Doing well in the polls and the markets - so when will he run?
July 14th, 2007
Could he make it past Giuliani to be the Republican nominee?
Without actually having declared yet, Fred Thompson has already made a big impact on the 2008 White House race. In recent polling, he has normally been in the top two candidates for the Republican nomination, leading Giuliani by one point in the last Rasmussen poll, and with an average of 19% on the Real Clear Politics numbers.
On the betting markets, he is close behind Giuliani in the race for the GOP nomination, quoted at 3.3 on Betfair with Rudy at 2.94, Romney at 5, and McCain dead in the water at 27. (On the Democrat nominee market, Clinton is at 2.06, Obama 3.05, while for the White House, Democrats are 1.6 and the GOP at 2.62, which I think is underpriced.)
It is still not clear when, or even if, he will actually enter the race, however. It was reported that he would declare as a candidate over the Independence Day weekend, but this didn’t happen. The latest position seems to be that he has made a decision on whether to run, but is not ready to announce that decision yet. If Thompson decides not to run, the biggest beneficiary could well be the cash-rich Mitt Romney, who interestingly leads the RCP numbers in the early caucus / primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire - and the 2008 primary calendar will be the most front-loaded ever.
By-Election Markets:
Sedgefield: Lab 1.02, LD 34, Con 200
Southall: Lab 1.81, Con 3.85, LD 4
Interestingly, considering it is the lower-profile contest, Sedgefield has 31K matched on Betfair to 16K for Southall.
All the market prices are available here - please use the links on these pages to place bets, as pb.com receives commission, which helps with the costs of running the site.
Paul Maggs “Double Carpet”
Guest Editor
Mike Smithson returns on 16th July
Paul Maggs runs The Election Game - click on the logo to email for more information.
MessageSpace Advertising
“Interestingly, considering it is the lower-profile contest, Sedgefield has 31K matched on Betfair to 16K for Southall” - Yes, but most of it is at tiny odds for Labour which skews the figures if I understand correctly how Betfair calculate them.
Self-evidently, Thompson can’t remain a non-runner for ever if he’s going to join the race, and when he does, where’s the substance?
The Republicans have got into a bit of a mess with their failure to find a heavyweight candidate without significant flaws (which frankly is a huge ask anyway). There’s no need to go through the field’s faults again - we know what they are - but does Thompson bring something new and useful? I’m not convinced he does.
His political experience is limited in both time and achievement: what has he done? Yet this is a man in his mid-sixties, not some relative new kid like Obama. Why does he think himself qualified for the job? Why does anyone think him qualified? He looked good on TV? Other candidates can point to their records with a degree of distinction and this is surely a point they will make if Thompson does run formally.
The comparison has been made between Thompson and that other actor-politician, Reagan. By the time Reagan ran in 1980 he was by far the clear front runner based not on his acting career (which was well in the past by then), but on the successes of his 1976 campaign and his time as Governor of California. It still looks to be Romney or Giuliani depending on whether the GOP is in a ruthless or navel-gazing mood come the primaries.
On the odds re the parties, it’s perhaps worth remembering that the GOP has won both the last two elections, five of the last seven and seven of the last ten (since Johnson wrote off the South with the Civil Rights legislation). The candidates this time might not inspire, but the Republican machine is still a powerful beast.
Appears that Cameron is not exactly flavour of the month in Ealing according to today’s Times headline……
Cameron rattled by dissent on mission to woo Asian voters
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2072553.ece
I’m no expert on the US, or Republicans in particular, but Romney’s supposed big negative, that he’s a Mormon, will I think cease to be a big issue - people will get used to that, and it’s not exactly the Church of Satan, though it has some beliefs that raise eyebrows (but which of us does not?). However, David Herdson perhaps overestimates the sophistication of US politics when he says incredulously that Thompson maybe just looks good on TV. That’ll take him a long way all by itself, and being the only consistent right-winger might do the rest for the faithful.
Re those odds that Paul quotes: while I think Labour should be safe in Sedgfield, I must say I doubt if we’re 50-1 on safe. Nobody is ever *that* safe in a by-election.
The 2008 race is wide open. It will be the first occasion since 1952 that neither the Prez or the Veep are in the contest….
And… Thompson has a look of “Ike” about him….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Eisenhower
Frank a wonderfully balanced piece by the famously unbiased Greg Hurst.
Cameron harangued by admitted Labour supporters and large quotes from the Labour campaign. Clearly Cameron was nearly run out of the constituency on a rail, with no-one being nice to him at all.
And Charlie Kennedy feted after being very late….. again.
Yes, naturally. Labour by a landslide then.
3. The thing with Thompson’s bid is that he can’t ride two horses at once. He can’t be both an outsider and sufficiently experienced, and by January he probably won’t be either if he’s been a front-runner for five or six months.
That position alone will ensure more publicity but also more scrutiny. Questions like: who is he? what does he stand for? can he deliver? and so on. At the moment there are few answers and when there are, the other candidates will be watching.
You’re right when you (sort of - I’m paraphrasing) say that the PR thing can take a candidate a long way in the States - and indeed elsewhere. But while there’s a long tradition of outsiders and mavericks running for president, they rarely get close. I still think that if he runs, then when the chips are down in January, February and March, at least one of the other candidates will possess the greater organisation, money and political ability necessary to see him off.
Paul Maggs- first what a fantastic job you are doing keeping the pbCOM supertanker afloat whilst the gaffer is away. If anything your leaders are even better- but do not tell Mike S that.
I think you are wrong though in highlighting value in the GOP position. 2008 will swing the Democrats way big time whoever they pick as the sacrificial lamb- I say this wary that Jan from Norway- pbCOM’s maestro has tipped Guliani to win.
IMO Fred Thompson will get the nomination- he has the Reagan factor, he is a traditional conservative and appeals to the roots, and comes across as a human being. Romney is too plastic, and a flip flopper par excellence, Guliani too much baggage, and McCain has just committed political suicide by supporting Bush on Iraq.
5. “Frank a wonderfully balanced piece by the famously unbiased Greg Hurst.”
I think some Labourites would consider his previous days reports about ES as biased towards the Tories as at one point he mentioned the 6th defections (after Watson already issued the denial) and 2 days ago he headlined the 2 more defections piece calling them councillors and not specifying they were former councillors (but just implying it at one point in the piece) who already left Labour last year
Antony Jay has a very interesting piece on the BBC this morning.
It explains where at least one of our posters gets his ideas from.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1
5 Witan.
JNN BY-ELECTION PB EXCLUSIVE **** JNN BY-ELECTION PB EXCLUSIVE ****
Your weather beaten correspondent and doyen of parliamentaary by-elections ….. namely Jack W will be reporting to PB through JNN on Monday or Tuesday the combined results of the culled musings of the drunken sops of the street of shame and the unfettered drivel and hopeful fantasies of the respective party HQ’s in Ealing and Sedgefield.
I can just feel the pent up tension on the site as posters bite their remaining nails in anticipation !!
See Matthew Parris is urging Brown to go in October.
Cameron is obviously sincere in his mission to ‘change’ the Tory party, but most people, (including myself) doubt his ability to do so. The problem with any party, setting out to attract ethnic minority voters in inner city areas is, that the white working class, (The forgotten tribe) become even more alienated, turning to the BNP for their ’salvation’ The is also something wrong when any party selects candidates not on ability or merit, but to placate a particular group, religious or cultural, or a ‘buggins turn’ system developes.
11 indeed, a conundrum for all mainstream parties that has serious implications for our democracy.
Off Topic. View from a Black Cab.
In a taxi between Soho and chelsea yesterday the driver started talking to me about the extended congestion charge.
“What I want to know is what happens to the money from the congestion charge. It’s supposed to go back into transportut the tubes aren’t any better than they were”
You don’t like Ken? I asked.
“He’s Ok. at least he’s got some bottle which is more than most of them………………. What I don’t understand is why no one wants the job. I heard Boris Johnson might be standing. They’re just extracting the Michael”
You don’t rate him then? I asked.
“He’s a complete wanker” He replied
None of the arguments against Thompson stopped Reagan.
11 I agree think the Conservatives have made a fundamental error in Southall concentrating on the Sikh vote and assuming their voters in their more traditional wards were in the bag .
I agree that the GOP look to be generously priced. There is no reason why Giuliani or Thompson should suffer too much guilt by association with Bush. Does tie the money up for a while though - still 16 months to go.
McCain is probably out of it but 27 is very long odds and remains a bit tempting. He has dropped back partly because Thompson and he are fighting over the same ground. If Thompson doesn’t run (he probably will) or runs into trouble, McCain is back in it.
Interesting that Romney is ahead in key early states. It could give him huge momentum if he can stay close to the frontrunners for the rest of the year.
John Edwards remains good value at 16 on the Democrat side. Obama and Clinton attract interest due to novelty but arguably Edwards is a more complete politician.
[15] Indeed… IIRC the seat has a white majority in ethnic terms; I suspect that if any party was making headway at the Ealing end of it we’d've heard something by now. I suspect the declaration may show an unpleasant “backlash” against the apparent focus by all three main parties on securing the Asian vote.
On-thread, I agree with Nick Palmer: Thompson’s the only “real” Republican even half-way in the field. Perhaps he’s dithering because his nearest & dearest aren’t keen for him to stand… it’s happened before.
15 What word from Sedgefield then
14. Reagan was a national figure when he won in 1980. He also had the right message for the time. He nearly won the nomination in 1976 against a sitting (but unelected) president and though he didn’t, he put himself in pole position for the next round - a position he kept. Thompson remains an outsider in political terms and (relative to Reagan’s dominance at this stage) in betting terms too.
A lot was made at the time and has been since about Reagan being a former actor and it’s true that he was. It’s perhaps been made to seem more significant in retrospect as he was the first to make that move. However, he was only ever a minor acting figure decades before his presidential runs, unlike Thompson. With Reagan, there was a clear career progression from acting into politics via his union activity; with Thompson, his time in the senate looks more like a career break from the acting profession.
All that’s not to say he can’t do it - a lot depends on Giuliani and Romney coming through the process sufficiently unscathed as well - but it does look to me to be a campaign built on remarkably little. Perhaps the foundations are strong and he can prove himself to be a serious contender; it’s just that I’ve seen little evidence of it so far.
I had that roger in the back of my cab once.
17.
According to the Telegraph, Labour, as quoted yesterday are worried by a “quiet Lib Dem campaign” in the Eastern end.
Suggests someone is busy there?
15. Rennard the Fox’s analysis as at 1.00 am this morning was..
“…..that turnout in the traditional Labour areas is likely to be very, very low. In the areas which should be more Liberal Democrat / Tory (a surprisingly large part of the constituency), we are clearly winning the tactical argument. I also think that we are picking up the vote that went to anti-Iraq war campaigner Reg Keys in 2005.”
T/o at the 2005 GE was c 62%. If this falls to say 45%, with Labour taking the biggest hit in terms of the impact of lower t/o, we could see them polling as low as 12-13,000. If the Lib Dems squeeze the Tory vote and take the lion’s share of Reg Keys’ votes, they are certainly into five figures. How close to Labour’s five figures is clearly the US$64k question.
18 Not a lot of news from Sedgefield though Lord R was up there yesterday . My view still the same a comfortable second place .
Re22. Relevant post was 18 not 15.
http://www.casinotimes.co.uk/casino-news/2007-07/william-hill-lib-dems-140707.htm
13
Sounds really convincing,how long did it take you to make that one up?
21 - This suggests to me that the Lib Dems are doing well. Labour tried to pull this trick in Dunfermline and spent the final week publicly fretting about how the SNP were making strides and people had barely seen a Focus leaflet! The more you hear about Labour sources suggesting the Tories are doing well, the more money you should pile on the Lib Dems.
22
In the bag for the Lib Dems then if Rennard says it!
28. ‘Projection’ in second paragraph was the product of my finger in the wind not the noble Fox’s. Not aware of any Lib Dem claims of the seat being in the bag.
Some news from Sedgefield:
1. Ming has reminded voters he made his GB debut at Billingham in 1963! I came second he said. Thought he would have found some reference to coming first!
2. BNP candidate claims his tyres have been slashed. Says told police, but apparently the local paper asked the police who said they couldn’t find any reports
3. The Anti Crime Candidate was nearly arrested outside Tesco’s
Soulds like a fun campaign.
Some news from Sedgefield:
1. Ming has reminded voters he made his GB debut at Billingham in 1963! I came second he said. Thought he would have found some reference to coming first!
2. BNP candidate claims his tyres have been slashed. Says told police, but apparently the local paper asked the police who said they couldn’t find any reports
3. The Anti Crime Candidate was nearly arrested outside Tesco’s
Sounds like a fun campaign.
22 Interesting, I felt this feeling of Blair couldn’t be bothered so why should we be bothered to vote as Labour supporters would be widespread. Likewise I doubt it was too hard to convince local Tories that the Lib Dems were the better bet to beat Labour. BTW Is this analysis from Lord Renn himself then
27. “This suggests to me that the Lib Dems are doing well….The more you hear about Labour sources suggesting the Tories are doing well, the more money you should pile on the Lib Dems. ”
I think Labour was suggestion to the Telegraph that they were worried by LD campaign. If they were spinning, it can mean that they’re worried by the tories
(it can actually be that they are worried by both)
31. In Sedgefield there was another spat between LDs and Labour. A labour member accused Greg Stone to have told him “”get back to your reservation”. Stone apparently won’t dignify the claim with a response
32. First paragraph in quotes is Lord Rennard’s comment, second paragraph my rough and ready number crunching.
22. So if turnout is not too low, Labour should win it. If the turnout is very low, they can risk.
Maybe it can be down to polling day operation by Labour. If they get their vote out, they should win it. If not, …
26. I don’t make things up. What it made me realize though is that what people outside London don’t realize that those living or working in London take the choice of Mayor seriously.
A novelty candidate is fun at a by election where they can’t do damage but that isn’t the view people have of the mayor. Ken is reasonably popular. Boris will be humiliated. He wont just lose but he’ll lose badly. (Incidentally the driver went on to say he thought Norris wasn’t too bad).
I suspect you neither live nor work in London? I’d be curious what those who do think?
Sorry David you greatly underestimate Fred Thompson. I’ll tell you very clearly what he brings to the table. He looks and sounds like a President. Yes he is an actor which means he performs very well on television which is a big asset surely! He is a genuine conservative which most of the GOP is crying out for unlike the notorious flip flopper Romney who is lagging badly behind him in the national polls. As for his political abilitiy if you haven’t seen it it’s because you haven’t looked very hard. He fought an astonishingly successful campaign for the Senate from the back of a pick up truck in Tennessee scoring a record plurality which he repeated the second time of asking. And without even announcing his candidacy he’s very competitive in national polls with Giuliani and already level with McCain in South Carolina and doing pretty well in Florida with conservatives everywhere begging him to stand. A pretty clever strategy even if it has to come to an end at some point! If McCain decides to bow out, he would likely endorse Thompson, a friend of his. I’d be surprised if he doesn’t run but if he decides to opt out, Newt Gingrich has pretty well made it clear that he’ll be in. His negatives are far too high for him to be the right candidate for the GOP in a General Election but he’s still very popular with many GOP conservatives.
There is still time for one of the pack to emerge and their big chance is the GOP straw poll in Ames, Iowa which takes place in mid August( about a third of those who vote in the Iowa caucuses will likely attend). Giuliani, McCain and in all likelihood Thompson will skip them. That means that Romney will easily win but someone has a chance of bursting through to come a good second putting themselves on the map in the process. The two likeliest are Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas, and my bet, Sam Brownback, the Senator from Kansas who has excellent ties with the very strong right to life movement in Iowa.
To sum up only a fool would forecast the outcome of the GOP nomination at this stage. At this stage it looks like Giuliani has the support nationally to do well in super duper Tuesday, Romney has successfully put a lot of expensive chips onto Iowa and New Hampshire and Thompson will surely do very well in the South. All of them have their weaknesses. Giuliani may well find stories from his time as Mayor of New York coming back to haunt him( he was very unpopular with many of his staff according to some journalists) and of course he’s a liberal on social issues. Romney’s mormonism will surely cost him some votes in the privacy of the ballot box and many conservatives find him a smarmy, unconvincing flip flopper. Thompson has a lobbying past which is already being picked over( apparently he paid his son a very large salary in that capacity and if there’s one thing that might make him back off it’s attacks on his family) and a very young wife chosen after an active romantic phase ( shall we say) after his divorce. (The only candidate with one wife is the mormon!).
All this , of course, only points out the fact that Hillary Clinton looks like the candidate to beat for the General Election. The tide is and probably will be behind the Democrats next year ( the generic advantage over the GOP is very large). She has high negatives but has a formidable and ruthless organisation and she herself, while far from inspiring, is a hard working, intelligent and discilpined campaigner. She’ll be hard to beat.
22. “T/o at the 2005 GE was c 62%. If this falls to say 45%, with Labour taking the biggest hit in terms of the impact of lower t/o, we could see them polling as low as 12-13,000″
uhm…the 2005 electorate was around 67000. A 45% turnout would be around 30000 voters compared to 41,475 in 2005. A drop if 11000 voters. Labour polled 24,421 in 2005. Dropping to 12/13,000 would be that all the abstainers compared to 2005 are Labour.
31. I had the ‘pleasure’ of the Anti-Crime candidate standing in a neighbouring ward to mine at this May’s local elections. He is, to put it politely, somewhat eccentric and outspoken. After the result had been announced (his 120 votes put him sixth and last, over 2,800 behind the winning Tory), he shouted “war, crime and corruption: that is what the people have voted for!”.
I was working in London when the Fairs Fare policy was launched, it turned the then, ‘Red Ken’ from zero to hero overnight. Up to that point 85% of the letters the GLC used to receive were negative, after that point 85% were positive. The Tories made a great tactical mistake in opposing that policy, they compounded that mistake by opposing the congestion charge. I used to sit in my office at Marble Arch and look down the Bayswater Road every evening at 1800hrs, solid with traffic, Edgeware Road ditto, Park Lane ditto, something had to be done: Ken did it. Regardless of your political affiliation, the feeling was he had the guts to do it!
The Tories are making a great mistake in the, ‘Draft Boris’ campaign is that they think of Ken as colourful, he isn’t colourful, he’s the opposite of colourful, his views at times maybe be flakey, but he gives the impression of seriousness, and a coolness under fire. I can’t imagine you will convince Londoners that Boris is the man to have in charge when a major terrorist incident occurs.
36
‘I suspect you neither live nor work in London?’
Wrong on both counts,what has Livingstone actually achieved apart from getting rid of the pigeons in Trafalgar Square,driving business out of central London,entertaining various Middle Eastern hate preachers,insulting jews and naturally wasting massive amounts of council tax with the GLA charge increasing by 148% in 7 years.
A truly remarkable record.
Giuiliani is the only Republican who could win, they know that is the case so the choice for them is do they want a Republican president or not? Maybe at this stage, like the pre-Cameron
tories, they are more interested in purity than power.
Interesting in the by elections that the lib dems are going against type and playing up an ES win whilst the tories are saying second only. Is this just spin? The best lib dem results (Dunfermline, Bromley) come as a relative surprise, is the money on Sedgefield actually a suggestion that Sedgefield is the one to watch?
37. Andrea, fair point. However, if you look at Dunfermline, the turnout fell from 60% - 48% ( drop of 7800 votes ) and Labour’s total vote fell by 9,500 votes. Giving the churn and all other variables it could happen.
39
‘ I can’t imagine you will convince Londoners that Boris is the man to have in charge when a major terrorist incident occurs.’
Are you saying that if such an event happens again the government (based in central London) is going to let whomever is mayor take control of the situation?!
When we had the tube bombings two years ago Livingstone was not even in the UK.
41 Sedgefield would easily top those for surprises. Labour shld still hold, but I think they’ll get a fright. The attempt to whip up turnout in Pravda aka the Daily Mirror may indicate concern. BTW Hw much money has now been wagered on both
Why is my commment at 37 awaiting moderation?!
42. Frank, I also missed potential switchers.
21, 27 Actually the quote was ‘a quietly effective campaign’. That sounds like talking up the LDs because Labour fears that the Tories are challenging strongly. Still it’s a somewhat muted talking up because the LDs are also theoretically capable of winning on about a third of the vote. Difficult for Labour to manage the see saw; it needs the LDs and the Tories pretty well bang on the same percentage share.
Conservatives edging out in Ealing betting now. Last money matched was 4.5 Conservative, 4.0 Lib Dem and 1.8 Labour. May be an indicator of the final weekend “feel”.
The money laid is also instructive - only £2500 has gone on the Conservatives, £5000 on Lib Dems and £8500 on Labour.
The Sedgefield odds are meaningless. Lib Dems have come in a bit but the amount matched on anyone but Labour is trivial. Just £1100 on Lib Dems and a fraction over £100 on Tories.
39
‘Ah right Ah a bomb you say crikey that’s bad, ‘cos a bomb is a bid thing isn’t Ah on the tube ah that’s not too bad ‘cos I’ve got the bike ‘cos big pissup at the Speccie with Bruce, Rob and the rest, then bit of extra marital rumpy pumpy with a tasty bit of totty, so Ah toodle pip then’
Boris London Mayor like finding out that the Captain of a Trident submarine is Bertie Wooster!
49 - Ken is hardly Churchill.
In America — one Republican name that crops up a lot on the web is Ron Paul, though it is hard to think of any realistic scenario that sees him win the nomination let alone the presidency.
Bloke in pic looks like Marlbro man without the ciggies or the fast motor.
Talking of fags (Bullingdon variety) Daily Mail front page yesterday had: “The public school dr*gs culture that led misfit to murder my daughter.” Could have finished off: “….want to try to run/ruin the country.”?
Funny how cabbies are quoted as the fount of plebian wisdom when they state views in accord with the liberal left beliefs of their affluent passengers, but when they say things like ’stop all them Asians coming in’ they are a repulsive minority of beer-swilling BNP hooligans.
Anyone quoting “my taxi driver” should immediately be disbarred from debate.
On the subject of Thompson…
There’s a mini-crisis for the GOP at the moment, McCain’s campaign has imploded and Giuliani is struggling (though still maintaining his top tier status unlike McCain), on the right of the party Romney seems to be cornering the market (quite an achievement for a Mormon former Massachusetts governor) , with the likes of Huckabee and Brownback marginalised.
Thompson certainly has drawbacks (the suggestion that he was a lobbyist for a family planning group perhaps the most damaging)of his own, but I would maintain that they are far less significant than Giuliani’s past or Romey’s patchy career… though of the two in a national election Giuliani’s are by far the more serious IMHO.
But the collapse of McCain’s candidacy has had a big impact, traditionally within the GOP nomination process a front runner emerges early on and is able to assume the role of “heir presumptive” pretty early wrapping up nominations and building up a significant advantage in funding. After 2004, McCain it was assume would be this candidate, however in an attempt to secure this position, McCain effective allowed himself to become a prisoner to an unpopular administration… rather than ploughing the maverick furrow that served him well in 2000, and as a result the McCain campaign’s position has deteriorated as a reflection of the deterioration in the standing of the GWB (even within the GOP) and administration itself.
I would not totally rule McCain out, (Kerry was ruled out of the Democratic nomination in the fall of 2003 and staged a Lazarus like comeback)… but the collapse of his campaign has opened up a vacuum with no establishment candidate. Its likely that both Romney and Giuliani will seek to assume this mantle, however both have their handicaps and would be unacceptable to certain elements of the GOP. This is where Thompson comes in, as a figure from the ideological mainstream of the GOP with a personal record that combines political experience with more maverick elements… furthermore he’d be well placed to hoover up the remnants of McCain’s support to provide a base.
As to why he’s taking so long to jump in the race I’m not sure… my suggestion would be that he could be watching to see if McCain quits the race, while at the same time waiting to see how robustly his numbers of potential support within the GOP holds up in the face of the security his record as a lobbyist is currently being subjected to… might Labour day be a likely date for a formal announcement? (too late?).
47 - BlueMoon.
The Labour hope would potentially be to talk up the LibDems, so that it would allow them (the LibDems that is) to stage some kind of squeeze on the Tory vote in the seat (as they have in so many recent by-elections), something that might be currently unlikely considering the high profile Tory campaign but if it was achieved might undermine the threat any Tory gains amongst Labour voters might pose the Labour campaign… just a thought and entirely possible I suppose.
As it is… I’d say that the combination of Labour’s huge base in the seat, the strong Tory campaign and the LibDem by-election “form” would mean that all three parties could wind up pretty close to one another.
“all three parties could wind up pretty close to one another. ”
Pretty apt really when it is not clear that there’s a fag-paper between them on much policy or that most of them stand for anything at all.
48 problem with the betfair market is the small amounts of money involved so one or two punters committed to one side or other can make a difference to the prices by spending fairly small amounts of cash. There have been some longer term movements with the Labour price drifting out a little, the tories coming in significantly and the libs drifting out somewhat though they have come back in a bit over the past couple of days. How much of this is actually related to the real situation on the ground is a mute point. Given that this is effectively a three horse race prices of around 1.8 on the favorite and 4s on the other two suggest that there is value here, no regular bookie would offer this set of odds and with a little bit of patience you should be able to get an all green position here.
My own view is that labour should win though the tories clearly have run a high profile campaign as they are desperate to finish above the libs. It is the tory v lib issue that seems to me to give labour an advantage except if there is a very low turnout. Given that London by elections not only get more media coverage but also that the various parties find it easier to get more people knocking on doors, suggests a reasonable turnout is in prospect.
Ben the point I was making was that some posters have quoted Labour saying the LDs were running a ‘quiet campaign’ suggesting they were talking down the LDs. Actually the quote was ‘quietly effective campaign’ suggesting that, if anything, they’re doing the opposite. I think this by election is extraordinarily difficult to call. I would still go for Lab, Con , LD but I wouldn’t be amazed at any of the three winning or any of the three coming third.
58. “I think this by election is extraordinarily difficult to call. I would still go for Lab, Con , LD ”
if there’s a pb.com competition, I would got for Lab 30/LD 30/Con 30
A lot of non-Labour people in London vote for Ken simply because he’s seen as being up to the rather peculiar job - it has a few specific responsibilities like London Transport and traffic control which he is seen to do reasonably well, and a lot of mood music - “we’re a thriving cosmopolitan city and we needs a mayor who reflects that”. When there’s a terrorist attack he says the right things in a balanced way; when nothing much is happening he says something edgy (like the criticism of the US Embassy) which people maybe only half-agree with but make him look interesting. Boris does not encourage the impression of managerial competence to do the first part, and his habit of Woosterish faux pas is newsworthy but not metropolitan. He’d be an interesting chair of the Arts Council, say, but I can’t see him running London.
A bit puzzled that james feels Clinton has novelty appeal, by the way. She is easily the best-known Democratic candidate, and her strengths are nothing to do with novelty.
58 - Blue Moon.
Yeah, I took your point… that had been my impression what Labour were reported as saying, the phrase “quietly effective” could suggest an attempt to “talk up” the libdems with the aim of undermining the Tory campaign (I would have thought by confusing the issue of who is the “challenger” in the seat and splitting the oppostion), seems very like what was reported in Dumferline.
In Ealing, how about
LD 29%
Con 28%
Lab 27%
Others 16%
by some distance, the lowest winning share of the vote in a by-election….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Lowest_winning_share_of_the_vote
61. “(I would have thought by confusing the issue of who is the “challenger” in the seat and splitting the oppostion), seems very like what was reported in Dumferline. ”
In Dunfermline it wasn’t even very subtle either….it wasn’t “Labour sources are saying..”, but the Labour candidate herself issued messages like “vote Labour or you will wake up with SNP”, “SNP is our main threat”. It smacked of a bit of desperation, especially her eve of the poll message not to wake up with SNP on Friday
Andrea I was suggesting extremely tentatively the likely order but I think your proposed forecast is a very sensible one! Have you finished your dissertation or is your trip to London part of your course in some way?
64. “Have you finished your dissertation ”
Not yet, but at least making good progresses
“is your trip to London part of your course in some way? ”
Ah, no…the trip to London wasn’t real! It was just for Pot and Kettle
60. I disagree. I think Ken lucked out - and has now grown into the role.
I think the only reason he was elected originally was because 1. a few people remembered Fare’s Fair and 2. more importantly, he was not Labour, and everyone really resented the way Labour tried to engineer the election - by kicking Ken out the party, then totally dissing him, then forcing Dobbo to oppose him, just basically doing all they could to make sure he lost.
(You maybe forget Ken was not even Labour when he was elected).
All this backfired spectacularly, and Londoners voted in droves for Ken to stuff Labour, not cause we thought Ken would make a great mayor. But then we were left with this loopy lefty as our mayor, who, surprisingly, has not been quite as insane as we might have feared. Partly because his powers to screw things up are really quite limited.
And now he has the glow of incumbency…. and it’s difficult to see anyone else in the role.
However I’m sure Boris would be just as “good”. And right now Boris is no more alarming a candidate than Ken was when he first got the job.
I still, however, think Ken will win - because of the incumbency thing. But Boris could give him a fair fight, and you never know what could unfold, and he would certainly liven up an otherwise shatteringly dull election. Hope he goes for it.
The whole ethnic/sikh issue in southall makes it doubly hard to work out how things are going. On the one hand the councillors and ex councillors who have joined the tories seems like a good coup for them but the more I read about Gurcharan Singh and the various people that have defected with him the weirder it gets.
They could just as easily turn out to be factional figures that will have a negative effect on the Tory campaign.
Hurst’s article at the Times are interesting because so far he seems to have been following the Tory line on what has happend only to be dropped in it the next day when the inaccuracies are pointed out.
Maybe he is a tad pissed off with what he has been told by them ?
The appeal of Thompson appears to be that he looks good on TV. I saw Chuck Hagel on TV the other day for the first time, talking about the mess over Iraq, which apparently he has opposed from the outset. I thought he came over very well. Photogenic, assured and statesmanlike.
I see he is 118/1 with Betfair. I’m guessing that he lacks popular support within the GOP? When I googled him he appeared a bit of a maverick. Anyone give him an outside chance or has he ruled himself out?
On Ealing Southall there has to be some value somewhere but the collective views of PB.com haven’t identified it for me yet.
67 Or maybe Phil “Call me neutral” Webster has had a chat
67. Crossland. Perhaps the value in Ealing Southall lies in laying the Tories at 7/2 on Betfair? Over £1000 available to lay at 4.5. Looks like someone trying to depress the price to me. And as you argue the defections of Labour councillors to the Tories could have much less benefit for the Tories than some might expect.
70 - Anything other than backing labour or laying the others is wasted money in my opinion, in ES as much as in Sedgefield. The gap may be closed in both but labour will not lose them. There, that’s my prediction - bring on the PB competition!
It has been eminently possible to trade by following switches of who think they are doing best (and indeed to facilitate that by judicious ramping and trading) but, unfortunately, I was too busy to do anything about it.
just to prove my point from earlier a certain amount of cash has been put on the tories for ES bringing their price on betfair in to 2.1.
55 - Labour would be bonkeres to talk up the Lib Dems, especially given their by-election form.
If they are under pressure then the best tactic is to talk up the Tories and appeal to tactical Lib Dems to vote to keep the Tories out.
Given the difficulties in really finding out what’s happening with South Asian voters, it’s much more likely that they don’t actually know what’s going on.
If Labour are going to lose, they’d far prefer to lose to the LibDems… Discuss
72 - Brilliant - some CCHQ muppet is giving away free money! I’ve had it - thanks!
bizarre goings on on betfair’s ES market, the tories briefly had a buy price of 1.01 as someone bought all the available offers but now a small amount of cash is available at around 3 - 3.95, someone is clearly trying to make the tories “favorites”
76 - Could be hedging because they lumped in on labour and are getting cold feet.
77. More likely someone is trying to rig the market to make the Tories look like they are doing better than they are. From all the info we’ve had so far theres no clear swing to anyone at the moment, or if there is none that anyone is talking about.
Pity we can’t know the individual who seem to be doing all the buying; I’d wager its in the acc name of Grant Shapps though….
77 possible but with the figures changing all the time it is much more likely that someone with more cash than sense most likely of a tory persuasion is trying to play games, as has been mentioned it is an opportunity for the more grown up amongst us to add to our betfair balance
78 - nobody takes any notice of betfair odds, there’s no point. It didn’t help Huhne for a start. The way that someone would do it is a big bet at William Hills or something. It’s probably someone laying because they are unsure of an earlier bet, possible they think the tories can win but that’s as crazy as imagining that CCHQ are frantically trading a few quid here to win them a few Asian votes.
79 - Probably using a bot.
Most likely a mistake. Happens all the time, especially in markets with little money on offer.
74 Certainly.
o/t - This is quite funny. Steven ronald thinks there might be a danger to writing in third person-
http://hunterandshooter.blogspot.com/2007/07/lib-dem-with-two-faces-part-two.html
83&74 You joking?! Lib Dem win= They say, Well they always do well in these things never does em any god at eneral Election when as all know it is a choice between a Labour Govt and the Tory Nazi Party.
Tory win= Labour say Well err, err. The Tories say we changed, voters see it, on path back to Govt etc etc
All ofth above refer to ES, if S went as well that’s where a Lib Democrat win could be really damaging as well
67- 78 ,interesting stuff !
I’m more politico than punter, I dont rule out the defections being of great value to the tory campaign but note that Before he died the sitting MP was apparently keen for an AWS specifically because it would block Councillor Singh and his supporters who he viewed as divisive and damaging figures !
They were planning to go independant if he didnt get the nomination but The Tory campaign apparently stepped in and made them an offer - I simply dont know enough about Sikh factionalism and Southall to have a valid opinion on whether the tories have pulled off a nifty coup or shot themselves in the foot. I view it as neutral at present.
The Tories in Southall seem to have too many ‘helpers’ who view themselves as svengali/Mandelson figures - Grant Schapps naff attempt to astroturf being a new low. Makes me wonder if they are over valuing the role of spin and not getting enough of the bread and butter stuff done.
But you can never underestimate the power of all those phone calls they will be paying for, thats why I no longer put much store by whether the tory campaign is visible or not.( I learnt the hard way this may ! )
Punter If you’re right that Labour will get a scare in Sedgefield Will Hill ought to have a more interesting bet than 0-58.9% of the vote, understandably the favourite at the moment. Why not a below 50% category? What odds do you think would be appropriate?
The Tories are making a big play of the bookies’ odds in their latest Ealing Southall leaflet. A fake newspaper (it even says ‘Free’ on the masthead) the main headline is ‘Tony Lit takes the lead’. ‘Bookies shorten odds on Tony Lit beating Labour in 19th July by-election.’
This is accompanied by what appears to be a doctored screen grab from the Will Hill site, dated 10th July and showing Labour 8/13, Conservative 15/8 and LD 5/1.
85. So the Labour strategy if all is lost in Southall will be “Help Ming at all costs”, pretty much akin to Thatcher’s “Save the Foot Service” strategy of the early Eighties..
87 blue moon -why not a blow 5) ctagory for labout at Sedgefield?because itsa 100% CERTAINITY!
rOGERH
87 Most bookies simply can’t get their heads round anything other than easy Labour win there that’s why. Simply does not compute. Ladbrokes for instance wouldn’t give me odds at all. I’d say 55% would be fair, while I think they may well get a scare you can’t ignore the past voting History entirely
60
‘Boris does not encourage the impression of managerial competence to do the first part’
Are you seriously trying to imply that Livingstone has managerial competence?GLA tax increased by 148% in 7 years,that’s some record of competence!
89. Probably. But wrt to Ming I think it’s CCHQ that will want to save Ming. Hence if the Tories do well in ES they will be praying for a good Lib Dem showing or even in their wildest dream a Lib Dem win in S to save Ming’s bacon………….
Apart Hutton, has any other minister gone to Sedgefield?
Ealing yesterday had Ruth Kelly and today I think they had Jacquie Smith.
(Mind you, some ministers can lose more votes than what they gain with their visits
Punter (93), do you think that the Tories have any idea of what they really want? Not only in Southall, of course, but in general as well…. I suspect that most of them don’t even want Cameron to win the next General Election, for fear of what he might do as PM……
95. My guess would be a Tory win in ES for obvious reasons with Lib Dems 2nd Labour 3rd, or if Lib Dems did finish 3rd a very good Lib Dem showing in S both to hurt Laboand more importantly save Ming.
89. Problem for Labour is the Conservative showing means it cannot be all over for them rather it is double or quits time in gambling parlance, in that the Tory showing is sufficiently strong as to split the opposition vote enabling them to hang on and win, or quits in that is too strong and the Tories win! That is the dilemma Labour are in, so they can’t simplyleave it the Liberal Democrats anyway
95 you may be thinking to laterally there. The Tories simply want to do well compared to past performance. A win is a bonus, a Labour third place another.
Both Labour and Tories would be happy to see the LibDems do badly overall.
But not badly enough for the knives to get the Old Emperor.
RogerH If I understood your post correctly you misunderstood the Will Hill bet; it is a bet on what percentage share Labour would get, not the percentage likelihood of them winning the seat. I was suggesting a sub 50% share of the vote option which would still see them win the seat at the top end of the range. Incidentally Punter if you think Labour will get 55% that would represent a pretty comfortable margin over the LDs given that the Tories and Others will get some sort of percentage. I thought you were arguing Labour would get a fright in Sedgefield?
98 Misunderstood you. I though you mean’t Labour’s chance of winning at 55%, certainly not predicting a Labour majority of 55%!
Punter I was simply talking of Labour’s share of the vote in the by election, not their chances of winning , nor their percentage majority! Will Hill are offering a bet that they will take up to 58.9%. I was suggesting that a bet of under 50%, still easily consistent with a Labour win, would be more in line with your suggestion of a scare for Labour. Last time Blair took 58.9% Reg Keays got 10% odd but if he hadn’t stood I suppose the LDs might have got a lot of that and abstentions quite a few others. With Blair gone is there a personal vote lost or an anti war vote regained? Whatever if Labour are to get a scare that has to translate into a sub 50% share of the vote. 55% is not far off what they got last time.
The idea that Labour (or anyone else) would talk up the LDs in a serious by-election to try and deflect attention is laughable. Given that the LDs are known to Hoover-up protest votes like a Dyson, it would be suicide to use that tactic, and any serious strategy team would know that.
Rod: Yes, it would only make sense if Labour were convinced they are going to lose, but dont know who to. In that scenario they would rather lose to the LDs than to Cameron. A loss to Cameron would be a massive blow to Gordon. A loss to the LDs is just “well, we know they win by-lections”.
jgc: yes of course the markets are being manipulated. I expect all 3 parties are at it in the Ealing market.
100. Mad, if that’s what they believe. That’s close to Blair’s GE majority %. I think it’s a pretty long time since a Party got close to 60% in a By-Election
MBoy Labour spin doctors were quoted as saying was that they were concerned about the ‘quietly effective’ LD campaign in Southall. If that isn’t talking up the LDs ( somewhat) what is it? Perfect fodder for LD leaflets in the tactical battle with the Tories. That suggests a nervousness in the Labour camp to keep the two Opposition Parties as evenly matched as possible.
Newbury 1993 65% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_by-election%2C_1993
Christchurch 1993 62% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_by-election%2C_1993
Truro 1987 60% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truro_by-election%2C_1987
Dagenham 1994 70% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagenham_by-election%2C_1994
Winchester 1997 68% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_by-election%2C_1997
This might seem completely alien to many of you but how about focusing on the policies that might *win* a by election. Winning because you lied about who was the real challenger or about how well you really expected to do is back to providing more ‘hold them all in contempt’ fodder.
Labour ICM seven point lead apparently, go on Brown call an election, go on, you know you want to.
This could be interesting if he feels as though he should go for it.
Cam we try some sort of Uri Geller mind influencing thing on him or something?
Dagenham 1994 70% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagenham_by-election%2C_1994
Winchester 1997 68% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_by-election%2C_1997
Newbury 1993 65% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_by-election%2C_1993
My comment is being moderated as I included 5 links. Truro 1987 and Christchurch 1993 also over 60%.
63. – Andrea
The Leicester South by-elections springs to mind, Labour persisted with the line that voting LibDem would lead to a Tory victory in the seat (even when so far as suggesting UKIP, with no candidate, were more of a threat to Labour than the LibDems), that only changed at eve-of-poll… I think the same was the case in Brent East as well, barmy really.
In contrast in Hartlepool, Labour put forward the line (very aggressively and effectively as it happened)of the LibDems as the main challengers from very early on.
88- Kevin
To be fair its all about building momentum or the perception of it… certainly the defections and Lit’s own local profile have helped the Tory campaign massively in this regard (remains to be see if it will be sufficent). On the issue of the “free” it in the corner of the newspaper, I’ve seen that on Labour and LibDem literature before, suppose the idea is to make it look like worthwhile guff like Metro or London Lite as opposed to Party-Political guff that most people throw away out of hand.
On the issue of weather its feasible for Labour to be talking up the LibDems, I’d say of course it is!, if they see the LibDems as being behind the Tories and the Tory campaign as a serious challenge to them then it would suite Labour to attempt to undermine the Tory campaign by talking up the LibDems in the hope that the issue of which party is the challenger becomes confused and the opposition to them because more fractured… in different elections Labour has talked up both the LibDems and SNP with the aim of undermining support for one or the other, despite both have very strong records in by-election contests.
Seems entirely reasonable that talk of a “quietly effective” LibDem campaign is suggestive of “talking up” on the part of the Labour campaign in the interests of stalling the Tory challenge, IMHO it could be a foolish game to play here in Ealing as I think any of the three parties could (and I stress “could”) win it.
I’m sure that I saw the figures Lab - 35, Con 28 & LD 12 but that doesn’t make any sort of sense, others at 25%?!? What sort of poll is this?
SBS these results were for Partiews in opposition. When was the last time a government candidate got 60%? UK Paul where’s you info on the ICM poll?
magic mushrooms paul?
108 - I wish it was given those figures, it was on Sky News and the NOTW editor was waffling on about it, the only other graph showed Brown favoured as PM by 2 to 1 over Cameron (55-25 or something). Even trying to adjust for don’t knows etc those figures just seem weird. Anyone got any information?
107 A lot depends on whether you think the comment came from “spinners” or unguarded comments. The report on Cameron’s visit to Southall brought to mind his visit to Bromley (immortalised in a photograph). Of course the Conservatives held Bromley, but this is not a great sign for them.
If someone is trying to fix the ES price for the tories on betfair then they are making a complete hash of it. A steady buy tory tactic would be far more effective than diving in and buying up everything in sight then disappearing. However it might make sense if someone is using screen grabs to use in publicity material though I would have thought betfair betting screens would not be very understandable to an average voter
It does make some sense for labour to talk up the libs if they see the tories becoming the main challenger, from labour’s point of view the best thing is for neither libs or tories to be seen as clear 2nd. However the evidence for any of this, is as far as I can see pretty thin, based on alleged statement by anonymous sources more like usual by election tittle tattle.
106. “Dagenham 1994 70%”
and 72% for Hodge in Barking byelection in 1994
106 Clarification. When did a Governing Party last get close to 60% in a By-Election then
112. ” The report on Cameron’s visit to Southall brought to mind his visit to Bromley (immortalised in a photograph). ”
IIRC the local paper piece on his visit to Bromley was very unfavourable, more than the national press pieces on his visit.
Lab 35, Con 28?
If so, sorry, it’s ICM and all but I don’t buy it. I will happily take it though if it pushes Gordon to call a GE
106. but surely the test is for a governing party to get > 60%. The last time that happened was Beaconsfield, 1982, 3 weeks after the Falklands Invasion, although Labour just missed 60% at Wigan, 1999…..
115. Beaconsfield byelection in 1982 when Tony lost his deposit?
117 - Maybe it was the spectre of IDS and some of his right wing traditionalist ideas resurfacing. If I was the tories I’d take heed of how the public respond to this floating of ideas.
113 - jpc
“However the evidence for any of this, is as far as I can see pretty thin, based on alleged statement by anonymous sources more like usual by election tittle tattle.”
…ahh by-elections, no one really knows whats going on beyond their own party’s dodgy bar charts, ‘free’ newspapers and canvas returns
As it is i sounds like it could be talking up, may be a genuine unguarded aside by Labour source… no one knows and no one is going to know till Thursday. While Labour could seek to cement the anti-Tory vote (perhaps by ramping up the Tory “threat”) these days most voters done perceive a Tory threat, at the same time ramping up the LibDems could help to split the opposition in the seat… either or neither could be the case.
119 - That’s the one!
It *IS* 35, 28, 12. ICM.
Fantastic Lab poll, terrible for the Tories, I simply do not believe it though. Call a GE Gordon, you’ll never get a better chance (if you believe it)
re rumoured ICM poll. It appears that ICM do do occasional polls for the NOTW with the last one in November 2006 and these polls seem to be in line with the regular ICM polls in the Guardian.
Not rumoured, is fact. Contact has confirmed. 35, 28, 12.
No way. (Sorry ICM)
123 where was the confirmation of these numbers?
41 - the Lib Dems didn’t talk down their chances in Dunfermline and Bromley - they just weren’t believed! They ran all out campaigns and pushed hard to get their activists there, just as they are doing this time.
Several Lib Dem visitors to this site made a packet on Dunfermline as I recall.
25% others?!? I’m sorry but this is just not credible, who of the others has gained support (please don’t let it be the BNP
)?
123. Others 25% ?!?!
123 Nor I. Are you sure those are headline party figures and not say Best PM figures or something. I do not believe for a second the Tories are below 30% the Lib Dems below 15%, never mind others at 25%! If it’s ICM I find it very surprising especially after the last POll IIRC showed Labour’s support dropping back, but all Pollsters have rogues I’d guess
129. Right, and as bad for you Libs as for us Tories. I do not buy these numbers even though ICM is IMO the most reliable pollsters, but there is an ICM poll and those are the numbers.
Gordon should go to the country if he thinks the Tories will get 28%
The ICM poll seems highly improbable. Changes would be Lab (-2), Con (-7), LD (-5). Would be interesting to see the others breakdown.
If a Lib Dem meltdown, that so many of you seem to want, has started, then who did you suppose would pick up the (increasing) protest vote?
Test - can your contact confiem if these actually are the adjusted figures? If it’s including something like 15% don’t know/won’t tells that makes 41/33/14 which is a little more credible (but out of line with their previous two polls).
Confirmation
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/07/labour-7-ahead-.html
Libs at 13, not 12. Sorry.
Still whacked out figures, don’t at all buy it. Maybe they shifted their methodology
I’ll believe those figures for ICM when i see them… i just don’t see how they could come out with those sort of numbers (was it summer polls that were frequently a bit skewed?… coz i cant think of these sort of numbers, if real, being anything other than very skewed indeed).
Maybe it’s a poll in Ealing Southall
137 - would make more sense!
Bet it isn’t though… by the by wast a YouGov poll due out soon?
137 - would make more sense!
Bet it isn’t though… by the by wasnt a YouGov poll due out soon?
Conservative voters spooked by floated Tory proposals on beer and marriage and say they’re going to vote for… er…