Introducing Politicalbetting “recorded wagers”?
June 12th, 2007
-
Will Lynne Featherstone hold on in Hornsey?
Those who followed yesterday’s thread will have seen a fierce argument between two long-standing contributors, Mark Senior and Gladstone, over whether the Lib Dems will hold onto Hornsey and Wood Green at the next general election.
Mark has laid a bet 5/1 on the possibility that the incumbent who took the seat in 2005, Lynne Featherstone, (pictured above promoting a soup kitchen initiative) will fail to hold onto the seat. So if she does hold on Mark gets £20 but if she doesn’t he has to pay Gladstone £100. Both of them have emailed me to confirm the bet.
-
The practice of arguments in discussion threads leading to wagers being agreed has become such a common occurrence in recent months that it struck me that we ought to have a way of publicly recording what has been agreed between the parties.
So I have decided to create one of our permanent pages where unsettled wagers like this are recorded for everybody to see.
Can I make it absolutely clear that my role is to provide a facility where people can discuss and argue. I can accept no responsibility for anything to do with the bets and people enter into wagers entirely at their own risk. You have to check out for yourself whether you want to enter into a bet and both parties have got to email me, with full name and address details showing agreement.
As for the bet it will be recalled that Lynne won Hornsey and Wood Green on May 5th 2005 after securing a massive 15% swing to the Lib Dems from Labour. Since then she has repeatedly been tipped as a possible future leader of her party and often appears in the media.
I think Labour are going to find it hard winning back seats like this from Lib Dem incumbents whatever is happening nationally and Mark looks as though he will get his £20. As for the 5/1 odds he has laid on her not doing it - I think that he has been over-generous.
Check out the POLITICALBETTING RECORDED WAGERS page here.
If anybody has other wagers that they would like recorded then please get in touch.
Mike Smithson
Picture - http://www.flickr.com/photos/lynnefeatherstone/536351113/in/photostream/
MessageSpace Advertising
good idea…
poll:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/11/nh.poll.schneider/index.html
More insomnia… as the (unwitting) instigator of the bet, and thus this thread, I’ll simply say (knowing the area a little) that Gladstone’s lost his money. Apart from anything else, no first-time candidate has ever won this seat in the last 50 years. And Labour will not find a quality candidate. The old white working class of Noel Park, or what’s left of it, may like ID cards, but hardly anyone else in that part of north London will.
I am very tempted to pick up Nick Palmer’s offer, but I think I’d better try to get some more sleep first…
Excellent idea, Mike.
And agree about those odds. I think she’ll hold on but 5/1? Very generous.
I will bet at 6/1 that the Tories will take Bury South at the next election, if anyone wants to take that up!
I just think these sort of seats where the Lib Dems took from from Labour but with sizeable Tory votes will be held easily. In most parts of the country the squeeez on Labour has almost been worked out. By conrast the Tories have barely been worked against Labour. Lib Dem holding, and maybe gaining a few more like it
Anyone seen Prince Monolulu?? If this had been running a few weeks ago I might have been £500 richer!!!
4 - I missed yesterday’s debate, but Mark Senior’s bet strikes me as a dead cert. I would be gobsmaked if Lynne didn’t massively increase her majority at the next election. (First-time incumbency bounce, plus the fact that people will believe she can win this time!)
Great idea.
O/T I was unable to attend last night’s shortlist meeting for Swansea West (Labour). Does anyone have any info on this?
7 yes, especially as he was mistaken for me and my wife would be deeply unimpressed at me making a bonkers bet like his one.
Mark Senior will win but I think the 5/1 is a bit generous, gives him a big downside if something goes wrong.
Not sure if it has been mentioned in Mark Senior vs Gladstone battle, but Labour is currently selecting in Hornsey and Wood Green. The shortlist is:
Catherine West
Jan Etienne
Karen Jennings
Nilgun Canver
Claudia Webb
Jayne Buckland
Andrea - perhaps you could give us some info re Swansea West shortlist?
13. Sorry RedFlump, but I don’t know SW. I hoped you would have been able to report it.
I’ll have to give someone a call - will report back!
13/14. The Western Mail has a piece today about the increase of BME members in Swansea West CLP and claims that some members are getting concerned about it because they fear those new members have been recruited to vote for Parvaiz Ali in the selection. According to WM there have been more than 100 new members with Pakistan or Bangladesh origins
What do you think?
Well, after a little more sleep I’ve come round to the consensus view on the bet. So I’m going to break the habit of a lifetime and offer Nick Palmer £25 at 2-1 on, winnings to go to the charity of the winner’s choice - Nick’s is the Cats’ Protection League IIRC and mine is the National Unitarian Fellowship (it has to be, I’m on its committee
- well, at least it meets on-line :)) … and if either of them lose their charitable status in the meantime, the bet is voided. (There is after all an argument that neither religion nor animal welfare deserve tax breaks…)
Hey. that sounds just like what I did with Nick Palmer MP (Lab, Broxtowe) during the local elections. In the end it turned out I had won (because the council website wasn’t accurate)!
17. IA. I’m not convinced he will be tempted by those odds. He was after 20/1.
17: Um, is this still about Hornsey, Innocent? I offered to take what I thought were 20-1 odds on behalf of my feline friends, purely on the basis that you can never be THAT sure in these things! 2-1? The cats say no, nice though the Unitarians are. I do have a charity bet that Labour will be ahead in the first July ICM which I was offered 2-1 on (£20 to the cats if we are, £10 to someone else if we’re not), and will take another £10 at those odds if Innocent or anyone else wants to…
By the way, Mark and Gladstone need to specify what happens if Lynne is not the candidate after all. Nothing in life is certain.
7 Icarus - He’s been pretty scarce since that bet went down and if he’s posting at all, it is probably under a different name.
It occurred to me that Mike perhaps ought to add a line to his disclaimer pointing out that such privately struck bets are not legally enforceable. Most punters know this but there may be a few who are unaware.
In the Monolulu case, you will remember that I offered to hold the money and made three attempts to persuade him to confirm the bet and put his money down. He never responded so he could, at a push, argue either that he backed out or never entered into it in the first place. Neither excuse would have got him very far in the dark places where I first learned to bet. He would soon have become known as a low-down bum, on account of having both legs sawn off.
PB.com is of course a more genteel environment and we do not contemplate that kind of thing, much. Mike’s little billboard for private punters is a helpful and civilized step in the right direction.
Let’s hope it works and we have no more ‘Monolulu’ incidents.
20….or what wuld happen if La Featherstone was the Labour/Conservative/Yogic Flyer candidate….
That photo doesn’t do her justice..
Catflaps!
16 - This may be true, however Dr Ali would be a brilliant candidate, is well spoken and has qualifications and community involvement as long as your arm. Swansea West could do a lot worse!
By the way, it occurs to me Mike’s service might benefit from an unofficial arbiter to rule on disputes and help sort out the kind of wrinkles Nick and others have alluded to.
I’m happy to lend my services and am sure there are others who would be willing to do so.
Let me know what you think. Got to dash now. Work.
Another point that will have to be made very clear between punters is unambiguous description of the odds . Nick Palmer and IA both refer in their posts above to odds of 2/1 on an event. 2/1 on is 1/2. ie “odds on”. If they mean “odds against” they should describe as 2/1 against the event happening.
[20] No hard feelings, Nick - I’d've taken the same view in your shoes. I think I’ve made my original point - basically that what happens to the Lib Dems next time, in terms of seats, will depend as much on local factors and their campaign strategy as upon UNS.
O/T: Interesting poll, that - the Democrats care most about Iraq, but not enough to vote for an anti-war candidate. Perhaps that’s because the feeling is that well, it’s happened, and they want a credible leader who will get them out rather than wrangling about who voted which way back then. It’s a line of thinking also visible in Britain.
18: That’s right - Harry bet me that the Tories would gain more than 1 seat from us in Broxtowe and thought it would have depended on last week’s by-election, in which case the cats would have been happily eating Gourmet. But cats don’t lie, so they informed him that the Tories had in fact gained not a measley 1 seat from us but an almost as measley 2, and a charity for retired farmers has benefited. Beware of cats in dark alleys, Harry…
DL: the Harman camp are now focusing on *last* preferences, pressing colleagues on whether they prefer Harman or Johnson. They’re very confident of getting through the early rounds. Cruddas PLP supporters are generally agreeing to give Hain 2nd preference (apart from the ones who’ve switched to making it first preference) and the Hain camp feel we’ve got the momentum to get through the first 2-3 rounds, after which it depends on whether we can catch Benn or Harman, which would throw it wide open. Johnson’s camp remain extremely laid back - I’ve not been contacted by his campaign team at all.
25. You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
I’m offering odds on what’s in the cooking pot in the caption picture :
1. Lib Dem economic policies - 25/1
2. Ming’s incontinence pants - 12/1
3. Cameron’s core vote strategy - 16/1
4. Hunky Dinky Dunky … all of him !! - 33/1
5. Michael Fabricant’s syrups - 100/1
6. Nick Soames mid afternoon snack - 7/1
7. John Prescott’s socks - 10/1
8. Andrea’s first draft dissertation - 12/1
9. Gladstone’s bollocks 2010 variety - 6/1
10. Peter the Punters greyhound !! - 100/1
11. Mike Smithson’s book - 25/1
12. seanT’s koran - 250/1
13. Benedict’s blog - 100/30 second favourite.
14. Rik W’s horses head - 4/1
15. Nick Palmer’s majority - 2/1 favourite.
OT. Intesting LA Times Poll….
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-06/30445335.pdf
Is that soup kitchen in today’s picture going to be used to feed the many destitute Labour and Lib Dem MPs after the next GE?
31. The Democrat worry in a nutshell, Hilary has the active Democrats but not the wider electorate.
On Ireland, its down to the wire on the Greens involvement. If talsk ok today then they will hold a meeting tomorrow amongst themselves to decide if they are on or not.
I don’t think Lynne is going to taste it - Jack’s ramblings perhaps?
They certainly need to make sure the fellow on the right doesn’t get to the soup, otherwise there will need to be a miracle of loaves and fishes to feed the intended recipients…
Whose that guy standing next to her, is it her dad? I think we should be told.
P.S.
Looks a bit like ‘Bill Gyles’ one time weather forecaster: where can I collect my £5.00 for spotting that?
Meanwhile …. PM elect Brown looks to restore the full role of the Scottish Secretary :
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1463828.0.0.php
……………..
34 Icarus. “Jack’s ramblings ..”
They are deceased walkers on my estate !!
[37] A probation officer for Alex Salmond, eh? Far be it from me to invite Jack W to suggest where they should fit the tag on him.
A pedant writes: you just did, you booby…
Meanwhile II …. Opposition parties in Holyrood look to clip the SNP governments wings over the Executives use of allocated funds :
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=914802007
28 You’re wrong Clinton is an anti war candidate; she’s moved far to the Left over the last year. She wants all the troops out by next Spring just as Obama does. They both voted against the Senate compromise authorising more funds for the war because it didn’t contain a timetable for withdrawal. The only difference now betwen her and the others is her refusal to apologise for her original vote to authorise the war. Edwards has said he was wrong; Obama wasn’t in the Senate but was publicly against the war at the time ( he was in the Illinois Senate). That has cost her some support among the more rabid anti war left.
37.JackW, that will be handy for Gordon. He has a few Scottish lieutenants in need of a position but he does not want to be accused of filling his cabinet with Scots, it would also mean he does not have to deal with Salmond directly on a day to day basis.
Am I the only one who finds that pic of Lynne deeply sexy??
She’s got a real look of “naughty Nigella” about her!
I think it’s the vest that does it…
42. Looks more like one of the witches from Macbeth to me.
41 - Maybe to demonstrate just how British he is he’ll give the job to an English MP. Or is it a case of Scottish jobs for Scottish workers!
In other Scottish news the Sun says McConnell will be out in three months time. Not so sure about that.
45. “the Sun says McConnell will be out in three months time” I thought initially he would stand down or be gentle pushed but I have not seen any signs of this happening, in fact he seems to be doing not to bad a job. I notice that he is keeping his main rivals close to him rather than behind him.
re 42 - 44 ….agreed. Lynne has a fantastic store of great pics on her website and I had great fun going through them finding one to illustrate this piece. My original choice was this -
http://politicalbetting.com/upload/2007/06/lynne%20featherstone.JPG
which looks a bit too worthy.
OT. Australian election quick update. The election is expected to be held in October this year. The betting market has shifted dramatically in the past week. This is on the strength of two polls by Galaxy. The first one, eight days ago, had Labor (the ALP) on 53% TPP (two party preferred), the Coalition on 47%, which was a major shift from the consistent late 50’s for the ALP. Since then, there’s been a Morgan poll with 58:42, which is in line with previous predictions. So the jury is still out on whether the Galaxy poll is an outlier. The second Galaxy poll, for Queensland alone, had the Coalition gaining 3 points on a TPP basis.
Before this betting shift, the ALP price had been closing steadily, with the average of Aussie bookies dropping from 1.85 to 1.75 to 1.65 within a month. It’s now gone back above 1.75. Much more dramatic has been the movement on Betfair, where at one stage the ALP were trading at 1.70. The latest price traded is 1.94 and there’s stacks of money available at the mid to late 1.80’s. All eyes will be on the next polls from Newspoll and AC Neilsen. I still favour the ALP to win, as Howard just seems more tired the longer he holds office.
Can anyone tell me why the Libs had such a good result and Labour fell so badly in Hornsey and Wood Green? Barbara Roache was never my favourite minister but to have things turn against you so badly there must have been something going on. This result is nearly as big a turn around as Withington but without the anti-Iraq student vote.
47. Mike if you agree with both me and MBoy re. Ms.Featherstone that suggests you have an interesting taste in women…
48
Stand by, a boat load of Afghans is on the way!!
49 Roger. I’m afraid Ms Roche was a terrible constituency MP who wound up her own supporters. A very large proportion of Labour activists (some claims of over half!) actively campaigned against her in 2005.
I took on the bet because the labour supporters that I know are all ready to return to Labour at the next General Election, having “lent” the LibDems their vote to get rid of Ms Roche. None of them are impressed by Ms Featherstone, either, BTW. I won’t bore everyone any more on that angle….
Opinion seems to be that my estimation is wrong. I’m often wrong so that would be no surprise - so we’ll see!
This does mean of course that I will now have to actively get involved in Politics to protect my own investment!
52 Gladstone. “I will now have to actively get involved in Politics ..”
Lib Dem hold then !!
52. Gladstone. You are supposed to go around saving fallen women, not causing them to fall.
“This does mean of course that I will now have to actively get involved in Politics to protect my own investment!”
Welcome! Labour will be delighted to have campaigning for them someone who chooses the username Gladstone!
5. Nice odds as a cllr for Bury South I’m probably a bit blinkered to actually comment on it.
According to the BBC “The cost of a 10-year contract to run computers for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has more than doubled to £8.5bn, according to a committee of MPs.”
Its alright, Gordon, it is only tax payers money after all.
Hi Stuart. Even if the Conservatives in Bury South had wisely chosen you as their parliamentary candidate instead of a nonentity their chances of winning would still have been zero.
Witan. Are you ‘Blue2Win’ Mk2? I’ve been wondering for a while if you were CCO’s updated program.
(If you’re not but just a Tory apparatchik apologies!)
Hey. Just caught up with the debate over my posting style - on the previous thread.
Thanks to everyone who was nice about me. Or indeed nasty. Yeah, I know I rant, especially on Europe and Iraq, but - guys - that’s because I CARE.
*sob*
I would especially like to thank Roger who compared me to a ‘pub bore, constantly wheeling out his prejudices, albeit with an occasionally interesting turn of phrase’. Curiously, that is precisely how I would describe Roger - minus the interesting turn of phrase bit.
Truly, pb.com holds up a mirror to our souls.
Onthread, I’m finding it hard to get worked up about… Hornsey. Now, about this European Constitution…
56 Stuart. I’m a bit concerned about the Conservatives on this site and their horsey fetishes ….. first Rik and his Reading nag and now PB’s favourite Tory Admiral is wearing blinkers !!
I daren’t suggest what Marcus does with a riding crop or for that matter what Max does in the saddle !!
61 …. and then again there are the Hornsey fetishes, but enough of Gladstone and his fallen women !!
seant if your were a woman, (you’re not are you?) you could have my babies.
61 I must have been away or something. What is this about Rik and a horse? Has he gone all Landed Gentry on us and take to riding about his ward on it? Or has he bought a leg or two of some racing nag?
What’s going on?
28. Have just cast my Dl vote thus:
1) Harman
2) Hain
3) Blears
4) Benn
5) Johnson
63
Coldstoned clearly !!!
………….
Meanwhile …. another Tory tonto. Poor John O …. some say he badly needs a hair cut. I say, please god NO !!!!!
http://www.karmafarms.com/images/LadyGodiva.jpg
64 - Yes, I’ve been puzzled by Jack’s new Rik and Equus fantasies. One of his more lurid Methuselah moments?
“seant if your were a woman, (you’re not are you?) you could have my babies”
I think I’m going to be sick…..
66 - This is seriously weird
I get mentioned just moments before I post.
33 - I think a previous post of mine has been caught in the spam filter but the news from Dublin is that FF and Greens have agreed a deal. It will go to a special convention of the Green Party at the Mansion House tomorrow where it will need 2/3rds support.
64/67 Augustus/John O. A rare pic of Rik’s horse campaigning for Marcus in Torbay !!
http://cbruen.com/blog/horse_funny_72006.jpg
OT. Obama’s long run at the White House :
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama_senate_recordjun12,1,5172091.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
71 Jack W. Looks like the horse overheard someone mention “Water Polo” and decided to go into training.
PS. As I go about saving fallen women, do you still want me to save one for you?
Is it time for an update on the masthead pictures? Salmond and Miliband are well past their betting sell-by date. Could we have Hillary and Harriet (purely for gender bias of course), please? If you delay ’till next week, you can lose Sego and replace her with Giuliani. If you delay a fortnight you can lose Blair (forgotten faster than a PB.com unrecorded wager) and introduce Nick Clegg as a summer of LDem intrigue approaches.
70. With or without PD?
71. Is that the “feral beast” that’s been tormenting Blair?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6744261.stm
Tony Blair has just bit the hand that fed him for 14 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6744261.stm
Unbelievable, the man who unleashed New Labour; Peter Mandelson and Alistair Cambpell on an unsuspecting world is now complaining about the press being increasingly “and to a dangerous degree” driven by “impact” which was, in turn, “unravelling standards, driving them down,” he said..
Funny, or tragic?
73 Gladstone. I’d like to say yes !! … but “her indoors” sometimes scrutinizes my on-line dribblings !!
77 Marcus. Beaten to it by 3 minutes …. get that riding crop out and beat yourself again !!
70. The Betfairs suggest FF/Green/PD if the one which would be ok for a small profit after taking them at 2.8 or so last week.
76. The BBC says: Mr Blair concluded his speech by saying he had made it “after much hesitation” and he expected it to be “rubbished in certain quarters”, but it “needed to be said - so I’ve said it”.
He no longer cares, does he? For the past few weeks he’s been behaving like an A-level student after the last exam is over. And he’s off to negotiate a new European Treaty? Someone send for the jacket, this man is away with the fairies in political terms.
77. Yes, it’s an irony richer than a billionaire’s Christmas cake. New Labour complaining about the media? It’s like Quentin Tarantino complaining about all that violence in the movies.
I wonder, at the risk of returning to a well-trodden them, if this is something to do with Europe. Blair wants to sign up to an EU Constitution next week, without a referendum. But he knows he - or Brown - will get absolute hell, from an infuriated press, if they do any such thing.
Maybe that’s what’s on his mind. Certainly something had to provoke this bizarre and naive speech. You’ve got to wonder if Blair has any idea how the rest of us now perceive him and his “project”.
77 No he makes a fair point. New Labour, spin and all that was a reaction to the below the belt hammering doled out to Labour and Kinnock in 1992. He is totally in his rights to say what he has.
82. He won’t sign up, he’s been told not to without enough opt outs to make the thing irrevelant.
70. Deal has apparently not been completed,quite yet,…according to the Greens.
84. And this is based on what inside information? And what does “irrelevant” mean in this context? And who’s “told him” to do this?
83. No no no! Absolute twaddle. New Labour wrote the rules and must now live by them.
Sensationalising and trivialising politics and the trampling of personalities is an Alistair Campbell trademark.
It wasn’t “a reaction to the below the belt hammering doled out to Labour and Kinnock in 1992″ it was a reaction to losing four times on the trot.
I know its a bit rich for Tony to moan about the media, but be fair - he does have a point. Watching ITV News (which I rarely do as it’s just Daily Mail TV) is a torture for me. Every utterance is given that cynical “raised eyebrow why-are-they-saying-this” spin to it. Spin does not just come from the politicians - the media spin in spades too.
87. Quite. When New Labour start complaining how the media is driven by impact,
87 No you’re wrong.
e.g. From the Marr article on the subject…
Blair, Brown, Mandelson and Campbell had watched Neil Kinnock being torn to shreds by hostile journalism, abetted by a pretty ruthless Number 10 operation in the Thatcher era, and had resolved “this will never happen to us again”.
Dear Jack W its only a weekend thing, i’n affraid. ;).
Roger. I’m affraid in Bury South its religous politics in play (well in Whitefield and Prestwich in Radcliffe its more traditional pavement politics. Ivan didn’t do himself any favours with his core support by very publicly leaving his wife for a Prestwich councillor.
Whoops! Got over excited. Start again.
When New Labour complains about media standards, and the media’s obsession with impact, I can’t help remembering New Labour’s immediate reaction to 9/11:
“Today is a good day to bury bad news”.
Who lowered those standards, Tone?
87 Marcus. Don’t you feel a sense of irony in your own posts, days after Cameron has appointed the former editor of the “News of the Screws” as Spin Master in Chief !!
Now where are those second hand royal bugs !!
93 - watching this exchange is a bit like having ring-side seats for the kettle accusing the pot of a being a particularly fine shade of obsidian!
92. Actually, to set the record straight, what Jo Moore said after watching the Twin Towers get hit was WORSE than the reported line. The New Labour spin lady actually said this:
“It’s now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors’ expenses?”
Councillors’ expenses????
Yeah, Tony, those moral standards being driven down by the media. Awful.
lol
Marcus 87 - how wrong can you be. The Tories wrote the rules in the 80’s by butchering Labour with their medias friends. Bernard Ingram is only John the Baptist to Alistair Campbell’s JC - You have got what you deserved for being complacent and assuming that Labour would just sit there and take it on the chin and not fight back.
Labour’s media mangement has been for me one of the great success stories of the last decade, and almost unimaginable after the 80’s. Just remeber Michael Foot’s coat.It has been essential to three election victories and so wholly justified.
Having watched all this Paris Hilton crap in the last few days you realise at what level the public are. Politics has to pitch into that millieu. WE don’t read manifestos anymore
You can stake your life that Cameron will be EXACTLY the same
90 Jonathan. Marr MAY be correct in what he writes, but he is hardly an unbiased commentator! He’s Labour through and through - he would say that, wouldn’t he?
Personally I thought Jo Moore’s mistake was to say it. Every media person from every party would have done the same. It is their job
90. Oh so if Andrew Marr says it it must be true. Is that the same Andrew Marr the well-known Labour activists and member?
Come off it Jonathan, you’re well off the mark here.
It was Campbell who, for instance, passed the rumour that John Major tucked his shirt into his pants; very mature political commantary eh?
Kinnock got a drubbing from the press because he was a rubbish leader who lost the 1992 election for Labour single handed; he was attacked by left wing media as much as the right through sheer frustration, not because of any orchestrated Tory campaign.
It was Labour who designed and perfected the black arts of media manipulation; which they have continued in Government.
Oh and one more thing. For all those wittering on about spin, it is time to grow up. This game is not for laughs played to gentleman’s rules. It is about things that matter and people’s lives. How you sell yourself is absolutely crucial.
97 With a single stroke you underline the point Blair made. Just substitute the word politician with journalist.
“There will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying, as there is coverage of them actually saying it”
96 - “will be”?
He cut his teeth spinning the evaporation of £1.7bn of shareholders’ funds with the collapse of OnDigital.
96. Spot on.
The Labour line is spin and the Tory line is gospel truth, that’s how it always is…
The idea that Labour ‘wrote the rules’ for papers like the Daily Mail is delusion on a grand scale.
94 Tabman. Is obsidian the new black ??
Get a life Marcus. The grey pants gag was a great joke - and captured the spirit of the man perfectly. You’ve just got to get a gag of your own
The black arts of media came with politics I think you will find
“Kinnock got a drubbing from the press because he was a rubbish leader” - tell that to the Militant Tendency. Neil K dragged Labour from the brink. Will your Neil K (i.e. Cammy) do the same?
98. But Jo Moore came out and said it. That’s the thing. Labour is as shameless and amoral in its use of the media as any party in British history. Yes they have been very skilful in manipulating the press, yes this could be seen as a ’success’, yes this probably was an understandable reaction to the savaging Kinnock got in the 80s.
Nonetheless it is literally undeniable that Labour have worked tirelessly (sometimes in tandem with a willing media) to turn politics into a game of spin, evasions, hype and expectation-management.
This is surely the first ever party to launch a brutal war against an unthreatening country, a war which has killed half a million people, where the decisions to go to war have been significantly informed by the advice of the PM’s media spokesman.
Labour spun a WAR (which we then lost). You can’t get round that.
96. Having watched all this Paris Hilton crap in the last few days you realise at what level the public are
Quite right - and to think we let these imbeciles vote.
107 Name a war that hasn’t been spun?
SeanT - For me the war was a moral cause. Saddam was a bad man and had to go. To sit complacently and in luxury in various places, paid for by your publisher and hope that he will go away - that is the amoral position
109. What an idiotic comment.
111 War and spin are bed fellows. You can’t have one without the other.
O/T New Rasmussen poll out, and Fred Thompson clearly has the big momentum. Now tied with Giuliani at 24%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary
111, I don’t see anything idiotic about that. Propaganda has been a part of every war ever fought, practiced by both sides. Personally I think Blair sincerely believed what he said, but I know some will never give him the benifit of the doubt on that.
I’m not sure I agree with Blair’s comments today, but those trying to argue that the ‘culture of spin’ is entirely a product of the Labour Party are completely delusional.
109. The Second World War. The Falklands War. The War of Jenkins’ Ear.
Basically no war in history has been packaged and sold to the public in the way the Gulf War was. This is explicable - the premises for the war were shaky, the WMD claim dubious, the voters hostile, the American’s worryingly gung-ho, the aftermath unplanned, the invaded area inflammable, and the army unsure of the legality of the whole enterprise. So Labour spun the war to make it - just - sellable to the Commons and the British people.
And now they reap the whirlwind of those awful lies.
John, Jonathan and Red Flump. I am not complaining about the media, Tony Blair is.
Tony Blair.
The man who sanctioned a war based on lies and spin. Who allowed headlines like ‘nuclear strike within 45 minutes’ to go unchallenged.
If the rules of the game have changed then fair enough; we will play by the new rules.
But to argue that this ’started’ in the 1980’s is stupid and facile. In the 1980’s there was a real and ongoing y in the road ahead for Britain; Labour wanted to go one way, Thatcher another.
Wholly different politics, wholly different media.
110. So, John, because “Saddam was a bad man and had to go” that justifies ANY lies, ANY spin, ANY deceit does it, so long as we do the “Right thing” at the end of it?
#112 - That hardly makes it okay, though. What next? “BAe have always paid bribes to foreigners” perhaps? I thought Labour people were supposed to be on the progressive side, wanting to make things better?
At least when I moan about these sorts of things to the Labour canvassers they have the decency to say that, actually, yes, they agree and hate it as much as me, but at least they aren’t the Tories…
110. Oh please. Does my job really annoy you that much? Get a life.
Of course Saddam was a bad man, I’m just unconvinced that killing half a million Iraqis, destabilising the region, poisoning relations with Islam, endangering Israel further, drumming up hatred of the West, demoralising our army, ruining the reputation of our civil service and intelligence agencies, and bring still more terrorism to our own shores, while laying waste to half the Middle East, was the IDEAL way to get rid of him.
Yes Jan very interesting. Poor old McCain only has a 47% approval rating in his home state of Arizona. Although in many ways he’s a courageous man, taking bold stands on the Iraq war and immigration I think there’s a limit to how many times you can be associated with democrats on big issues ( McCain/Feingold on campaign finance and McCain Kennedy on immigration.) The second quarter figures for fund raising will be fascinating but I’m no longer absolutely sure that McCain can keep going until super duper Tuesday next February. His chances of winning the nomination look slim to me.
115 - Oh, but seant, the aftermath was planned for, that was one of the most maddening things. The State Department drew up a plan, which Rumsfeld, Cheney et al, threw into the bin, on an ideological whim.
Whither British influence? Our ministers were too busy rubbishing the French. Pathetic.
“Basically no war in history has been packaged and sold to the public in the way the Gulf War was.”
Complete and utter bullsh1t. Just look at the first world war, the “war to end all wars”. Come on get real. Oh and BTW you have no evidence to back up your so called unspun wars.
“The first casualty of war is truth” is true. War is hell. The 2nd gulf war is nothing special in that regard.
115. I think you would probably have to go back to the Boer War to find a war whose cause was as manufactured and whose presentation to the public was as deceitful as that of the Iraq war.
Re the Bury South debate, I’m intrigued to see this marked out as a potential Tory gain. Is there any particular reason, Noisy Summer, why you think it might be do-able? (I may well be living in that seat by the time of the next GE, but I doubt my solitary vote is going to make much difference…)
I had written off Bury South as a no-hope for the Tories next time, and would be inclined to agree with Roger (really!) for once in his assessment. I would have thought with demographic change, this was becoming much less of a Tory prospect.
Of course, if it could be won by the Tories, then I guess we would be looking at a Tory majority similar to what Labour has now…
110 no it is the realpoiltik position where you weigh the balancing forces in the world and do things to try and promote Britain’s interests and accept that there are bad people out there who do very bad things. You are right, sometimes governments are amoral; it’s because personal feelings aside, they have to be.
Blair is right in that the UK is still a war fighting country; unlike the Jessies who make up a large part of NATO, who wring their hands at any opportunity but won’t will the means to do anything. The problem for Blair is he is a cheerleader for an illegal war that has made things worse. You say the war was about regime change. Blair specifically said it wasn’t and that he was happy for Saddam to stay in power sans WMD. Refusing to spend the necessary resources on defence also shows Blair up to be strong on rhetoric, weak on delivery - but we all knew that anyway.
In 1918 US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson is purported to have said: The first casualty when war comes is truth. However, this was not recorded. In 1928 Arthur Ponsonby’s wrote: The ‘When war is declared, truth is the first casualty’. (Falsehood in Wartime) Samuel Johnson seems to have had the first word: ‘Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.’ (from The Idler, 1758)- From the Guardian Notes and Queries
113.
I have to say its pretty extraordinary but Fred has yet to get into the cut and thrust. Either he’ll steamroller everyone or he will go baclwards when it comes to debate.
I’ve laid off all I needed to on him and now I’m wishing I’d hung on for more profit.
122. I can’t remember any previous war, even one as idiotic as the First World War, being sold to the Commons on the basis of a postgraduate essay ripped off the Internet.
“Lord Kitchener, I found this ‘ere article on Google, written by some kid in San Diego. Says we should attack across the Somme”
“Blimey, that’s interesting. But this sixth form girl on Myspace thinks we should invade the Dardanelles.”
“Let’s do both!”
John Wheatley:
Labour’s media management has been for me one of the great success stories of the last decade.
Personally I thought Jo Moore’s mistake was to say it.
Well, thanks for confirming everything they say about NuLab activists. The Americanisation of British politics continues, and lets make no mistake - it is the Labour Party that is driving it now. I thought the right reaction to the Tory wolf-pack of the 80’s was to reign it in and re-establish mature politics. Labour instead decided to fight fire with fire in Blair’s 10 years.
Brown says he will reverse it, but with so many NuLab robots screaming “NO SURRENDER” in Ulster tones I just dont see it happening.
128 SeanT. That reminds me of the competition that the BBC Radio 4 held, where you had to write an opening for a mythical book “How Green Were The Nazis?”. A section reads “”Well, gentlemen” General Busse announced to his colleagues “there is no way we can attack them through the forest - the damage to the environment would be too great. Our panzer tanks still emit excessive CO2 and the electric hybrid version is still on the drawing-board.” ”
If anyone wants a break from the serious stuff, the full article is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/misc/titles_listener_suggestions_20070312.shtml
129. If they are anything like those that speak such words in Ulster tones, they probably won’t give in either……
If Brown really wants to restore trust in “intelligence” then he has to remove the chap who was in charge of producing the dossier.
Blair promoted him afterwards as a reward.
These questions would not be asked by Mr or Mrs Marr.
Interesting thread. Thucydides explained that the *actual* causes of a war are usually different from the stated reasons for it.
128 Try the Bryce Report if my history serves me right…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bryce_Report
There’s nothing new.
134 In fact, plenty of atrocities against Belgian civilians *were* committed by German forces.
135. And the German invasion of Belgium, the casus belli for the UK, was also an actual event - unlike the fabricated case for the Iraq war. I think we need to stop muddying the waters here by conflating the inevitable existence of wartime propaganda with deceitful justifications for launching wars.
134. One big difference between the First World War and the Gulf War, along with all the other differences, is that you can be sure as hell that Asquith’s Imperial Government didn’t get into power by promising “an ethical foreign policy”, or that they would be “whiter than white”.
In those days realpolitik, and ruthless pursuit of national self interest, were accepted as being part and parcel of foreign policy.
Blair and New Labour, by contrast, came to power with the express intention of acting like Mother Theresa on anti-depressants, sorting out the world’s problems while remaining saintly and unimpeachable. Then they presided over a squalid and failed war, founded on lies, cant and spin, that butchered half a million people.
It’s the contrast, you see, the contrast.
BTW Gulf War = Blair’s Iraq War. Just to avoid confusion.
137. Arguably though SeanT a strict realpolitik approach to WWI would probably have led the UK to stay out, in the same way that we refrained from interfering in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. That is what the Germans expected - they did not believe we would risk all out war over treaty obligations to a small state like Belgium.
137 Asquith’s government probably *did* proclaim that it would conduct an ethical foreign policy. Many of them had campaigned strongly against the Boer War and “Chinese Slavery” in South Africa.
Liberal leaders after Palmerston never felt comfortable with realpolitik.
“That is what the Germans expected - they did not believe we would risk all out war over treaty obligations to a small state like Belgium”
That was an extremely foolish miscalculation on their part, and certainly not one that Bismark would have made.
141. Correct, and they certainly paid the price for it. One wonders though, whether or not the UK might have taken a more indulgent attitude if a) the Germans had not violated Belgium or b) the Germans had not engaged in a naval arms race with Britain prior to WWI which had clearly marked them out as a major eventual threat to British interests.
Is it just me or does that Liberal MP actually look quite attractive in the photo above?
137 the whole ‘ethical’ foreign policy thing showed that Robin Cook hadn’t really moved on from NUS debates. It’s just symptomatic though of how the New Labour project adopted language to keep it’s supporters on track and coax over the middle classes.
For the same reason, now it looks like the core vote might crumble in certain parts of the country we have Brown’s BNP-inspired ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ rubbish. For Blair to now complain about media treatment would be shocking if I thought he had any shame.
141. Well, we’re getting arcane here, and outrageously off-topic - whither Hornsey? - but I have personally always felt British involvement in World War One was a hideous error and a national tragedy. So the Germans would have duffed up the French, so what.
We could have remained in Splendid Isolation, our economy intact, the Empire untroubled, and not suffered the deaths of a million brave men.
Indeed without us the Russians might then not have gone to war, or not have fought it in the same way, and therefore no Bolshevik Revolution.
What was the point in Britain fighting the Great War? For the French, of all people?
This is indeed a long way from Hornsey and Wood Green. In fact that would make a good title for a fairly crap book about life in the trenches. A Long Way from Hornsey and Wood Green.
>What next? “BAe have always paid bribes to foreigners” perhaps?
The links between Blair and Asquith are there. Ireland, Lords reform, War, interesting relationship with Chancellor.
142 I doubt if a German attack on France, per se, would have led to war with Britain. But, as you surmise, the construction of a huge German navy was perceived as a threat by Britain, and there was no way that Britain would ever have allowed Belgian ports to fall into German hands.
What I admire about Bismark is just how clear-sighted he was. He was single-minded in transforming Prussia into the most powerful land power in Europe, but having achieved that, he had no interest in further territorial acquisitions or colonial adventures. He had no liking for Britain, but perceived that no German interest would have been served by trying to challenge the supremacy of the Royal Navy.
Sorry, last comment at 146 got caught in the punctuation trap (right angles kill the rest of the message). I was just going to rpely to Timothy: you do rel;aise that the alleged bribery was done in 1985 under Mrs T? The *political* interest in public inquiry, prosecution and so on would be overwhleming for Labour. But the national interest in making an enemy of Saudi Arabia over an alleged offence 22 years ago is probably not - unfortunately.
O/T: I was talking earlier to Hilary Benn about the DL, and he observed that only two of the candidates have had media comment on their appearance, clothes and bags - yes, the women. “It shows what a sexist climate we still have - does anyone comment on this (points to his battered satchel)? No.” Good point, I thought.
(My votes, in case anyone is interested, were Hain/Benn/Blears/Harman/Johnson/Cruddas) Hain had a full-page ad in the Mirror this week, incidentally.
145 One can speculate endlessly. But German naval vessels in Belgian and Northern French ports would most likely have led to war between Germany and the UK.
149. You mean you missed the comments about Hain looking an expensive shade of orange?
Back to the thread - does anyone know whether Rik Willis has put his hat eating/Bromley by-election wager up yet?
Re: 145 & 150: Russian involvement to protect Serbia was always likely once it happened Austria was going to attack. The network of alliances did the rest and countries like Italy and Romania were subject to a dutch auction of promises from the belligerents.
Sean Fear has it about right. The British weren’t prepared to let the Channel ports fall into German hands. Had the Germans followed the 1870 rules rather than the Schlieffen Plan who knows..
Politically, the momentum FOR war was very strong and it’s highly probable Asquith’s Government would have collapsed with Churchill and some other ministers resigning. To be fair, though, a General Election would have delayed involvement still further and by then France might have already collpaed with no British presence at Mons or on the Marne.
149 If any of the male candidates was good looking (or indeed very ugly), I’m sure someone would have commented on that fact.
151 Perhaps the composer of “Hey, Mr. Tangerine Man” should update it so that it’s about Peter Hain, rather than Robert Kilroy Silk.
143 Stonch. I think you must have been sampling your home brew a bit too early and it has done something to your eyesight! However, since you like the Hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, here is another photo of her from her own website:
http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/photos/lf-colour-highres.jpg
She’s single, apparently, if you are interested!
149 - I was aware that the corruption started in 1985, but I had understood that it carried on for a sodding long time. Quite how long, and which British subjects were implicated, are precisely the sorts of things that a law-abiding country should investigate.
It isn’t something we should compromise on to please a dictatorship.
Nick at 149. Sorry but you are on dodgy territory over Bae.
Just like the FOI act and the The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 you guys came in and introduced badly thought through piece of legislation that has come back to bite you where it hurts.
In the 1980’s when the deal was done the view was that what the Saudi King cared to do with his own money was their own affair. Whether we like it or not Saudi is a Kingdom and the States money is the Kings to spend as he sees fit; in his case he has chosen to do a deal whereby his friends and allies benefit hugely from ‘commissions’.
Although we would consider it unethical it was not illegal.
Whatever we think of the morality of that from our Western perspective it is perfectly normal -indeed preferred- business practice there for the King to spread his good fortune in this way.
You introduced legislation (imposing our Western view about what is, and what is not corruption) that has made the whole package look as though *your* Government have covered up a ‘crime’ that, had you not introduced the 2001 act, would have been perfectly legal dealings.
You should have either had the balls to see the prosecution through, or you should have never introduced the legislation in the first place.
Either way it is a problem entirely of your own making.
It isn’t something we should compromise on to please a dictatorship”
To be fair, I can’t imagine any government would do differently.