Brown replaces Blair as Britain’s most unpopular politican
March 24th, 2007
-
Peter Smith reports that Blair Backers are Beaming …again
Whether or not it was his performance on Comic Relief, there is no doubt that those who followed our advice to back Blair last week were smiling all the way to the bank.
The great showman continued his climb in YouGov’s Popularity poll, reaching his highest score of the year and moving ahead of his Downing Street neighbour…which gives rise to some interesting if somewhat mischievous speculation.
-
What if Our Tone continues to wow the crowds, whilst The Dour One descends further into the darkness of public disapproval? Could it just possibly happen that St Anthony will feel suddenly obliged to save his beloved Party and The Nation by abandoning his plans for a long and lucrative lecture tour and remaining in Office instead?
Admittedly he would be reneging on a promise, but what would that matter if, by so doing, he saved us all from The Bogeyman? So far, all attempts to find an Anybody But Gordon candidate have failed for the want of a plausible Anybody. Maybe we were overlooking the obvious. Maybe, just maybe…..
This morning you could back Tony Blair to still be Prime Minister beyond October 2007 at 40/1 with William Hill. You might like to check that out when the market reopens.
Here are our results in full for the the week ended 23rd March 2007
Tony Blair Buy 2 points at 62.0 Score: 65.9 Profit:7.8
Gordon Brown Buy 1 point at 67.3: Score 65.5: Loss (1.8)
William Hague Buy 1 point at 96.2: Score 99.0: Profit 2.8
David Cameron Sell 1 point at 90.8: Score 89.7: Profit 1.1
Profit for week 9.9
Profits from earlier weeks 20.5
Total profit to date 30.4
Those sticking scrupulously to our suggestions at a £10 per point stake would therefore be £304 up over the two months since we started. We appreciate that you may not always be able to get on at the prices stated, which are right at the time of going to press but which can move quickly. On the other hand, you may have done even better.
If, for example, you followed the strong advice given during the week by Aaron and Mike to close out the Brown position when he was showing a 1.9 plus, just after the Budget, your net profit for the week would have been 13.6 – that’s £136 to recommended stakes. Not bad for one week.
If you have not already joined the IG gravy train and intend to open an account with them, please mention the site. They pay a small commission which helps with site expenses. Although they do on the whole prefer unsuccessful punters, there is no indication that they intend to ban PBers – yet.
Our tips for next week’s contest will be published on Monday. Have a great week.
Peter Smith (Peter the Punter)
MessageSpace Advertising
I changed the Brown buy to a Brown sell and made profits all round
Good tips peter!!
It official. It is over for Brown. Not just the cover story but much more. This is the most astonishing revelation in the last 13 years.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2042290,00.html
We now know who the next Prime Minister will be and it is not Brown. Now Browns chances are shrinking ever faster.
Tip.
If you have any money in your account Miliband is your man. Get in before the end of the weekend - the odds will be revised dramatically up by the bookies. Also short Brown fast (i.e. sell Brown).
1. Quite a number of people did that, Rob. I stuck stubbornly to my original bet but I still finished well up.
Thanks for your kind remarks. If you - or anybody - wants to join in the fun of picking the bets, please feel free to contact me direct at arklebar@talktalk.net
“Although [IG] do on the whole prefer unsuccessful punters”
Not so - IG makes its money on the spread, not on whether one or other particular punter is successful.
4 - Do you have any idea on Ming’s position for week ending 23rd?
7 Increased from 76.8 to 79.6, Rob.
7 - Wow! I randomly decided to buy him £2 at 73.5! Awesome
Imagine if Miliband did run and he won the MPs section (and possibly the members section) but lost the Unions section by enough so that Brown narrowly won overall.
Then, as well as having the most unpopular politician in Britain as PM, we would also literally be in the position of the Unions having chosen that Prime Minister.
If that happened then the result of the next election really would be Labour wipe-out!
9 This is what makes it all so improbable, Mike L. Do you think Labour MPs, activists and Trade Unionists are too stupid to see that?
Mike L good point.
The evidence, for which we can thank a previous poster, is that the Union section is even more hostile to Brown than party members. More then 50% of union members did not support Brown according to a YouGov poll. After this week those looking to support someone else is likely to be far greater.
So Brown is already at a disadvantage in the Union section of the electoral college.
2-did you saw the leader comment…is simple “you(GB) didn’t prove to be good enough yet” and, once again, the guardian is doing a good campaign against GB
2 - Proof if proof were needed that TB certainly does not wish GB to succeed him, but Miliband will need maximum time to organise and mount a campaign. This would seem to open up another betting opportunity - that of buying Q3 2007, rather than Q2 2007, for Blair to step down, both currently available on Betfair at approx even money.
11. But the Union section will surely prefer Brown to Miliband. They may prefer a left winger, but once that person is eliminated their second preferences will go to Brown over Miliband.
Thanks Mike L.
So Miliband will have an edge amongst MP’s and members. I suspect he will gain this easily, given what has happened this week.
13.
Tip. Buy Q3 as this is inevitably needed for Miliband’s campaign.
I have liked Millibland more recently. I also like Benn. But these guys are in touchy-feely positions at the Environment and International Development. They have never been in a tough, gutsy job where you have to make unpopular decisions. Could they do it?
The spinning against Gordon is extreme now. Are Chris Huhne’s rich friends involved?
All this strikes me as actually designed to put pressure on Miliband publically to run, to get a bandwagon rolling and show him he’s got a chance.
If thats so, then by logic Miliband is clearly reluctant. Question is, why?
I think Miliband may fear a beating, if he can at least put up a strong showing then hes in pole position next time around, which could only be two years away. Either that or really just doesnt have the ambition, no sin. I’m not sure he has star quality either.
The one factor that could change it is a stalking horse type throwing their hat in the ring, whos purpose is to break the current situation wide open. No chance of winning but by their presence (they need to be credible) show up the extent of any weaknesses in the Brown support, some of which bound to be half hearted. If a stalking horse announces they are going to stand soon and shows a good level of support then it enables Miliband to say that the party clearly needs an alternative and have a gauge of that level of support before he fornally announces so, at least, he puts up a very good showing as the stalking horse mysteriously sees their support fade as soon as Miliband stands.
All speculation of course but what we are looking at is a John the Baptist character to blaze a trail but ultimately, not run if Miliband stands.
SBS you may have missed reading this :
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2042290,00.html
Act before the odds move against you.
I should finish by saying that, still on current form and indeed even if Miliband stands, the winner is still likely to be Gordon however slim the majority.
The spin against Gordon is to cripple him whether someone stands or not. If its just Gordon and and McDonnell watch figures enmerge on what a successful result will be for Gordon. The bar may well be set high, thus falling short will be a failure even if he carried 70-75% to McDonnells 25-30% for example.
I feel I’ve entered an alternative universe since the budget - sorry but Milliband? The man comes across as an earnest policy wonk (look at Fridays Politics Show for how he comes across tovoters). Gordon would steamroller him. If it became a serious contest Labour would implode as factionalism broke out.
There isn’t the time. Blair will have to go shortly after the May elections because that’s what the party expects; they gave him his 6 month farewell tour, he’s not Frank Sinatra, coming back to popular acclaim. Face it in 6 weeks he’ll give a date, the campaign proper will start and the Gordon launch will commence.
Gordon shouldn’t be the only realistic candidate but Blair/Brown behemoth has trampled any other candidate to dust or they’ve self destucted.
19 - no, Will, I have read it. I’m not a Labour supporter, but I just don’t think Milliband or Benn have the fight. They are in “nice” jobs, which command respect, but are not a good apprenticeship for leadership. A spell in a less “touchy feely” job, and either could be next leader but one.
It is looking increasingly as if Brown may be b&ggered, but I still think he will hang on. If he doesn’t, a credible candidate must emerge from somewhere. But from where?
And for God’s sake - let it not be Reid. Please don’t let that authoritarian be PM.
why all this campaign against gordon(the guardian,specially)?
Ted clearly the Obserber disagrees in their lead story. Who are we to second guess them.
Yes the Brown bandwagon is distraught. But that’s politics. Throwing a tantrum will just make the situation worser still for Brown, as he will look like a sore loser.
18 Interesting theorising, Yokel. Clarke/Milburn would of course be obvious candidates for stalking horse(s).
Btw, I meant to refer you to a sad but realistic article about Edwards’ chances in the Democrat nomination race. Basically it said that worthy though his intentions may be, there was simply no chance he could carry through a campaign with his wife’s illness such a factor. Backers might wish him well, as I’m sure we all do, but realistically they would have to start looking elsewhere.
There’s still some lay money on offer at around 12/1. I’d take it if you are still green on Edwards.
Another article speculated on who might pick up Edwards’ votes. Neither Clinton nor Obama are well placed. Biden is a possibility but Al Gore could also benefit. His price has tightened slightly in the last week or so.
Remember Labour MP’s, members and Union members will be influenced by the Guardian/Observer, just as Conservatives are by the Telegraph.
With Murdoch showing ambivalanece its all up for grabs. Brown is in quicksand. Standing aside is the best thing he can do to prevent a humilating defeat.
22. I posted on the previous thread that the only other 2 heavyweights who would be credible as PM are Reid and Straw.
With Straw now officially out (unless if Brown withdraws) then that basically leaves Reid.
I think there are only 3 possible winners - Brown, Miliband and Reid.
Mike L, I agree completely.
straw is officially out…he is going to run gordon’s campaign
Straw is a credible choice for Chancellor. Balls isn’t. However, the Balls market is fairly slack, so difficult to lay him at a sweet price. That said, I haven’t changed my view of a few months back, that a fair price for him should be in double figures.
One theory on the Balls movement is that he is now effectively the Minister for the City. His profile has been raised with City types, a known gambling constituency, but not necessarily experts in political gambling. So I think quite a lot of naive money is coming on the market. Mop it up if you can!
Furthermore it will be straightforward for Miliband and Reid to get their 44 nominations. The only doubt is over Brown.
31 Thanks Arb, that’s very helpful. The background explanation you give is wholly credible and fits in with the rest of the picture.
‘Miliband: PM wants me to challenge Brown for No 10.’ Just published.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390207-details/Miliband%3A+PM+wants+me+to+challenge+Brown+for+No+10/article.do
The bandwagon is rolling.
Miliband was right when he said hat after 6 months of Gordon we would all want Tony back, however Tony has another problem in the cash for peerages stakes namely that apparently the police wanted to interview him under caution.
See here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
Its not looking good for Labour is it?
Is this another “this time miliband will run” and he says “no” or this time exist a real chance? can someone,please,give a straigh answer
Re 35, No. Sorry.
Quoted from ES today.
‘Influential former Labour Minister Peter Kilfoyle, a key figure in Mr Blair’s Labour leadership campaign in 1994, stepped up the pressure on Mr Brown last night, echoing former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull’s claim that the Chancellor is ‘like Stalin’.
‘Mr Kilfoyle said: “Stalin waited until he had taken over before he began the show trials’
Re 37, Will, can I assume you are not a Brownite?
39-thanks
36 not 39-thanks
Re 40, Thats OK!
It is difficult to tell who will break for cover. Anyone who has looked like breaking for cover in the past has had his “legs broken”.
41. lol
Now Brown will get his comeuppence.
41-”legs broken” it’s hard to imagine who broke them…
If Blair wanted Milliband to succeed him, why didn’t he give him a more prominent job in the last reshuffle? Why DEFRA?
Granted I was only 9 or 10 at the time, but it has always been said that Thatcher promoted Major to Chancellor precisely to create a credible alternative candidate to succeed her, in order to stop Heseltine.
Blair has singularly failed to do the same. Why? Is he simply inept? Does he think his preferred candidates aren’t capable of taking on a big job without embarrassing themselves?
Recent reshuffles hardly seem designed to block a future Brown premiership.
I suspect this is simply Blairite manoeuvring. They want to be able to shift the blame anywhere but on themselves. It will be Brown’s fault for not being Blairite enough, Milliband’s fault for not standing against him, or his fault for not “saying the right things” if he does stand, and then loses. And so on and so forth. This buck-passing technique is eerily familiar… oh, it’s the way the country’s been run for the past 10 years.
Remember Mrs Thatcher. Never more than Education Secretary - she won, and went on to win elections. Also Blair never more then a shadow post, not even in government, also won, and won elections.
May be it’s not such an important requirment. Electability is all that counts.
45. Margaret Thatcher became leader of the opposition before becoming PM. That’s one of the three launch-pads for future PM’s; the other two being chancellor and foreign secretary. Environment Secretary, has not traditionally been a passport to anywhere other than another cabinet job - and is less important under Labour as it had local government and the like removed to go initially into the DETR, now with Ruth Kelly.
44. From what I remember reading, it’s been speculated that it’s not that Margaret Thatcher wanted Major at the Treasury as a possible successor for 1990 - she had every intention of going on and on, though she might have viewed him as a possible successor for 1995 or 1996 - but that she wanted an alternative chancellor to Lawson available, which is why she moved him to the Foreign Office in 1989. Him becoming chancellor was meant to be him fulfilling the role she had for him, rather than it being her setting up her own succession for 1990.
David H Yes, he was a praetorian not a successor in waiting.
I say again Margaret Thatcher had never been more than Education Secretary, before she won the leadership.
Not only did she win the leadership she also won 3 consecutive elections. So being Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary is NOT required to win a leadership race. The only requirment is electability, which both Thatcher and Blair had.
Does Brown? Let’s be honest. He is sinking fast,and grabbing a biased BBC smokescreen of a story, is not going to distract from the above.
There is someone that IS electable. Miliband is heading for an easy win.
5 - that’s utterly incorrect, I’m afraid. Theoretically, spread firms make money “from the spread”; just as traditional bookies make money “from the overround”.
But some (few!) customers win in the long-term, and most lose; moreover bookies and spread firms usually end up taking a position on every event since the bets taken don’t balance out. Bookies can can losing days and even losing weeks - losing months are rare!
Most bookies eventually restrict, or even close, long-term winning accounts. Spread firms are amongst those most renowned for doing so.
50 Yes, I thought that was the case Aaron, so I am glad you have confirmed it.