Is now the moment to start selling Hillary?
November 12th, 2007
Has the media narrative turned against her?
In little more than seven weeks we’ll have the first phase of the 2008 White House race with the Democratic and Republican caucuses in Iowa. That will be followed days later by the New Hampshire primary. Over the coming weeks there will be a build up of stories and betting activity as both parties start the process of deciding who should be their candidate in the election on the first Tuesday in November.
For months Hillary Clinton has been edging slowly up the betting as poll after poll suggested that she was fast becoming a certainty in her race. But in the past week her campaign has started to look a little vulnerable with a run of critical media coverage.
That term that we have become so used to in UK politics in relation to Gordon Brown, the media narrative, appears to have turned. The question for gamblers is whether now might be the moment to bet against her?
So often it’s the feeling that campaigns are manipulating events or developments that starts to raise doubts. The above is a story that several papers are covering - an allegation that the Clinton campaign team sought to plant questions at a highly publicised function in Iowa. This is not a big deal in itself - it happens all the time. What is interesting is that the story has, as they say, “legs”.
As the Guardian report says “Any appearance of crowd manipulation is highly sensitive for Clinton, as it plays to her negative image - keenly projected by her Republican opponents - as a robotic politician who will stop at nothing to get her point across.”
Last week the US editor of the Times, Gerard Baker, noted “…everything we’ve all said for the last twelve months, all that prating and polling and pontificating, is going to be eclipsed in the next 60 or 70 days and quite possibly turned completely on its head….The polls are starting to suggest that the snow may have just begun to melt on the high slopes of the Hillary Clinton campaign.”
I’ve now started selling Hillary on the Spreadfair spread market where 10 points will go to the runner-up next November and 25 points to the winner. My £75 trade was at the 13.8 level - a price that assumes that she has almost got the nomination sewn up already. This is giving me two bites at the cherry. For if she fails to get the nomination I win £1035. If she gets the nomination but fails to win the overall race I get £285. If she becomes president I lose £840.
I am in this, though, for the short-term and won’t stick with the contract for long. If the polls continue to tighten as other stories like this one develop then that 13.8 could fall sharply and I’ll be able to get out a profit to pocket immediately.
For more conventional betting options on the race click here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
She also was outshone by Obama at the JJ events and was equivocating on a policy to give illegal immigrants driving licenses - something 80% of Americans were against. Now’s Obama’s chance.
I’m a Brit who just moved to America and the media has definitely turned pretty nasty on practically everything Hillary has done *since the last debate*. She had a really bad night and got criticised by pretty much everyone on the stage except Obama.
However I’d caution against betting long term against her. She’s an immensely capable candidate with one heck of a campaign team. She’ll bounce back.
Mike, keep an eye on the news after the 15th of this month - The Democrats have a debate in Nevada and if Hillary comes out of that well or perhaps just evenly matched against her opponents the media could very easily switch again.
The truth is she has such a huge poll lead she could afford to have that slipup. Even if she loses 10 points to Obama (who was criticised after the last debate too - Edwards was the big winner from it) she’d still be comfortably ahead.
As a short term trading strategy I understand what you are doing Mike. For what its worth, the view on the Sunday talkies was that this is a non-story. It merely reinforces people’s existing polarized views about Hilary.
Perhaps of more significance is Iowa Democrat’s decision to hold its primary on Jan 3rd. Many of Obama’s core students are college voters who may not be available to vote on the 3rd. This reinforces the likelihood that older Democrats, who overwhelmingly favour Hilary, become even more important in the caucus. It also might outweigh Obama’s good speeches in Iowa over the weekend. If Hilary gets off to a flyer in Iowa its probably all over for the Dem primaries.
Having said that, I do agree that Hilary’s price for the general election might drift out, if only for a while, but this has more to do with the Republican ship having stabilized. I rather feel that the competitive GOP race is of enormous benefit to the party – its is drawing out new ideas and policies and the malign influence of the south and the religious right is being diffused with more moderate, electable viewpoints. Whomever emerges victorious from the GOP primary is likely to get at least a short-term fillip against Hilary, especially if it is a candidate like Romney with lower national name recognition.
There wasn’t really much else of interest in the Sunday talkies. Maybe worth watching Obama and Romney if prices drift out, because they are still the most likely to consolidate the anti-Hilary and anti-Rudi votes.
I tried to do some research onto the gender divide in Hilary’s polling numbers, but somehow learned nothing new about gender politics in the developed world apart from some completely off-topic facts (which you all probably already know) about Birmingham Edgbaston and women MPs.
Not just the media narrative, the other candidates have turned against her too. They need to dent Hillary’s massive lead to stay in the race themselves.
Shades of Gordon Brown, incidentally. Hillary has a comfortable lead and her staff should refrain from silly stunts that can only backfire.
Interesting stuff
Who would have thought that Guido would have fallen for a Miliband
smear operation?
6- This article is one of the most damning assesments of the current cabinet I’ve ever read:
“It is extraordinary to recall that a mere few months ago, Mr Miliband was being widely written up as a future Prime Minister; I did some of the writing. He now forms part of a risible group of three along with the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, and the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. Never before have those three great offices of state been in the hands of such negligible figures.”
Ouch!
6 and 7. A very damning article. I read an article in the Observer yesterday that suggested a lot of the character assasination is down to Mallock Browns vocal support for the Palestinians. This wouldn’t surprise me at all because Israel is still the primary issue in many quarters not least ‘Labour friends of Israel’.
About the ‘risible holders of the three great offices of state’….I can only think he’s forgotten Lamont Waddington and Major. They would give anyone a run for their money in risibility
I’d be amazed to hear that there were American candidates who don’t get supporters to ask helpful questions at public meetings - I thought US politics was far more manipulated than that. Will voters really be shocked at the idea?
That said, Mike’s bet looks like a good short-term punt - Hillary’s lead is so huge that it seems bound to shrink a bit.
In reply to anatole on the last thread: I don’t say things on the forum that aren’t true, but I don’t let down colleagues (from either side of the house) either - they would not want to be named as there would be repercussions.
You don’t have to believe me, shrug. But any process that involves assessment of candidates by a single person and his associates (and as Gaz confirms, it can be quite difficult) was always likely to lead to some bruising and resentment. Neither of the MPs were much bothered about the principle - they just felt that people they liked were being unfairly treated by an autocratic operation that had bought its position in the party.
6,7,& 8 It has a definite ring of truth about it, doesn’t it? I watch developments with interest and in the meantime, I sell Labour on the seats market.
There is no harm putting some money on Obama. Hilary is still ahead but she is still beatable. This kind of political engineering is probably far more widespread than we realise, but did the American media pick up on it as well?
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
9 — I’m surprised there are politicians on either side of the Atlantic who think planted or patsy questions are a good idea.
If Clinton wants to talk about the weather, she can do so with or without the question. If voters care, eventually someone will ask anyway.
And any floating voter swayed by, “Will the Prime Minister agree with me that the Labour government is the best thing since sliced bread?” is probably not allowed to vote anyway.
These devices annoy people. We’re not stupid, even if we did vote for you last time.
Re Hillary, common sense dictates that the price is far too short at this stage of the electoral cycle. The planting of questions strikes me as non-news. It suggests however a willingness to find fault. That’s more damaging. Also, Obama got back on form in Iowa and Edwards is a long way from out of it. At 1.4, Hillary must be a safe sell, even if she gets there in the end. (I think she will.)
Meanwhile, Down Under it’s starting to look like a done deal. The latest Newspoll brought no relief to Howard and time is running out fast. Labour’s price at 1.33 is probably value but you need to put a lot on to make it worth while. It may be time however to look at some of those individual seats on which Betfair is offering markets. Ninemsn http://pulse.ninemsn.com.au/forecast gives individual seat prediction. Howard’s own Benelong seat, for example, appears to be under severe threat and is still available at a juicy 2.56.
The liquidity in other flaky Coalition seats is started to improve too.
The Independent article is in line with the one from Martin Ivens in the Times with some new details.
The conclusion is the same.
“It tells us what we should always have known: that despite some fleeting illusions to the contrary, Mr Brown cannot run a government of strong personalities, only a government of ciphers.”
Milliband is probably unsackable. Brown created a problem with Malloch Brown where one did not need to exist. Blair did something similar with Beckett and Hoon. It is amazing the Brown did not learn that lesson.
All 3 of the main offices of state have people in them that have already been undermined by Brown, yet his premiership is less than 6 months old. If he treats these people as juniors, no wonder they don’t feel able to stand up and promulgate the Govt’s position.
9 Nick P - have no doubt that some Conservative MPs and other people are concerned about the Ashcroft operation, but that would be the case whoever was running such a process - it’s a Dragon’s Den for PPCs and the decisions made will be questioned whoever was in charge (that’s political parties). There will be bruised egos, jealousy of status and concerns about powerbases.
As far as the leadership are concerned I think they made the right choice in putting in place a professional operation which asks for firm plans and commitment, follows up and measures its success. Lord Ashcroft proved its effectiveness last time and as a successful businessman seems as well placed as anyone to run it.
PtP. Good move. In the short term even I’d be selling Labour. Brown’s popularity was based on a belief that he was strong and willing to take on the vested interests and ugly partners Blair had gathered when he was leader.
We even dared to think he might champion the oppressed even if Bush Bolton and Cheney didn’t approve. He started well. He snubbed Bush and appointed Malloch Brown but that was it. Window dressing no more. A rubbish government with a rubbish opposition. I’m going off to do a Xmas ad. I may be sometime………..
On the issue of “who will be first to go” from the cabinet. A story from the Telegraph about Balls.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2007/11/12/ntory312.xml
Looks like he is covered. “Mr Balls’s office consulted the permanent secretary’s office on his appointment to the Smith Institute. HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office have confirmed that the normal and proper procedures were followed.”
16- Well, think of the bright side… At least you don’t live in a country like France that will be paralyzed (starting tomorrow) by a combined strike of:
- rail/metro/bus/education/post offices/energy civil servants (on strike to protect privileges such as retirement 5 to 10 years earlier than everybody else)
- university students (protesting against a law that would allow private companies to fund research at top universities in the name of equality: if they don’t fund everybody they shouldn’t be able to fund anybody!)…
Interesting article and difficult to answer whether now is the moment to sell Clinton.
I am researching this and have come across a useful website
real clear politics ,apologies I do not have the link.
Here is a summary of their latest poll findings
Election 2008 Republicans Democrats
National Giuliani + 12.4 Clinton + 22.2
Iowa Romney + 13.8 Clinton + 6.4
New Hampshire Romney + 11.2 Clinton + 13.5
South Carolina Romney + 0.3 Clinton + 15.0
Florida Giuliani + 17.0 Clinton + 30.0
Interesting comment by Hastings on Aitken
http://tinyurl.com/38md29
On Ashcroft, what he’s doing isn’t important, the fact he can do it, is! The only people who should be able to: vote for, belong to, work and contribute financially too, any British political party are British citizens, domiciled in the UK, no one else.
On Clinton, Oh come on! planting questions is as old as politics.
13: which seat is best value in your view? The poor fund is a bit depleted at the moment and any assistance in filling the coffers again would be a blessed relief.
9 Does a day go by without dear Nick P obsessing about Lord Ashcroft?
Still Nick P has to be admired for putting his money behind his views and offered one punter £10 on ICM not going below 34 in its remaining 07 polls for Labour. Risky if there are 2 more polls.
I am intrigued by Nick’s canvassing reports that seem so strong and he does not seem to be typical of MPs. Nick so far this year what would be the average number of leaflets that your team have delivered to each house to date? What number of those would be related to a local council election?
Agree that the question planting is really a non-story - but the interesting thing is the media narrative. She’s been panned at least four times in the last week or so - first on equivocating in the debate, then on playing the “I’m a girl being picked on by the boys” card after the said debate, then this, and finally that rather odd story involving not leaving a waitress a tipp and then the campaign allegedly lying about it.
It’s all pretty unsubstantial stuff, but the fact that it’s so insubstantial also means that there’s plenty more where that came from, so the media will be able to keep it up as long as they want to. This is a particular problem for Hillary, because so much of her appeal is based on her supposed ability to run a competent campaign and take control of the agenda. She’s winning based on the fact that she’s winning, so her much of her attractiveness will vanish if she starts to look like she’s losing.
So the question is what happens next. The obvious thing is that her support will drop somewhat (we’re already seeing this in the polls) and this will be reflected in short-term movements the betting exchanges. Whether it means anything beyond that is less obvious.
There’s some discussion on the JustOneMinute blog about this, where the author speculates:
“Not to be a Gloomy Guss but here is my gloomy guess - in a brawling street fight Hillary will easily re-emerge as the toughest Dem out there and the press will be thrilled to unveil a whole new narrative about the Comeback Queen whose true depths of character and resolve have finally been revealed by the grueling primary process blah, blah, kill me now, and quickly.”
http://tinyurl.com/2nt63q
I think that’s probably right; If anything, the media panning of Hillary has come too soon for Obama - I could see them getting bored of this in a couple of weeks and moving onto the comeback story instead. But I do think there could be a real opening for Obama here; The media want to puff him up right now at the expense of Clinton, and he just has to give them an excuse to do it.
Incidentally I agree with 5 that the thing has shades of Gordon Brown - but I think that rather than the point being that the staff are screwing things up with their stunts, the point is that politicians perform stunts like this all the time; The similarity is that the media are deciding to attack them for it.
Finally, on a slight tangent, there’s an interesting article here on why Iowa is hard to poll:
http://tinyurl.com/2oyb2h
Makes an interesting addition to Sea Shanty Irish’s comments here the last time we discussed this stuff:
http://tinyurl.com/3b5×42
22 - Perhaps Nick is preparing an early defeat speech for the Broxtowe count
Mike S I have twice tried to post a comment but it seems trapped in your filter. I edited to remove any obvious trip-wire words but still it didn’t go through.
Is it sensitive to ‘Labour luvvies’ by any chance?
25 Well it can’t be the luvvies then, can it?
Sorry, no idea why that final link is going to a site selling screwdrivers. The “x” seem to have been turned into something else.
Let me try again:
http://tinyurl.com/3b5×42
In case that doesn’t work either, I’m refering to the thread about Iowa on 2007/11/02.
Meanwhile Cameron continues to set the agenda:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7090065.stm
Speaking at the Conservative Women’s Organisation conference, Mr Cameron is expected to say: “Studies have shown that as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it’s okay to force a woman to have sex.
“To my mind, this is an example of moral collapse.”
He will call for “widespread cultural change” and warn that society has become increasingly “sexualised” over the past decade, during which time treating women as sex objects has become viewed as “cool”.
I think it would be a good time to stick or buy Hilary, she will tough it out, especially since all the other Democratic candidates are failing to win the “policy” ideas for the moment.
Nope, still getting screwdrivers. And drill bits. Try this instead:
http://eyaeh.notlong.com
28
Great! Well he’s got an expert on, ’sexualised’ (is that a real word?) Aitken! As an ex-pimp, Aitken must know an awful lot on that subject, get him on one of Dave’s commissions,.
Test
Good Morning Everyone.
6 - Ah yes, the sage Bruce Anderson speaks. I hear David Jacqui and Alistair think well of him too.
30 A useful mislink - reminded me I had meant to check prices on Screwfix for a purchase; thanks
34: Clearly a very worthy site - good to see the so-called “shopping cart” you always get on e-commerce sites referred to by its proper name of “trolley”.
(Apparently the original problem was that if you have two numbers in a link with an “x” in between Wordpress assumes you’re doing maths and helpfully converts the “x” into a multiplication sign.)
test seeking the tripwire word: on loans
33
Ah yes! dear Bruce, still the holder of the award for, greatest political prediction of all time, when in the’97 election campaign, he said on television:-
‘Why is it? that apart from John Major, I’m the only person in the country that thinks the Tories will win this election, not by much, but they will win it’
37. Nick Palmer must be in the running for that award with his prediction of a 97 style landslide in a 2007 autumn election.
38
I did suggest that the site, puts up an award for the most dire prediction for the next GE, called the Moggie, named after you-know-who! a man whose own predictions have been somewhat wide of the mark.
Its like groundhog day - Cameron leading the news agenda and Nick P whinging about Ashcroft money.
37: Most pundit have said stupid things at least once.
The Clunking One’s ‘Big Tent’ was a political ploy designed to make him look inclusive so we shouldn’t be shocked when it, like so much Gordon does, implodes.
Testing still seeking the tripwire word: donations
42. Witan, the banned words are all listed here: http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/the-banned-list/
39 - Ah yes, that autumn election.
Matt J I have gone through that list but can see no obvious problems. However the list has within it a number of phrases with ‘loans’ as part of them, and donation is a word that might be misused by others than the Labour party.
Anyway, as spam filters sometimes take on a life of their own going beyond the intentions of their creators, I thought I might try a couple of possibilities.
But thanks for pointing out the list to me.
BBC and no comment required:
“Thousands of illegal immigrants were cleared for jobs as security staff, says the Home Office.”
[28] Well, feminists were angry at women being treated as s*x objects when Cameron was in nappies, but you can’t blame him for trying to leave behind the impression that rape just didn’t happen in Good John Major’s Golden Days… I’m more than willing to be contradicted, but I tend to the view that women who were clean & sober at the relevant time do report sexual assault to the police…
46 but at least the government had the good grace to cover it up. they knew in may apparently but thought we would all be much safer if we didnt know ’security’ personnel were actually illegal immigrants!
28 But what would he actually do about it? More warm words…..
47. what do you mean by clean?
[50] Not under the effect of a drug (cocaine, cannabis etc)
Not a big thing on its own but we have to remember that this comes at a time when Hillary is already on the ropes. I don’t see any reason to deviate from my long-held judgement that she’s still the favourite but that it’s nowhere near as clear-cut as people would have you believe and that Edwards and Obama are by no means out of this.
Interestingly, Edwards has developed what could become a strong line of attack on this one, comparing it to Bush’s campaign management.
And this is particularly riveting because it’s in New Hampshire not Iowa. While Hillary has stumbled since the last debate, she still had a good lead in NH polls. I can see that disappearing very quickly now (at least in the short term) and it’ll open the race up further.
50. understood. I’m a little uncomfortable with this intervention by DC
with re: the Malloch Brown story have a look at this from the Sun. “Brown: I love the USA” the world has gone topsy turvy …..matron my pills
http://tinyurl.com/2jqonr
40. As I noted a few days ago, Nick Palmer is turning into an obsessive ‘creature of the night’ style poster, along the lines of francis. Somewhat ironic given his previous bleatings about SeanT and others posting obsessively on a single subject…
If David Milliband had any backbone he would force Malloch Brown out now in a “him or me” threat to GB, rather than try and use the media in a whispering campaign. If Milliband did resign over it, it would be seen as a principled stand. But Milliband does not do principles.
GB cannot afford to lose Milliband and would be wise to accede power to his main Ministers. That of course would be against Brown’s instincts so I do not expect him to do it.
Meanwhile our Homeless Secretary J. Smith, wanders around not knowing how many days detention she is asking for. When she was a teacher she could actually take that decision for herself.
6. Does anyone take any notice of what bruce anderson thinks? I don’t think so. But the Observer a\rticle about malloch brown was far more interesting.
When she was a teacher she could actually take that decision for herself.
54 The value of Ashcroft to Labour is that his presence makes it impossible for the Tories to present themselves as the squeaky-clean “anti-sleaze” party, and it blunts the impact of the loans for honours investigation. The Tories must realise this - I suppose they are so short of cash they have no choice.
55: The timing would be perfect with Brown so weak. Little David might not get a better chance.
21 His Eminence.
Bennelong.
58. Delusional. No-one is remotely interested in the Ashcroft story except Labour spinners.
58 - what rot. What is “sleazy” about a businessman putting his money into helping Opposition candidates in the key seats have a level playing field with the incumbent Labour MPs and their taxpayer-funded propaganda?
Sounds most philanthropic to me.
Union barons ploughing money in to support a failed government, by contrast, just shows who still flexes the muscles on the Left.
Nick P sorry to be off topic but to hark back to the previous thread, but would you be canvassing so assiduously if your majority was 15,000, and if not why not? and would you then mind so much if your opponents campaign was being funded?
46
Imo there are a LOT of Government agencies whose HR resources heads should be fired.
Reason: It’s illegal to employ illegal immigrants.
So step 1 of any recruitemnt policy? Check immigration status. Any doubt and you don’t hire.
Since I understand the Met are also involved, on emust ask if their much vaunted anti-terrorism policy is applied to recruitemnt?
Does not look like it.
46. It seems hardly a day passes without further confirmation of this government’s utter incompetence.
I’m unsure if this has already been noted but those interested in news of “Jack W” will be pleased to note that his wife has posted a comment on his behalf on Conservative Home following the selection of Stuart Penketh as a PPC. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2007/11/stuart-penketh-.html
60: many thanks
62 It may sound philanthropic to you but there will be people who will put other interpretations on it.
Bob Sykes “Union barons ploughing money in to support a failed government, by contrast, just shows who still flexes the muscles on the Left.”
But one day Brown will have to heed the call of his paymasters, something Blair did not have to do in his early years. Brown is more dependent on union cash than Blair was.
Well, this thread did start as an American one, so here’s something for those who think that my belief that evangelical conservatives will stop at nothing to subvert the government of the United States is paranoid to ponder:
http://tinyurl.com/2rf724
Hope that works, I’ve never used the Tiny Earl’s good offices before
I disagree with you Mike. I believe Hillary is unbeatable (except maybe by a Gore write-in) because there is no credible alternative (I don’t consider Barack Obama or Edwards that credible). In fact I’ve bet quite a bit of my betting book on her.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/why-only-an-almightly-scandal-will-stop-hillary/
This story shows the importance of camapigning, and the need to test politicians before they become leaders. I am sure in relation to Hillary this is a non story. She is proving herself to be a formidable, capable and competent campaigner, and although her odds may lengthen in the short term, this will surely be only a blip.
Therefore it just increasingly appears insane that Labour did not try and test Brown in a leadership contest beforehand. We needed to see him in these kind of debates, thinking on his feet, trying to win people over. Brown’s clumsiness, lack of vision, and general just unlikeability would have been evident.
I think in relation to the leadership of the 2 major parties we must be in the realms of embarrassment. This not only refers to the party leaders themselves, but the respective front benches. I think this is the poorest government we have had in my lifetime, full of lightweights, and career politcians. The Tory bench fares little better comprising mostly of people who see their job as some kind of part time hobby.
David Davis and Jack Straw stand aloft in teams of pygmies. Now that tells us what state we are in.
70. 350 years or so ago a small group of religious zealots inspired by millenarian fantasies succeeding in entirely subverting the system of government in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Strangely enough, for left wingers that was apparently positive, while Monday night Bible clubs and over-zealous chaplains at an American airbase represent some kind of constitutional catastrophe.
73 “350 years or so ago a small group of religious zealots inspired by millenarian fantasies succeeding in entirely subverting the system of government in England, Scotland, and Ireland.”
Yes but civilisation has moved on a bit since then (though not, apparently, in the US military)..
Could, and I have no idea how these things work, there be a three or more way stand-off at the Democratic convention, with Gore then being acclaimed (or whatever the word is) as a generally acceptable candidate?
62
‘Union barons ploughing money in to support a failed government, by contrast, just shows who still flexes the muscles on the Left.’
Of course the Unions receive millions in state aid from this government dressed up as various grants,so in reality a lot of the Union money just like MP’s is courtesy of the taxpayer.
re 71. You fundementally fail to understand my approach to betting
I am a trader - I don’t bet on outcomes that might be a year off but on how things might change in days and weeks. If there is more negative coverage about Hillary and if her Iowa and NH performances are not as good as expected then the betting price will move. I bet on that movement.
If I get it wrong then I close down positions quickly. If I get it right I take the profits and run.
Also I try not let my personal political views affect my betting which I think you do Matthew.
72 Tyson. “I think this is the poorest government we have had in my lifetime, full of lightweights, and career politcians. The Tory bench fares little better comprising mostly of people who see their job as some kind of part time hobby.”
Dead right! But we didn’t arrive at this situation overnight. The situation has gradually deteriorated to this, and I cannot see any sign that this slide will be reversed if we let things go on as they are.
PS Also spot-on with you observations about “the need to test politicians before they become leaders”
re 72 - Now here’s a provocative statement - at least the Lib Dem front bench looks strong. Huhne, Clegg, Laws and Cable are at least the match of either their Tory or Labour equivalents
O/T I’ve just bought The Almanac of British Politics, and I’m very pleased to see I get an acknowledgement in the Introduction, along with a number of regular contributors here, and of course, Mike Smithson.
72 I think that problem is largely caused by the rise of the professional politician, who goes from university, to think tank, to lobby group, to ministerial adviser, to safe seat, to ministry. You’re looking at people with little in the way of a hinterland.
22,63: Information on the number of leaflets delivered since the local elections is classfied! - I’m happy to be reasonably frank but there comes a point where it gets silly (and of little interest to others outside Broxtowe, surely?). Significantly more than the Tories, though - so far as I know they’ve put out just one leaflet since they lost the June by-election.
As Marquee Mark hasn’t taken up the feline charity bet, let me throw it open to anyone. £10 that no ICM poll before the end of the year will show Labour below 34%. First come, first served - you choose your charity, I choose Cats Protection as usual. Hey, you think Cameron’s hugely popular, the Tories are setting the agenda - how can you possibly lose? (Consumer warning: the cats have only ever lost one bet.)
If my majority was 15K, would we work as hard? I don’t know - I like to think so, but who knows, really? I certainly worked just as hard when I was fighting hopeless seats in 1983 and 1995, but huge majorities do breed complacency.
Would I still be vocally opposed to the purchase of the Tory marginal seats operation by a multi-millionaire of unclear residence for tax purposes, exploiting the fact that there are no spending limits whatever? Glad you asked. Yes.
69 - For all those who talk about Labour being in the pocket of the unions, there are endless examples of the Labour government disagreeing with the unions on a whole range of issues.
Can anyone give any examples of a Tory Party policy which Lord Ashcroft opposes, or which would harm his personal interests?
79. How sad that none of them will ever hold office.
77.
Fair enough if we have different strategies. I have to say that I don’t really have any skin in the Democratic nomination - I’m not American and I lean more towards McCain and Giuliani than any of the Democrats (I was also pretty neutral on 2004 - though I had a small bet on Kerry when his odds were longer than that justified by either the situation or subsequent results).
79- Mike- I think you are right. I was impressed by both Huhne and Clegg here, and they have other big hitters. The LD’s are also amassing a group of helpful grandees on the scale of the other parties too, Ming, Chaz, Shirley, Paddy etc..
Who has got the most talented front team at the minute? It saddens me to say that I think Labour is genuinely the weakest. It lost its 2 biggest talents in Blair, and Reid. I miss people like Charley Falconer, even Beckett. But the Tories are hardly inspiring?
84. Maybe Cable won’t, but Clegg and Laws are certainly young enough to. I also think commenters who come up with the ‘they’ll never hold office, and there’s an end on it’ line insufficiently value the role to be played by holding government to account.
71 Matthew (and others)
Gore is not standing.
I promise you.
81- Sean Fear- so true. I never understood how local parties put up with having people foisted on them. You know that you are going to get some egotistical character, who will sell his grandmother into slavery if required, and who views local foot soldiers largely as saddos.
re 82 Nick thanks for the answer and confirming that you might still work as hard for your constituents if you were in a safe seat. If only all MPs were as conscientious.
O/T Breaking News - Huge Pall Of Smoke Over East London
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1292498,00.html
82 - Nick - sorry, wasn’t hiding from you - must have missed the bet. (On yesterday’s thread perhaps? Haven’t read it all.)
Sub 34 this year? Mmmm…..much nearer to six weeks than the six months span I was talking about to get to the twenties. It will be tight in that timeframe. My take is that the press are going to have some blood-sport at Brown’s expense - he’s a man who clearly has questions to be asked of his competence and he is becoming the story faster than I might have expected.
So I will take the bet on. (As long as I can get the true number up to 33.99% - not the rounded number!)
So - Labour to poll 33.99% or less in any ICM poll by 31st December 2008 - another £10 to the cats if you win, £10 to the dogs at Babbington Rescue if I do. (Gawd help me, my success may depend upon the LibDems! Hopefully the press around the new leader will eat some support from Labour - AND get caught up in time for an ICM poll! Big ifs….!)
88. Never said that he was, just that if something happened to Hillary there would be considerable pressure on him to enter the contest.
Would I still be vocally opposed to the purchase of the Tory marginal seats operation by a multi-millionaire of unclear residence for tax purposes, exploiting the fact that there are no spending limits whatever? Glad you asked. Yes.
so now you’ve banged on about Ashcroft to no avail you’ve got it in for poor old Ronald Cohen?
Is that because he too has realised that Brown is the worst PM since WWII (and in a list including John Major and Anthony Eden that takes some doing).
If you look at Clinton’s lead it’s a lot bigger than anything Brown ever had over Cameron. The problem is that because she’s so popular she’s an obvious target for all the other candidates. I would still say she’s likely to win the Democrat nomination.
82- Nick Palmer- as I found your comments quite touching on Saturday, and it is a good cause I will match this bet with you.
So I bet £10 on Labour going below 34% in ICM before the end of the year. If I win I will put the winnings to our local cat rescue in Oxfordshire. Cats win all round.
and Peter the Punter the cheque is in the post for 80% of a monkey- is it OK to use that kind of jargon?
91 Sky are just about choking back their disappointment at it “only” being a warehouse fire.
The world of 24 hour news has a lot to answer for when a fire at a disused bus depot in east london is shown live on Fox News.
82. 83. There;s no stopping the ‘creatures’…
re 96. Tyson - I fear you are going to lose the bet. “Below 34%” means 33% or less and I can’t see that happening before the New Year.
92- marquee mark- am such a slow typer that you got in on this first. So Nick can take you up on your offer, but is still wecome to take mine as well.
92- marequee- sorry- I am such a slow typer- I am happy for you to go first, or Nick can take both our offers.
for all Nick’s complaints about Tories “buying” votes and all the leaflets his opponents are putting out, he then says at post 82. that the Tories have only put out 1 leaflet since June in his marginal seat as far as he is aware. so what is it. IS ashcroft buying lost of leaflets or are the tories inactive, you can’t have it both ways
99 - Mike, sub 34% means 33.99% in my world. Disappointing that you have so little faith that your new leader is going to make a splash!
91 It’s me Chris. Just backed another loser.
An interesting take on the US primary race.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/11/opinion/edbrain.php?page=1
It’s the brain, stupid.
93 Matthew
I believe there would be certain practical difficulties in his way now if he were to do an about turn and try to stand. It’s possible these could be overcome, but there has not been the slightest indication from him that he means to stand.
Gore’s decision not to stand is based upon his decision that Hillary is unbeatable. If this change there would be such a vacuum in the contest that he’d change his mind. Anyway, given that the market is saying he has a 6% chance of winning I’m keeping my contracts.
OT:
New parliamentary prediction based on updated polling data.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/filtered-polling-data-hung-parliament-3/
107. All that would happen were Hillary to appear beatable would be a tighter contest. I can’t see any circumstances in which Gore could run now.
Tyson - Blair and Reid were certainly great media performers. I think the government really lacks that now. Blunkett and Clarke were effective too. When you’re under the cosh you need someone who can come out on the offensive and get the Government’s message across. The Brownites just don’t have the tact to do it well and end up simply smearing their opponents.
I wondering if Brown will ever regret sidelining Mr Reid, as he never saw the benefit of him the way Blair did.
82 - As much as I respect Nick Palmer, I don’t like the way you refer to Ashcroft as ‘buying’ or ‘purchasing’ Tory marginals. He may provide funding for a campaign, but he is not bribing people for their votes. I hope you recognise the difference.
92/96/99/103 etc: OK, both bets accepted - as Tyson says, the cats win on ours either way, and as I’ve actually got a dog rather than a cat (wives get a vote in these things too…) Marquee’s choice is fine too. Marquee - if you analyse the headline ICM figure and can show it was even a squidgin under 34%, you win. We’ll let Mike arbitrate if there’s any doubt about which quesiton is relevant.
jimbo at 102: the idea that my objection to Ashcroft’s strategy is based on personal fear is something that others have put up, not me: I’m concerned but as you observe it’s not really bitten here yet. The position in Broxtowe is that the Tories were offered the money quite a long time back, but they haven’t been able to get their act together because they don’t have many volunteers. They finally agreed to buy in to the standard 4-pager that you’ve probably seen elsewhere (letter format on the front, masses of text).
Roughly one household in three has received it so far, though I believe the noble Lord’s team has been told it’s gone to all households. It’s that target-driven culture, y’know - it encourages creative accounting. That nice Mr Cameron keeps telling us, but will the Tories listen, I ask you?
109: yes, I’ve never suggested that bribery is involved or anything illegal. However, spending vast sums in the hope of swaying opinion is IMO reasonably described as trying to buy a favourable result.
104 - the bonfire of the Betting Slips?
107 - interesting pollling data.
“Inputting the latest ICM poll and putting the updated data through Samplemiser gives the following predicted voting shares: Conservatives 42.52 Labour 35.13 Lib Dems 15.04″
So, Nick, I only need Labour to lose another 1.14% to win my bet!
I don’t like the way you refer to Ashcroft as ‘buying’ or ‘purchasing’ Tory marginals
Quite. Desperate language from Nick which suggests extreme discomfort about his prospects for holding his seat. However much he ridicules the local Tories as a disorganised rabble, he knows well enough that with such a small majority any substantial national swing will have him applying for jobs with the RSPCA.
110. It comes across to me that personal fear is one of the main reasons that you have been posting on this subject, and if as you assert that 2/3 of the paid for leaflets aren’t being delivered then i don’t see why your lot should be so concerned!
seperately, your wife is right about the dog, far better animals than cats
110. Nick your comments do have a few holes in them. I don’t know why the Ashcroft thing is bothering you if all we’ve managed is that texty leaflet to 1 in 3 homes. If that’s the case, Ashcroft will know about it and won’t be giving the money.
I know a lot of what’s going on with Tory funding in Broxtewe but couldn’t possibly disclose such on here. I would get shot. I find the discussion fascinating though
79. Nothing provocative about that Mike. The bean counters could really come in handy if we face another Northern Rock style crisis. Cable has certainly impressed me as leader, but whether this registers more widely, I don’t know.
If I’d been an early bird on friday, I would have asked Nick Clegg if he thought Vince had made a mistake in not standing?
113 et al. I’m afraid that Nick P’s complaints lack any credibility. The Conservative Party’s marginal seats campaign is funded by a range of donors and membership fees, just as the rest of its work is, other than the Short Money that funds research. The operation is working within electoral law passed by this Labour government. His only complaint appears to be that Labour, its own millionaires (Sainsbury, Cohen, etc.) and its Union funders cannot afford to match the effort. Not an intellectually coherent argument, more a case of sour grapes.
117. Well put. It really is little more than childish whingeing.
111 Trades unions too, of course.
117 only two more years to put with it though, look on the bright side.
Nick P should be more concerned with the fact that the Conservatives are dominating the agenda than about the success of its local campaigning. Just a quick look at the BBC politics page…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
Five out of seven stories are about Tory activities and ideas, one is about a staggering New Labour cockup, and one about Greek olive oil.
Yer goin’ down, yer goin’ down, etc.
120. I’d suggest your complacency is a bad thing. I don’t remember a similar attitude amongst Labour pre ‘97. I thought I made a valid criticism at 109, but given the reaction of some Tories on here, i’m sarting to regret it.
However, I must say Cameron focusing on rape today looks like a smart move. Sme figures look shocking, particularly compared with Europe. Also helps decontaminate the Tory MCP brand.
121 - another clear sign of the BBC’s anti-Tory bias, right?
122 its not complacency just wishful thinking.
123. I have never joined the anti-BBC chorus. I believe it needs reform, and that the current management is uniquely stupid, but I have never, and would never, accuse the BBC of institutional bias against the Tories.
122 Governator 2 re your 109 Can you ever regret telling the truth?
125. Sorry to sound pompous, donpaskini, but knee-jerk Tory antipathy to the BBC is irritating, pointless and ill-informed. But, hey, we’re a broad church !
121. Nick Palmer and other Labour apparatchiki still seem to be stuck in a 1995-2003 mindset where all they have to do is jump up and down and shout ’sleaze’,'nasty party’,'racist’ etc. to generate wall-to-wall negative publicity and lower poll ratings for the Tories. It’s tired and pathetic.
May I respectfully suggest that criticism of Nick P on this site is misplaced and juvenile. He is one of the best posters on this site and is always honest. We should be greatful that an MP posts here as he has an invaluable viewpoint.
I, for one, would deplore any attempt at trying to shout down or belittle his efforts here. Much rather him than the childish and purile Stewart Jackson.
In short, leave Nick alone!
May I respectfully suggest that criticism of Stewart Jackson on this site is misplaced and juvenile. He is one of the best posters on this site and is always honest. We should be greatful that an MP posts here as he has an invaluable viewpoint.
I, for one, would deplore any attempt at trying to shout down or belittle his efforts here.
New thread
RedFlump Should we tug our forelocks as we read his posts?
Is anyone seriously suggesting that Jackson’s posts are better than Nick’s? At least Nick *tries* to be objective.
129. He is a good poster, but I think “honest” is rather stretching the point a little. I noted his tactic in a posting yesterday.
132 - No, just behave yourself. That’s all I’m saying!
133. Hahaha funniest post of the week. Are you really so gullible or just remarkably unintelligent?
135 RedFlump Your post at 129 would fit right into Black Adder III.
129. My dear girl, your tangled logic is terrible. Firstly you say how priviliged we are to have MPs insights on this site then you say you criticise another MP for posting here. bizarre. I would like to see more MPs post on here and i think Mike has done a great Job with the lib dem hustings stuff. I also think we should be more welcoming to new posters. when Jackson posted here recently (admittedly he has a bit of a bombastic style in contrast to Nick’s polite and calm style) he was given quite a bit of stick even by Nick himself.
with re: criticism of Nick. I appreciate him posting here and like the insight he gives. He has also been posting here considerably longer than me. However, when he lines up an argument and goes on about certain issues with an almost religious zeal it is only fair that people put the other view across.
112 Marquee
Just backed my first winner for a week. Clouds over East End dispersing.
Re. 72, Benn and Denham are OK, but under-promoted. I think Denham would have made a better Home Secretary than Jacqui Smith, what with being a former Police Minister and former Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Bring back Reid and Milburn. Replace Darling with Straw, and kick out Browne (who looked overpromoted as Immigration Minister). Benn for Foreign Secretary.
David Davis? I agree. He was an excellent Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and gave a statesmanlike response to the London bombings. I also fail to understand why Damian Green isn’t in the Shadow Cabinet.
Re. 86, Beckett might have been OK as Party Chairman, or a similar ‘Minister for the Today programme’ role, but was woefully overpromoted as Foreign Secretary (as is the useless geek Miliband). And her numerous self-serving oscillations on the party’s left-right internal spectrum make the Vicar of Bray look like a model of consistency.
GETTTING BACK TO US PRESIDENTIAL . . .
One factor that appears to be unappreciated (or at least under-appreciated) is the impact of the IOWA caucus results upon the NEW HAMPSHIRE primary, and the impact of both IA & NH upon the following contest, and so forth & so on.
This is not to say that national polling numbers have no meaning. They do. BUT the national numbers will be strongly affected by the results in early states.
#3 slec (in NY) makes an interesting point about college students and the fact that Jan. 3 is clearly NOT a date that will maximize their participation in the Iowa caucuses.
HOWEVER
a) am not convinced that Obama has a lock on this vote, though he may indeed be leading with the collegiate crowd; and
b) the potential college vote is concentrated in a few counties, most notably Johnson (University of Iowa) and Story (Iowa State University) and also a few other counties with smaller public & private schools (for example, Winnisheik Co, the home of Luther University, where I helped to organize the late Sen. Paul Simon’s locally-victorious effort back in the 1988 Democratic caucus). And even in these counties, the student vote is concentrated in a few precincts.
Remember that in a caucus, the key factor is not how many bodies you turnout on the night, but how many precinct delegates you are able to elect.
Hypothetical: say turnout 100 students in a college precinct that elects 10 delegates, and maybe win 5 of those . . . while in a group of ten nearby rural townships that each elect 1 delegate, your opponent turns out 3 or 4 farmers in each one and sweeps the lot . . .thus winning twice as many delegates with fewer than half the votes.