.
I saw this in a newspaper report: “Gordon Brown, has made it clear he has never taken illicit drugs.”
Except power and envy, perhaps, which are a politician’s drugs of choice.
Do we want such a Puritan in power?
99 - Witan, I think NOT taking drugs doesn’t make you a Puritan just less influenced and weak minded. Just like people you get in to any heavy drink or dugs its a weakness and giving in to peer pressure. I have nver smoked or taken drugs but have lived an evebtful life without them, Puritan i am not but I have a strong personal will not to cave in to silly peer pressure.
Lets not go full circle and make people who don’t take drugs the odd ones out!!
I can’t see the SNP getting much more than 21 councillors in Glasgow, roughly one per ward. But they’ll be pushed to get a second councillor in many wards. Their support is spread fairly evenly across the city (probably more so than the other parties, anyway); if they polled 34% in each ward, that wouldn’t be enough for two quotas, though they might pick up enough in transfers. Those transfers _may_ be ex-SSP, but I suspect a good deal of the SSP/SNP swing vote has probably already gone back to the SNP (hence the SNP’s good showing in the Glasgow poll). It’s quite possible, too, that SSP voters may transfer to Solidarity, and vice versa, but no further.
84. The Tories should pick up at least one more seat in Glasgow, and the Lib Dems are capable of doubling their current representation if they sweep up enough votes in the non-Labour middle-class areas.
87. The two Glasgow seats being Govan and …?
101- Gova and at a push Kelin, but that would only happen on a really bad night for Labour! Interesting to watch Pollock- where will all the Tommy Sheridan votes go there? Is he standing again in Pollock under his new Solidarity banner?
Peter I am confused. The YouGov index for Blair was 58.7 - which is what You Gov paid me (I think - unable to get into IGIndex ‘cos of a problem with Javascript - whatever that is). Bought at 54.8 so made £39 (3.9). If, as you had recommended, I had bought at 55.8 then would have made £29 (2.9) and you would have broken even.
Anyway now IG are letting me buy Blair at 61 (60.5 sell) up another 1.8 higher than the YouGov index assuming the momentum will continue. I think that Blair is likely to, at best, hold his 58.7 rating making him a clear sell. I have not yet piled in however.
94 - Tony Blair did not sideline and marginalise David Trimble - his UUP colleagues, the DUP and ultimately the voters of Northern Ireland did. Very sad I agree and he deserved much better and history will be kind to him - but to blame Tony Blair is to take a one-sided view of the peace process, the kind of view which would never have taken us to the point that we are at - within touching distance of proper power-sharing. I have as jaundiced a view of Tony Blair’s record as anyone but to describe his record in Northern Ireland as contemptible is just silly.
Re SNP and the number of candidates they are running in Glasgow locals - I’m reminded of the 1992 elections in Ireland when the Labour Party completely underestimated its own electoral strength and stood only one candidate in quite a few constituencies where two would easily have won seats.
101/102. I think SNP can get 4 Glasgow seats this year, but the most likely combination IMO is 1 FPTP +3 lists.
If Sturgeon finally gains Govan (I think she’ll be helped by the 11% who voted SSP last time in GG), even without an increase in SNP list %, they would return 2 list MSPs. The SSP/Solidarity is unlikely to return both Sheridan and Kane, so a little swing from them to SNP will give SNP a 3th list seat (they will both have to poll more than 8% to be ahead of SNP third seat and if SNP grow, as it’s likely, they’ll need even more)
105. If the polls are right and a 10% increase in SNP list vote will happen, they can get a 4th list Glasgow seat too.
I would say that Sturgeon, Ahmad (who will be the first Muslim MSP) and White are almost sure to get it. And Bob Doris have hopes too.
106. Actually (3th post in a row), Bill Kidd (5th in SNP list) has hopes too…if Sturgeon gains Govan and SNP poll something like 27% in the list, he can get in…it’ll depend on if SSP or Solidarity can get something around 7% and how the Libdems and Greens will perform
107 - I think officially the Greens are targetting 10 seats - assuming this means 2 in Lothians and 1 everywhere else there is another region where they must be targetting a second seat and I would guess that’s Glasgow. Of course we all know there’s a huge difference between official targets and realistic expectations and anyway it’s no difference to the Greens whether they say they are targetting one or two in any region (it’s exactly the same tactics). I’d guess they’ll safely retain one but be a bit away from a second.
108. 2003 Glasgow list results were:
Labour 37.7%
SNP 17.1%
Con 7.5%
LD 7.3%
Greens 7.1%
SSP 15.2%
Labour won’t win any list seats, so how much they’ll lose can be not relevant
I can see the tories being more or less static and both SNP and Libdems gaining some votes.
If the result will something like this: SNP 25%, Con 7.5%, LD 12%, Greens 7.something, Tommy Sheridan 6%, SSP 4%…the seat breakdown (if Sturgeon gains Govan) would be: SNP 3, LD 1, Con 1, Green 1 and Tommy.
92. What power sharing is that?
103 Icarus (sorry for the delay)
Your IG numbers are right and mine are wrong. IG are very slow releasing their official numbers and I inferred the wrong Blair result from a statement they sent me. Aaron pointed out the error in my piece but too late for me to correct. You are absolutely right - we broke even last week.
You did even better by taking an early price. We are bound to calculate the figures at the time of publication, which will often be a worse price than the one the selections are based on.
I agree about Blair this week - I’d sooner sell than buy, but there’s not much value in it.
[I have duplicated this post on the other thread.]