Why is Nick Clegg still at 0.36/1?
November 17th, 2007
Is there some “funny trading” taking place?
With ballot packs in the Lib Dem leadership race due to go out early next week it’s likely that a significant proportion of the 65,000 members entitled to vote will have made their decisions and popped their envelopes back in the post by next weekend.
So Thursday’s Huhne-Clegg debate in the special edition of Question Time came at a critical moment and might be highly influential - and the general view from Lib Dem blogs, the thread on this site, media commentators, and a range of party activists and head office officials that I have spoken with was that Huhne “won on points”.
-
In particular, what is being observed by many, the much-lauded “superior communication skills” that Nick Clegg is supposed to possess were not apparent in the broadcast.
I’ve been particularly influenced by two or three strong Ming-supporters from 2006 who have now switched to Huhne. I should add that the one strong Simon Hughes supporter I know from last year is now going for Clegg - surprising given that he is perceived as the more right wing of the two. Maybe she should ready Polly Toynbee.
This all brings us to the betting which is somewhat out of line with responses to Thursday night. Clegg has hardly moved from the 0.36/1 price on Betfair while Huhne is out at 2.8/1.
One of the characteristics of the prices on Betfair is that for a longish period there has been what is often termed a “collar and a cap” on the Clegg odds. There’s usually a pile of money in the region of 0.34/1 making it very difficult for the price to tighten beyond that - and there’s usually been a fair bit waiting to be laid at 0.37/1 or thereabouts making it hard for the betting to ease outwards.
Given what appeared to happen in the last race when the Huhne price seemed to be too tight for long periods you have to question whether something similar might be going on now.
Could a wealthy Clegg backer be trying to keep his man the odds-on favourite? An alternative view is that the Huhne campaign, very aware of what was being said in 2006, is keeping the Clegg price tight now with the intention of moving it out when the time is ripe.
With no opinion polls of Lib Dem members having taken place we have no real idea how this is going - thus the betting prices can take on the role of a key indicator.
Compared with my normal betting this has not been a big market for me - but I remain of the view that the final result will be much tighter than the current odds suggest.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I predict
Huhne 22,000
Clegg 19,000
Yes Mike - watched Question Time and liked Huhne more than I expected - I voted for Ming last time. Polly Toynbee’s Guardian article influencing me too. Still undecided - perhaps 55 Clegg, 45 Huhne but wavering.
Northern Rock
How long will Alistair Darling be able to survive? Surely there will come a point when somebody will have to be offered up as a sacrificial lamb? The question is which is less politically dangerous - getting rid of the Governor of the Bank of England who probably has the financial knowledge to cause Gordon a fair bit of damage, or the Chancellor, who doesn’t.
Norther Rock Directors keep their jobs!!!! Applegarth may get compensation!!!.
From the FT: Northern Rock on Friday night announced the departures of chief executive Adam Applegarth and most of its board ….Mr Applegarth would stay on as chief executive until the end of January……It is “undecided” whether Mr Applegarth will receive compensation……Executive directors David Baker, Keith Currie and Andy Kuipers will also stand down from the board although they will remain as managers with the company.
3/4. Am I overegging it to suggest that this has the potential to be a slow-motion Black Wednesday for the government, both politically and economically - except that the numbers involved are very much bigger?
Would the 24 billion lent to Nrock breach Labours new Ashcroft limits for spending in north east marginals?
Although a supporter of PR, I think it’s odd of Polly to suggest that the leader of one of the main political parties should be chosen primarily on precisely how hard he’s willing to press the issue. Because it’s not going to be on offer - I can imagine either major party offering PR at local level with a promise to review the national system after a few years, but a direct leap in return for a deal after the next GE simply won’t happen.
Look at the politics of it, in a hung parliament situation. The Tories would have just gained 60 or so seats and a majority would be a tantalisingly close prospect. Give it up forever in return for a quick deal? Hell no. Labour would have just lost 60 or so seats. Cobble together a deal to stay on in power? The electorate would be pretty scathing about it.
But Mike’s assessment of the odds looks right - you’d think they should be much closer to evens. The few LibDems who I’ve talked to are admittedly all voting Clegg, but that’s because this is the E Mids and they know him personally.
6. Surely you are not suggesting the government is using taxpayers’ money to buy votes? What a scandalous allegation.
What amuses me about Mikes piece is the calm acceptance by Lib Dem posters on here that one, or possibly both, of their leadership contenders are attempting to manipulate the betting odds to favour themselves/damage their opponent.
Welcome to politics Lib Dem style.
Two related points. I just read this from the excellent Toynbee article concerning the Lib Dem ledership:
“Last time this happened in the early 1980s, when the choice presented to the voters was Michael Foot’s catastrophically unelectable Labour party versus Margaret Thatcher’s slashing and burning of jobs, lives and public services from which the social fabric has not yet recovered……”
Then reading the first few messages on the Northern Rock crisis I’m reminded of why as a society we shouldn’t let the Tories anywhere near power again. If Northern rock had not received it’s BOE/Treasury guarantees-which under the Tories I’m sure it wouldn’t-we’d have had a run on several innocent banks and in the interests of free market purity many thousands of would have lost their savings and as many would have lost their jobs.
On topic, there is always this dilemma when a market looks to be behaving strangely. Logically, there looks to be some value in Huhne’s price but how close is he to winning? Unlike last time, there are no polls to guide us - and this may be making people cautious about putting too much money down without sufficient information to back it up, as PtP suggested a couple of days ago. Actually, there’s been precious little coverage of the campaign full stop: the mainstream media have more or less entirely ignored it.
Even so, from the little reporting there has been, Huhne’s campaign does seem to have gathered a little momentum since being out-nominated (a matter of little consequence in terms of votes unless MPs are representative of the party at large). If so, Huhne’s chances must have increased - but to what level? That’s the key. If his predicted vote share is up from say 38% to 43% (and to reinforce: that’s a hypothetical example - I’m making both figures up), the fact is he would still lose. If he’s now at 48% or even 52%, things are very different with the ballot papers going out soon: but we have no good idea.
Whether or not the market is being manipulated, its movements don’t make it that attractive to enter with so little fluctuation, unless you’re after a payout on the win - as the opportunities to make profits on trading are limited. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve got my all-green on it and am now out of the game, subject to the kind of newsworthy development that has been all too lacking so far.
10 If Gordon hadn’t imposed such a poor regulatory regime - splitting responsibility between the Bank. FSA and Treasury - then unlikely Northern Rock would have reached the position of having customers demanding their money. The cause was the regime the effect the run.
10. Clueless, as usual
OT for Nick Palmer - it’s me you’ve got a bet with on Boris v Ken. I offered the bet and you took it up and then offered me better odds as you felt sorry for my naiivety in thinking Boris would win.
The bet’s still good unless you want to chicken out
Ted . Do you believe the Tories would have put in even more stringent regulations or is that just a partisan post?
The Guardian backs Clogg errr Cligg
http://tinyurl.com/2pl3qc
David
Yes I’m all green onis market too and plan to stay that way, but titled heavily towards Huhne. I’ve backed him at effective odds of 3/1. Due to the lack of liquidity and movement in the market,I expect to stick with that position.
In reality,Huhn is im more of 6/4 shot, and I need hardly point out to you that if we could back 6/4 shots at 3/1 all the time, we would soon be rich!
15 The decision to split responsibility for oversight away from the Bank and to the FSA was opposed at the time - Tories wouldn’t have done it the same way. Of course they wrongly opposed BoE independence as well but once that decision was taken it was Brown and co. who imposed a complex split of responsibilities. It’s not about stringency but about aligning responsibilities. So the FSA failed in their duties as regards Northern Rock , the Bank identified a buyer before the bank run but couldn’t (as it had done in the past) act without Treasury & FSA approval. Treasury, led by a weak Chancellor, dithered.
It’s not partisan to say that the regulatory regime, put in place by Chancellor Brown, was exposed as inefficient and unable to act quickly. The Treasury was also responsible for selecting the key players.
9 It’s Mike’s theory but I suspect most of us don’t believe a word of it.
Perhaps Nick Palmer can tell us if he is still confident that the bailout of NR won’t cost taxpayers a penny, and if it does, how much he thinks is an acceptable amount?
He might also like to tell us which schools, hospitals etc. will see cuts as a result of all this.
Now that is a partisan post - but it’s also a serious one.
12-jeff- there was an in depth feature of radio 4 this morning that was backing up just abut everything Roger was saying- without govt intervention the crisis would have been much with run after run on successive banks. 24 or even 40 billion is a small price to pay to avert financial melt down. Less than 7 bn is unsecured, but the govt is more than likely to recoup all its money in the long term.
10-Roger- I always think it is worth pointing out the sheer callousness that pervades the Tory party. Certainly the nastiness of many of the creatures on this site is a dead giveaway.
10 - The providing of £billions to prop up the bank and the decision to underwrite customer deposits are two separate issues. Since the Government are now openly talking about limiting the losses on the former arrangement it is clear that something has gone wrong with it.
10: ‘excellent Toynbee article’, it’s the way you tell them Roger.
Anyway for all the talk, i suspect that a small minority of us on here really know about the true financial implications of the whole thing (although the attempt above to say that the Govt is only risking £7 billion seems a bit blase when you consider that Black Wednesday ‘only’ cost £3.4 billion). What matters for the purposes of this site is the political implications, and the political implications for the Govt look anything but rosy. Hypotheticals about how much worse it could be are really irrelevant.
24: The effort Labour are taking to hide things doesn’t inspire confidence.
Yeah I am back online at home and can post again . On topic will make my mind up on who to vote for when I have heard both candidates at the hustings here in Worthing on Monday night . From what I have seen already I will happy enough whichever wins as I believe both have the potential to be good and possibly great leaders .
Re the betting , I am all green and will remain so with small repeated bets and lays to gradually improve my position . I don’t see myself any evidence that the Betfair market is or has been manipulated which is a pity as it would give me an opportunity to improve my position rather more .
16. Yes but their leading article appears odd and confused to me. The bulk of it seems to support the view that Huhne is winning the media duel and for no clear reason at the end says it supports Clegg. Polly Toynbee’s article earlier this week was impressively thought provoking and reasoned and she clearly ended up endorsing Huhne.
Othe other hand in the Telegraph we are told that Clegg could “out Cameron” Cameron because of his appeal to Tory housewives! See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/17/nclegg117.xml
27
Feel that all this, ‘one member one vote’ stuff is looking rather outdated, surely political parties should be thinking of an, ‘X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing’ type format. With the money from the phone calls going into party funds.
24-the reality is noone knows the true financial implications to the tax payer, but it certainly ain’t 40 bn.
FWIW- I think the BoE should call in the loan, force Northern House into administration and then buy the company for £1. The hedgefunders would mostly lose out, although there are 100,000 or so small shareholders who kept their stake after demutualising.
I would rather this than someone like Branson cream profits after eying up the tax payers cash propping up the bank now.
And yes- I agree with you on the political fallout. It doesn’t look good for labour, even though most exerts would agree that they have done a pretty good job. Ho hum- that is politics for you.
I did wonder whether a Huhne backer could be keeping Clegg’s price tight in order to make it drift later, giving the impression that the momentum was with Huhne. But I think this strategy would be too risky. People like backing winners and the favourite status that Clegg enjoys will aid his chances in the election.
So if anyone is seeking to artificially hold down Clegg’s price I would think it would be a Clegg supporter. Given the fact that a Huhne backer appeared to do this for his man last time, I doubt either side would risk being accused of manipulating the market this time.
So is the likeliest explanation is that someone feels Clegg is value at current odds? Could be some burnt fingers here.
28. Well Lord Rennard has just emailed all LD members that there is going to be an additional hustings on YouTube next Thursday and requested them to take part and submit questions. Thats progressive and upto date!
31: Online video, only something Cameron has been doing for months.
30 Many of us seem to feel the correct odds should be something like Clegg 1.6 - 1.7 Huhne 3.0 but the market has not moved much if at all in that direction .
re 30 - well the effect this morning is that the collar is still in place at 0.34/1 but the cap on the Clegg price has disappeared. Funny that. The last Clegg trade was at 0.4/1.
Ralph @ 32.
Cameron’s has been a home voyeur cam and not a hustings. It seems like a good idea and should be welcomed by all parties hoping to improve engagement in the political process.
35: YouTube is a static, prerecorded medium that offers little more than soundbites. If the Lib Dems really wanted to do something novel a live feed would be the answer.
36. Yes - members are being encouraged to video themselves asking questions and then to submit the video.
Ralph @ 32: and only something that the Lib Dems had already been doing for months before Cameron started
If I remember chancellor Brown ripped off the telecom companies for 3G to the tune of £30 billion so the treasury is well in credit thanks to his business acumen however much NR costs and if government isn’t there to look after the citizenry then what’s it for?
Tyson. Fortunately the ‘Jeff’s’ of this world are always there to slap you with a wet kipper and remind you-lest you forget- of the ugly face behind Cameron’s soapy smile.
Patrick Mercer, warns of Clegg appeal, or is this a Tory double bluff,eheheheh!
http://tinyurl.com/2w7nxp
39 The £30bn cost round 100,000 jobs in the telecoms/IT industries so it wasn’t a cost free transfer of shareholders cash to debt repayment. UK lost large employers and stake in a developing industry - Marconi down the drain, BT sold off its foreign investments and mobile business, other IT companies shut, downsized or moved. The debts racked up by the successful bidders cut their ongoing investments and worsened the effect of the dot.com bubble burst in UK. There was a knock on effect in stock exchange and on value of occupational pensions etc.
Nothing’s simple. Gordon cut debt repayments by around £2bn a year as a result - just noise in the now 600 billion annual public expenditure round. Write off’s of Tax credits, NHS re-organisations, failed initiatives etc probably cost more in 10 years than the benefit.
37: A leader has to be able to deal with questions he doesn’t know in advance.
for Alex @ 24:
there is a big difference between “at risk” and “cost”, as all on this site, above all others, will know.
Communication skills cover all sorts of forums. Both candidates get far more than their fair share of media coverage, which is the most important single element. The Dimbleby set-piece shows are important for leadership elections, and for influencing the commentariat, but I don’t think they’re critical directly with voters.
Congratulations on going full-time. I hope you can make it pay, if you need to. It’s a fantastic site and I’ve had a lot of fun using it. I’m up on political betting by the princely sum of 20 pounds! And I could never have done it without you Mike.
I think there may be a very low turnout. Most party members are armchair members. There’s been little media coverage. Those who joined because they were asked by their mate or someone who did some casework for them, may have barely noticed that there’s an election going on. I think the right to vote in a leadership election is one of the main benefits to being a party member - but many of the most casual members may not see it that way.
Somehow Mike’s suggestion that the Huhnes are keeping the price tight to move it out at the right moment has a ring of truth about it, whereas Clegg backing himself doesn’t. But then again, perhaps the market simply disagrees with Mike.
Re NR, Guido points out “gordons favourite banker resigns”. Mr Wanless the Head of NR’s Risk and Audit committee.
“If anyone should have known what was coming, it was Gordon’s favourite banker. He had to sign off on all strategic risk management issues”
http://www.order-order.com/2007/11/gordons-favourite-banker-resigns.html
We have Labour people in all areas of this mess.
Even the ever loyal Will Hutton admitted on Newsnight that the Govt (us) may end up shelling out more billions in support than could have been used at the start.
10. NR wouldn’t have had billions of the tax-payer’s hard earned firehosed at it if its depositors and employees weren’t predominantly from the Labour heartland of the North East. It’s pure and simple pork barrel politics - with mushy peas.
Several Conservative friends of mine have been saying that Clegg is the one they fear most, yet in the campaign Huhne seems to be coming away ahead (even if “only on points”). The betting is wierd, but I honestly can not see what is in it for the Huhne backers to keep his price low- so unlike the choleric Mr Wood this morning, I see no conspiracy.
” Would the 24 billion lent to Nrock breach Labours new Ashcroft limits for spending in north east marginals? ”
We don’t know if it was ‘lent’ yet… might turn out to be ‘given’ as there are no guarantees it will be paid back to the taxpayer (people like you and me).
Any fudge deal to make it look as if the taxpayer is getting money back will also be just as bad.
If this happens the next GE will be 1997 in reverse.
42. I agree but very few people have live feed facilities at the moment. I am sure this will be generally available and used by people in their own homes in a year or two though. No doubt it will not surprise you I firmly believe Chris is clearly the superior of 2 very good candidates in the ability “to deal with questions he doesn’t know in advance”.
My congratulations to Mr Fear on his last two articles outdoing even himself first on Wales then on London. I’d like to ask him if thinks the huge new St Pancras developments will boost Lib Dem hopes in that particular seat
Since the money being lent to NR is at a punitive (i.e. above market) rate, then HMG is actually making on the deal IF (this is a big IF) …
that whoever buys NR agrees to pay them back this interest.
They might have to forgo this to get anyone to take NR off their hands.
I wonder if some deal could be done where HMG could ‘hedge’ any losses implicit in a sweetener to the new owners by taking an equity stake in NR’s successor?
Mike, Mike, Mike you really are starting to do my head in!!!
Toynbee has her own nutty left wing agenda, why the hell to you pander to her?
We are NOT, I repeat NOT a left wing replacment for Labour and you should bloody well know that.
If you & Toynebee are saying thats the way to go then my and I would susspect the vast majority of members/activist UNDER 40 would cut up our membership cards.
If I wanr left wing I join Labour or some Respect/Green type party NOT the Lib Dems, since when was being Liberal seen as being on the left.
Please Mike you said a few weeks ago you did not have it in for Nick but this is clearly not true.
Huhne while a great policy polition would put a glass eye to sleep and the media would ignore him, as they did Ming.
If you want us to be reported and given some media exposure it has to be Nick. Sorry but I think members need to vote of who the public would vote for in a GE and NOT who they think would best suit the party.
Just look at the Tories, thats exactly what they have done with DC, he is still only accepted becuase he has given them a glimmer of a GE win not because all the old blue rinsers love his policy ideas.
Same with Blair, and look now at Labour as they tuen their back on Blairism they are a joke under Brown.
So I would suggest we in the party stop navel gazing and vote for the person who may, just may lead us to respectablity in the polls and not a man who only talsk to the party.
O/T
Who’s Ron Paul? He’s now standing at third favourite for the Republican nomination in the US elections. I’ve never heard of him. Do we have a PBC regular that knows about the Republicans, who could maybe do us a guest slot on it?
52 Very sensible idea - I also agree with Tyson at 29 that the company needs to be put into administration first.
48 - I wouldn’t go off what opponents are saying, I think that tories realise that Clegg would be good for them - very similar to Cameron, speaks a similar language etc., would turn the debate further in their direction etc.
In the end it has to be down to policy, anyone who votes according to who presents themself better is crazy. I suppose some think that’s what the tories did but, separate to how he looks, Cameron had a better message than Davis et al. The same danger exists in thinking that labour made the opposite mistake but would Miliband or Johnson really be doing much better than Brown?
52. The rate at which NR is getting its funding was quietly dropped to market rates rather than a penalty rate… It’s an utter shambles for the government. The Independent article linked to above also claims that £7bn in loans has come directly from the Treasury and is unsecured!
50: With a reasonable broadband connection it should be possible, otherwise it seems like a gimmick.
If Ming (and Gordon) had be properly grilled their failings would have come to light earlier. This if done properly could help do that.
Comedy entry from Big Mak above! But he’s right of course that media ability is the name of the game. It’s the single most important attribute for any opposition leader, but particularly the Lib Dems.
However I think Huhne’s media ability is very much comparable with Clegg’s, and perhaps better. Huhne was the third most quoted MEP in the British press, after Glennys Kinnock (2nd) and Caroline Lucas, the Green ‘principal speaker’. And it wasn’t because he was way out, it was because he shed light on things, was ahead of the game, and knew a story when he saw one.
As for whether the Lib Dems are a left-wing alternative to Labour, well that’s up to the leader. Neither candidate would admit to it of course; but for quite a lot of members, and voters, that’s exactly what it is. Plenty of others disagree.
45 Off Centre, on the low turnout, with membership probably down 10% on 2006’s LD election to about 66,000, are the activists now more important?
It looks like more activists are favouring Huhne going by the ratio amongst bloggers. Activists will have a higher turnout than ordinary members (I suggest close to 90% that PV voters are in a GE) and indications are that the LDs have a higher ratio of activists in its membership than Labour or the Conservatives.
Judging by the number of campaign workers that the LDs had at the 2005 election, the LD activist numbers are at a guess around 17,000. (26 per constituency). If their voter turnout is 90% = 15,300. Could Huhne get 8,300 of these and Clegg 7,000?
Last time 72% of all members voted. If it fell to 65%, of 66,000 members that would be 42,900 voters. So 21,451 would bring victory.
Following the scenario above, to get to 21,451 Huhne with 8,300 activists would only need 13,150 from the armchair supporters.
56 - post 53 hadn’t appeared before I wrote mine but I think it proves a point.
55 - Anti-war, more libertarian candidate (he actually ran for the Libertarian party for president in 1988). Seems to be doing well by the internet but the MSM are ignoring him. I can understand his opposition to anti-civil liberties legislation, gun control etc. but his pro-life position sits ill with his supposed libertarianism (IMHO).
re 53. I think you are making a terrible terrible mistake. I spent a large part of my career working in the news business and the way you get reported is not looking pretty - but by having the ideas that command the attention of the media. Huhne showed on Thursday that he had this in shovel-fulls while Clegg showed that he hadn’t.
I sincerely believe that Clegg will, after a short honeymoon, be a disaster. Huhne, while not perfect, will be better.
Sadly the real star in the Lib Dems did not put himself forward - Vince Cable. Vince should not have deferred to Ming last time.
59 - It’s very difficult not to be left of labour at the moment. Just because they’ve shifted it shouldn’t change other parties positions.
Re 60, there is an alternative view that with LD membership dropping (circa 10%) this year’s turnout ratio may be higher than the 72% last time because there is a greater proportion of activists remaining in the LD membership.
As a sign of party morale the worst scenario for the LDs would be a reduced membership and a lower turnout which could be read that the party had not only declined but was likely to decline further. Participation levels in internal surveys are a useful sign of the state of morale.
62 - Are you seriously basing your “disaster” scenario should Clegg be elected on the basis of one TV performance (which apparently most LibDem posters here thought about even)? Bizarre.
IMO it is very difficult these days to on many issues to say politicians are taking left or right wing positions. One thing I am very sure about is that I want the Liberal Democrats to try and avoid copying others just to temporarily boost poll ratings - we need to have a clear identity which seperates us from the other 2 parties and be radical, consistent, dogged and dependable to attract voters back and keep them for the long term. It is more important to be true to what the Party stands for than compromising our principles to gain power under false pretences.
65 John O, one bad tv appearance did for Nixon Vs JFK.
Mike - just so we are clear where you are on this. There is a Mike Smithson on Chris Huhne’s declared list of supporters on his website, is it you?
68 - You’ve read the threads on here and you have to ask?!?!
59 - nor sure whats comedy about it, could say your posts are only fit for use in the lav….but that would be toilet humor.
As I said before seems crazy that Mike is questioning the betting on Clegg while trying to influence it on Huhne, tut, tut Mike.
O/T The true aims of socialism from the main parties taken from a comment in the Telegraph about the reasons why people are leaving the UK (highest proportion from England):-
“Quite simply put, it is New Labour, or more correctly Neo Communism.
The New communism is, Cultural Marxism, Political Correctness, Multiculturalism, Mass immigration, War on Terror laws(anti white) Anti Race hate Laws (anti white) Anti free speech laws (anti white) A loathing of ones own being, a loathing of tradition, a loathing of ones history, a loathing of ones culture, a loathing of Christianity, in other words a relentless, systematic onslaught of Englishness and its values.
The New Communism is enshrined in law(s)Human rights, anti discrimination, anti white, anti nation state - in short anti English.
The most important (and indispensable) tool of Cultural Marxism is the media, especially television (BBC) Mindless pap to soporific-ise the masses) To keep the people distracted by dreadfull alarmism, every news bulletin is disaster, crime, rape, stabbings, muggings, sex trafficking, obesity, bird flue, foot and mouth, and on and on and on, all deliberate to destabilise and confuse the masses.
Do you recognise any of the above - this is New Labour, the New Communism for the New World Order. Globalisation.
All politicians of all colours are signed up to this venture.”
The global capatalist/international socialist plans have been exposed as one and the same.
54-”Who’s Ron Paul?”
He is the second favourite in Iowa, he voted against the war in Iraq, opposes the Patriot Act. And his support now reflects the popularity that he has on the internet. His site:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
kingbongo - thanks! Just so Mike can record it, is my recollection right, and the deal is that if Ken wins you pay £10 to my Cats Protection charity, and if Boris wins i pay £20 to a charity of your choice?
Ron Paul is a good example of the difficulty of categorising people entirely in left/right terms. He claims to be a strong libertarian, he’s opposed to the war in Iraq (left?), opposed to the Federal Reserve Bank being allowed to lend money (a classic right-wing position becuase it prevents counter-cyclical Keynesian policies), anti-abortion (right and not very libertarian?), etc. He has lots of rich backers but no chance whatever. You can get free money by laying him on Betfair or Spreadfair, but you might need to wait till November to see your money since he could, when rejected by the Reps, run as an independent again.
Northern Rock: I’m not a financial expert, jeff, so I won’t comment, except to say that stopping the run on the bank by guaranteeing secured assets was the more attractive alternative to allowing the run to continue, and I doubt if any government would have behaved differently. I don’t recall the Conservatives opposing it? As part of a rescue deal, I wouldn’t necessarily insist on collecting the penal interest rates we’ve been charging on the loan, but it obviously depends on the details of the deal.
re 68. I am not the Mike Smithson listed on Huhne’s supporters list. I think that my namesake is a councillor on Merseyside.
If he garners 10% in the end of all this I’ll be surprised.
72; “every news bulletin is disaster, crime, rape, stabbings, muggings, sex trafficking, obesity, bird flue, foot and mouth, and on and on and on” - yes, there’s a lot in what you say in that, francis.
“Do you recognise any of the above - this is New Labour…” Eh? You reckon this media approach is good for the government? lol…
75 - Whoops, sorry, thought that it was you, not a particularly common name though!
76 - Paul ran before, not as an independent, but as the candidate of the Libertarian party.
73-I made a mistake, sorry, Huckabee is the second:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyAsGLCSZu4ziQA8GE4Q4TMDwDswD8SVC3M80
74 - In addition, Ron Paul is a good example of paleolibertarianism, inclined to look to religion for social policy and very much against immigration and open borders. This is in contrast to what I consider to be true libertarian values.
Seant is similar I feel, hence the yoking together of religion, drugs and anti-immigration views. Frankly, I think they are libertarians only when it suits them.
I am interested in Mike’s reference to a Hughes supporter who is now backing Clegg (!) actually Hughes himself, and Steve Webb are also backing Clegg. Frankly I regard both candidates as to the right of me, but I fear, given we don’t this time have a candidate who really represents everything I believe, I am forced to choose between two candidates who policywise I have differences with. Equally, whilst I would see my politics as being liberal left, it is the liberal that is far more important to me, otherwise I would be in the Labour Party……..well, maybe not!!!! My strongest motivation in backing Nick is that having had the privilege of sitting on a policy working group with him I got a real understanding of his liberalism but equally importantly for me, his humanity. He is truly a man who is in politics because he wants to be a voice for the voiceless, he believes things can and should be different.
I reread Polly Toynbee’s piece and I have some issues with what she has said. She referred to Ming - “He abandoned their totemic 50p top tax rate…” yes, but I haven’t heard Chris arguing to bring it back? Maybe I missed that? I agree with her that we need to be far more radical, the last thing we need now is another “safe pair of hands” but both candidates have talked about and demonstrated their anti-establishment credentials and have recognised the need to take risks. No difference there then either. I agree with Polly that we are inevitably left moribund by trying to fight for Tory and Labour ground. Actually this displays a complete lack of confidence and leads to the allegation that no one knows what we stand for - yes we believe in localism but that all too often leads to the tolerance of a multicoloured interpretation of our policies depending on the location.
All the issues she highlights as being important for the Lib Dems to advocate on, Europe, questioning Trident, Iraq, Iran, ID cards, nuclear power, an earned amnesty for illegal migrants, are issues on which their is little to choose between both candidates. OK, Chris will use his smoke and mirrors to try and say he is anti Trident, whilst wanting a smaller replacement - a position that I find illogical and unsustainable, but other than that?
She rightly raises the importance of PR, but again, are the candidates really divided on this?
Where I really take issue with her analysis is in her assertion that the two candidates regard equality differently. One only had to listen to Nick Clegg talking about the anger about poverty that drove him into politics to give the lie to that view.
And so then she refers to the strategic approach. Actually, it wasn’t Moses that lead the Israelites into the promised land, it was Joshua - and I know who I think has more of the characteristics of a Joshua!
She asserts that “in interviews, Clegg leaves open policy doors deliberately on the Tory side, while Huhne goes for sharper definition on the left.” er………evidence????
So, despite appreciating her desire for us to fair better as a party I reject her analysis. And maybe I have to take some risks with Nick at the helm on policy (bearing in mind that the members in our party still make policy) but rather that than have all the policies I want, and no engagement with the public. Chris is clearly a talented, highly intelligent man, but he is not streetwise. He has a beautiful voice, but it tends to variously send me to sleep, or off into a daydream. He will communicate well within the party, but what we need now is someone who can find their way out of the bubble and talk to the electorate. To me, Nick is the only one who can do that.
74. So hows it work then if NR, now that their penalty rate atre paying below the recent interbank lending rates thus gaining a competitive advantage as a consequence of their inability to keep their cashflow right? No other UK bank has had anywhere near as big as problem so far. Why? They managed their businesses better. Is that fair? And who pushed the penalty lowering idea? The government or the BoE?
Secondly, is this going to cost the taxpayer? It may or it may not but I have seen no one in government or the BoE provide a clear statement of risks since this support has now gone beyond giving NR breathing space.
Thirdly, will the UK taxpayer effectively subisidise a takeover of NR?
82. That should read, ‘now their penalty rate has been lowered what if they are paying below interbank lending rates’.
English..great language if its use right……
To back up my view that the LD bloggies are leaning to Chris Huhne.
The post-match blog analysis on the Question Time leadership special has been pretty evenly split, with a tilt towards Chris Huhne having gained the edge overall.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-postmatch-qt-analysis-1642.html
51 - Not Sean, of course, Punter - but, while the rail link and the associated developments should weaken Labour here, it’ll take some time to bear fruit in voting patterns, which should take some time. Until the next GE, while the LDs might make osme progress, the anti-war vote they garnered in some areas, as among the Muslim community in Somers Town, should decline, limiting the progress they can make.
Besides, the new seat as it’ll emerge at the GE will probably be the most over-sized constituency in London, with over 90,000 electors. There’s a good chance it’ll be over six figures by the time the next review takes place. This makes it a good long-term LD prospect, as a Holborn and St. Pancras North seat would certainly be winnable for them.
Wow. Did anybody read Martin Kettle today in the Guardian? What a must-read piece.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2212629,00.html
“Brown’s long hours and short temper - he lost his cool with Bob Shrum, his American adviser, the other day - shape a bad mood inside No 10. Some staff are leaving already. Others are having second thoughts about staying. Good people feel excluded. The animus against Balls in particular is very great.”
“But it [the bad mood] has gathered fresh force through the rest of this autumn, especially after David Cameron gave Brown a parliamentary pasting in the Queen’s speech debate this month. It is a mood that Brown and his immediate advisers are still doing too little to deter and too much to provoke. You can even see their failure in MPs’ eyes - as well as in the tellingly poor attendance of Labour MPs in the Commons chamber. You can hear it in almost any conversation with ministers or backbenchers too. It is the sound of fear - a fear not just that Labour is losing, but that ministers do not know what to do to turn things around.
Fear inevitably breeds fatalism. “We’ve had our innings” is now a widespread view.”
You must read this article. David Miliband at loggerheads with Brown, Lab ministers and MPs in despair, Brown crawlng into his bunker….
It’s ugly out there
86-The best part was:
“Michael Heseltine was right, says one veteran. The problem isn’t Brown. It’s Balls.”
62. I think you are being a bit harsh in saying Clegg will be a disaster, Mike. But like you I think Huhne is winning the debates. I was one of the first on here to say so after the Nick Clegg Q and A and the pattern was repeated on Question Time. Clegg’s performance reminded me of David Cameron’s one on the same show, with endless waffling and returning to stock phrases (I vividly remember some criticism he got from a young man in the audience). No doubt that like Cameron, Clegg will improve over time. But he’s the wrong choice for now.
It’s a real mystery why the Guardian is backing Clegg. He’s more right-wing, losing the debates and his only real asset is being young (different generation) and pretty. Is that enough to get the Liberal Intelligentsia behind you nowadays? Given their lukewarm attitude to Brown and tolerance of Cameron, is the Guardian drifting into Middle England?
87 No the best is “in No 10 the bunker is back. Brown, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander talk every morning by phone at seven, meet every day at 10 to decide priorities, and are running the whole government. And, judging by the record, running it pretty badly.”
So typical day Chez Brown - calls up ministers at 6.00 to tell them what to do (if not chairing a Cobra meeting) , then phone conference with the inner circle, then meets the inner circle, visits a school for a photo op, back to office to prepare for next weeks PMQs or chairs another Cobra session, then late at night calls editors to complain about coverage.
85 Thanks. Are you a Londoner. I was surprised to see Streatham mentioned for the Lib Dems Labour would have to be less than 250 seats for that I’d have thought with the caveat that London usually gets exaggerated swings nationwide. Are there any other seats where big dvelopments are set to reshape matters in the Country. I can only think St Athan and VoG.
BTW Re Brown doing better than Blair. Yes but crucially where was he doing better. Blair any only became a real minus to Labour in 2006. In 2005 he was only costing them votes where it didn’t matter safe seats up North etc and keeping them where it mattered Kent being prime evidence. I think polling has had it easy since 1992 but that increased regional variation will make Pollsters lives much tougher from now on and Polls more expensive. After all say who cares if the Labour Majority in Wigan is 10,000 or 20,000 except the Labour MP for Wigan. Is Brown getting his votes in Kent or the likes of Wigan. That NoW poll of marginals seemed to indicate more of the latter
Speaking of bunkers, I thought I’d point out that the excellent film Downfall is on channel 4 tonight.
Now I wouldn’t want to make comparisons with the present day……………..
89-”So typical day Chez Brown - calls up ministers at 6.00 to tell them what to do”
It’s not Brown, it’s Balls
77. Nick Palmer MP. I don’t believe for one minute you want want the worst for this country. I believe you are sincere in your beliefs of what New Labour can do. I once believed in New Labour, but not anymore and never will do. The problem is that all three main parties are run and controlled by the unholy alliance of international socialists and global capaitalists. The convergence of both the left and right has been both alarming and dangerous!!
New Labour = New Tory = Liberal Democrats = unwanted immigration = unwanted multiculturalism = unwanted political correctness = unwanted Anglophobia = unwanted anti-white racism = unwanted laws = unwanted policies = unwanted unionism = unwanted socialism = unwanted global capatitalism. The list is practically endless.
English independence from the UK is the only way forward, and let the other home nations decide for themselves where they want to go. English nationalism of any kind whether it be left wing or right wing is millions of times better than the current pc liberal fascism that is being forced onto us at the moment. Even the BNP would be an improvement.
90. Opinion polls for General Elections tend to be wrong. They were way out in ‘92, ‘97 and ‘01 - however in the latter 2 Labour’s win was so big it didn’t matter.
In 2005 they got it right, but there was a very similar turnout to 2001 and the election map had changed little since ‘97. This time the LD’s could be much more in play, with greater room for tactical voting and 3 new Party Leaders. The only thing I expect at the next General Election is that the polls will be wrong!
94. So who do you think will gain from the wrong polls? Tories? Fringe Parties?
90 - Yes, a Londonder, for my sins. Streatham has seen some middle-class gentrification, does have the residual elements of the strong Tory vote here, and is somewhere where the LDs are active locally. It’s just possible to see the LDs doing enough to secure a big constituency swing on the lines of Hornsey, but the Labour vote in the seat will be much harder for the LDs to break down; the LDs, if anything, have gone backwards locally with Labour’s victory at the last borough elections; and the national circumstances are likely to be much less benign for the LDs. So a LD gain is pretty unlikely, but can’t be ruled out.
89 - Brown’s inner Cabinet is worrying, if true. All PMs have an inner circle who they rely on for decision-making - but there are no independent figures of weight there, and none of the holders of the great offices (including Jack Straw).
Serious question: does anyone know the legal basis for the Treasury to make loans or issue guarantees to the level they are doing for NR. The BoE has the powers as THE Bank, but Treasury expenditure needs parliamentary approval and surely any ‘admin clause’ or contingency covering elements in the Finance Bills are not adequate for or applicable to, the current risk taking.
95. I don’t know who will gain. After all the pollsters are better informed than me. But I think a much larger margin for error needs to be factored in for the next GE.
The pollsters are, however, unlikely to admit this. They are taken seriously because they are so ‘confident’ about their predictions.
Re: 98: Parliament controls ‘expenditure’ but a loan is not expenditure until such time as it is defaulted on by the borrower. The Bank is demanding and getting first class security for its loans [details of its requirements are on its web site] and operates on an eternal rather a finite time horison. So it wil get its money back eventually, as the mortgages are paid off over the next 25 years, perhaps. A problem may arise when [if] Northern Rock runs out of acceptable assets which it can offer as security and wishes to use 2nd or 3rd class ones instead. Banks have recently invented a 4th class of asset, I believe, to cover those laons which others believe to be valueless or impossible to value but which they do not wish to write off just yet.
In Ptp’s absence, I am putting up Vodka Bleu to win the Paddy Power Gold Cup in a few mins time. 10/1 on Betfair.
Let’s be honest, the leadership has never done anything much for the Lib Dems with the possible exception of Paddy Ashdown. Campbell was a brilliant foreign policy analyst with the leadership skills of a paper bag. Kennedy came over well on TV but it was a pretty soft time for the Lib Dems and they should have won more seats. The Lib Dems even won a by-election without a leader, in a constituency where gordon brown has a vote. They will do equally well (or poorly) under either of these two.
Caught only the second half of OT.
Anyways on that basis thought Clegg was impressive.
Thought Hume was disingenuous when saying there was a possibility of grand coalition between the conservative party and labour.
He lost credibilty for me then.
100 - Isn’t the point that the Bank is getting first class security for its loans, but it appears that where such guarantees have not been given the Treasury have just stepped in to make up the rest? BTW, surely the “loan” becomes expenditure the moment the Government makes a provision against it not being paid, not the moment it actually isn’t paid?
102 - Unless the LibDems are serious about moving forward to become a genuine major party in UK national politics (a step i suspect many are not prepared for at all) there best solution is to have a non-descript leader. A leader with a strong and well-defined national profile will bring in more votes across the country as a whole, but shed it in many of their existing seats where they are effectively overperforming at present. A low key leader allows local LibDems to keep fighting locally on local issues, arguing for different things in different parts of the country, and offers the best chance of holding their position to a reasonable level.
1 JohnLoony wrote “I predict Huhne 22,000, Clegg 19,000″
41,000 would be possible with a 66,000 membership and a 62% turnout.
Both membership and morale would have had to declined since the 06 election.
101. L’Antartique wins. Tipped up here by PtP a few days ago. Knowhere 3rd. Vodka Bleu Knowhere!
OT: New article about the US Election. Using a UNS is more accurate than the conventional wisdom would suggest.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/can-we-use-the-swingometer-to-predict-us-elections/
35.
Because l’internet worked so well ‘pour madame le president’!
106. Vodka Bleu Knowhere(sic, as a parrot).
Re the Toynbee / left of Labour argument. Obviously, a part of this is that Toynbee has given up on Labour representing her views in the near future and is after someone else credible doing so. As there are only two other main parties and the Tories are clearly not in the running, that leaves the Lib Dems.
Basically, the question Lib Dems have to ask themselves is: are they prepared to compromise their beliefs in order to aspire to be a party of power in the UK or are they happy with greater ideological purity and the hope of influencing others - as well as a share in regional government from time to time and other less important successes?
If they prefer the purity route, then that’s fine - but they have to recognise then that there is little reason why they should ever break out of third place.
On the other hand, there is the option to go ‘left’ economically and try to draw votes from Labour. The Liberals had two chances to squash Labour at birth and blew both, the first time through complacency, the second time through division and a clash of personalities. It has been eighty years since then and there might be another opportunity now, perhaps not to squash it but to give replacing it a good go. There is little that can be done to create these opportunities - they simply have to be grasped or ignored when they come along. And just because it would be a huge gamble to grasp it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a gamble not to.
103. I don’t think Huhne was being disingenuous. That is the position the Lib Dems should be in. What he is saying to the Tories (and to Labour) is you can’t expect the Liberals to just prop up a minority administration. He won’t form a coalition out of course. And coalitions require effort from all sides, not just the Liberals.
He’s also quite entitled to raise his anger at the way the LibDems are continually asked how they would behave in a hung parliament, but labour and the Tories aren’t aske the same question? Why?
111 Hmm because the odds of a single Party Lib Dem Govt are what. It is also not a case of the Lib Dem just “propping” up another Party assuming that Party is the largest the Lib Dems would almost certainly have to actively vote against it to bring it down and that would require a good issue or the voters could punish them for triggering another Poll. The reality is a Tory or Labour minority Govt would probably have at least a year in which to try and go again on their own choosing
92 A very similiar article from Oborne in the Mail (not often Kettle & Oborne agree)
http://tinyurl.com/yrylx7
One thing I hadn’t seen before “Jacqui Smith (a person of quiet integrity who, I’m told, was dissuaded only with difficulty by friends from offering her resignation on Tuesday night)” - so Gordon came that close to losing a senior cabinet minister.
96 I think S&C C&W and Richmond Park must all be at severe risk. Has Sean Fear identified all their possible compensatory gains. Lewisham west and Penge and Dulwich and West Norwood were mentioned as other long shots. BTW How “hard” is the Tory vote in London you think as Tories seem more resistant to squeezing in the Country they certainly weren’t in Hornsey
Jacqui Smith. The “same friends” now briefing her quiet dignity to the Press. Hmmmmmmmmm
Davod Herdson - I think a good many LibDem members would like the party to go left: they share a lot of values with idealistic Labour members (genuine thanks for the credit for good intentions, francis, by the way) and don’t have to worry about getting an overall majority. But I don’t think there is any realistic chance of electoral progress by that route, and replacing Labour is really a fantasy - if they couldn’t do it when Michael Foot was leader, they won’t do it now.
The left is reasonably cheerful in Labour at the moment (note that paucity of the public criticism tha twas so routine under TB) and nearly all the people who are currently (re)joining Labour in my patch are on the left. There are lots of Guardian readers who think GB is much better than either TB or DC and who don’t give a toss whether he wins PMQ or not. The moment when a LD move left would have been dangerous was around 2004, when it would have reinforced the anti-war anti-TB feeling.
If Jacquie Smith considered resigning on the matter of the 5,000 illegal security guards, can she survive the detention days debacle when at various times she has been unable to state what the Govts aim is, only to have No. 10 and others state it as 58 days.
112. But a third-placed party cannot ‘force’ another election - the second-placed party has to want one too.
See Canada, for example, where the second-placed party (the Liberals ironically) are reluctant to bring the minority government down.
113-If this is true, it won’t take long before Gordon loses one cabinet minister.This is so true!!!:
“However, just as Gordon Brown was determined not to share any of the blame with Jacqui Smith for the mess over illegal immigrants, he was clear that he alone - and not her - should get the credit for all the hard work she has done on security issues”
104 i think you are right. A provision of the sort for NR surely is ‘expenditure’ as soon as the commitment is made and usually requires parliamentary approval for such a significant sum?
I can see where you are coming from Christo but a provision for expenditure is the same as money actually spent as asking for parliamentary approval after the risk materialises is a little back to front isn’t it?
O/T Possibly others have already commented, but I notice PB.com is included in Ben Brogan Blog’s very short list of recommended linked sites - fame at last!
I did check Benedict (White, that is)but couldn’t spot your blog listed there - purely an oversight I’m sure.
So Nick, what is your opinion of the way Gordon Brown is running his Government?
115. I think you are being unusually naive Nick. Union membership has fallen hugely since Foot was Labour leader and I don’t think people believe one of the 2 main parties in british Politics should be, essentially the party of the Unions. Blair understood this very well and is said to have remarked to Ashdown that Labour should never have left the Liberal Party.
The ICM poll here earlier in the week showed Labour well ahead of the LDs amongst pensioners, but amongst 25-34 year olds it was 30/27. Only one poll I know, but I’m in that age bracket and I can assure you that young soft-left types, are turning away from Labour. I give less weight to 18-24 year olds - they are less politically aware and that works badly against the LDs.
If anything saves Labour in it’s current form it will (ironically) be the conservatism of British voters. ‘We’ll stick with what we already know, please.’
122 - It’s something of a distortion of history to say that Labour left the Liberal party!!!
121 Alex - is this really intended to be a serious question to a Labour Member of Parliament?
117 Your point is what the Liberals in Canada fear that Harper would get a Majority at present. My point still is the Lib Dems don’t have to actively prop up another Party, all they have to is sit on their hands and that I think they would for at least one year unless a major issue cropped up regardless of it being a Conservative or Labour minority Government
111,
But the bit I can`t get my head around, was that Hume thought we should consider a possibilty of a grand coalition between Labour and the Conservative party.
Surely outside a third world war or similar national emergency, this isnt reality.
Thats what I found disingenous, and lacking credibility.
122 Yes regardless of power or not the glue that bound Labour together was the wider movement Unions, intellectuals etc. Under Blair that movement fragmented, intellectuals over Iraq, Union power waning still so that power itself became the glue. So long as they remain in office with access to all that patronage this is not a problem. But any Labour opposition leader may well find far fewer tools at his disposal than previously. As you say though this nation is innately Conservative still
106 A week in the slammer, aka Conhome, beckons I fancy
An alternative view from Nick P on what left wing in Labour think. Austin Mitchell wrote on Oct 15th
“My lights are going out all over the media. Mathew Parris has turned Tory propagandist. Anatole Kaletski has turned optimist on the world economy but pessimist on us. Polly Toynbee has undergone an SDP revival and veered left. Peter Ridell has gone sanctimonious. John Rentoul writes as if he`s Blair`s revenge. Even Alan Watkins has an overdose of “I told you so”. This is the turning of the tide. Totally disorientating…. ”
http://www.austinmitchell.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=294
127 - Er, conservative not Conservative.
Jacqui Smith. “A person of quiet integrity”. That is exactly how she appears to me.
These two articles from Kettle and Oborne today and the one in The Independent yesterday really are damning on Brown’s leadership. They only reinforce my own view.
I don’t keep banging on about it because of some personal animosity. I’m here for the betting. If my asssessment and that of these experience journalists are correct then it follows that this government’s electoral chances are permanently hobbled.
131. Surprised Oborne didn’t use Botham and Boycott as examples. Great individuals but bad captains. Still, nice to see a sporting metaphor being used, given such things are usually seen as ‘trivial’ in comparison to politics.
131-”the one in The Independent yesterday”
I was trying to get the link, but the Independent site is “is down for a short while for essential maintenance”
123 I’m not so sure. As early as 1885, there were 11 MPs calling themselves Liberal/Labour, and the Liberals were clearly the party of choice for working class voters in a lot of later Labour strongholds (such as South Wales, and the mining areas). The Liberals were certainly stupid not to stamp on the Labour Representation Committee once it began running its own candidates.
Blair certainly looks very trim and fit, with new short haircut, for “The Blair Years” starting on the Beeb this evening.