Who is the Cleggie who owes me 500 pounds?
December 19th, 2007
Why is a “senior member of the party” reluctant to pay?
Followers of the Lib Dem leadership threads over the past couple of months will have become familiar with contributions by “The Observer” who has been a passionate, and at times aggressive, backer of Nick Clegg. He is also, apparently a “senior member of the party”.
In a post on November 5th at 8.38pm he asserted that Huhne’s vote share would not be as big as 2006 and issued a wager challenge in these:“…I would expect Chris to poll less than he did last time vs Ming - and if anyone would like to wager on that - I’ll accept a bet.”
I posted that I would be happy to bet on the proposition and at 8.54pm The Observer responded “…Mike @ 95. I’m referring to the 42.14% counting second prefs when the contest became a 2 horse affair - are we on the same page? I have £500 @ evens.”
This I agreed to and I asked him for some contact details. At 9.01pm The Observer wrote: “Mike! Will do!! Will I get posted up the agreed wagers section and everything?! Exciting!”
It should be emphasised that it was “The Observer” who was making the challenge; it was “The Observer” who was suggesting the £500 and it was “The Observer” who defined the terms of the wager.
He did not contact me and nearly a month later, after he began taking part in the discussion on December 1st I posted reminding him that he had still to send me the information. At that time the YouGov Lib Dem members poll was just out and this showed that Huhne was going to achieve a share that was somewhat better than 42.14% and my bet looked like a winner.
The Observer then wrote, at 6.41pm “Mike, after some consideration, and owing to my position in the party I’m unable to provide you with my real name and address. Could we ask Betfair to put up a % market and we’ll match on there?”
Others on the thread suggested that to get round his predicament that he might like to use an honest broker such as Peter the Punter.
Since then “The Observer” has continued to participate in discussions and at 1am yesterday morning this “senior member of the party” sought to influence my future coverage of the Lib Dems. He wrote: - ” When the new leader is announced, I hope that you Mike, a fellow Lib Dem can be the Big Man and think of the party over your own quite clear personal preferences. ..”.
I hope that you “The Observer” understand the seriousness of welching on bets. I entered into this arrangement in good faith and would have paid if Huhne had not achieved the required share of the vote. I expect “The Observer”, however senior he is in the party, to do the same. I look forward to hearing from him.
Arrangements for recorded wagers: Peter the Punter has agreed to operate and keep up to date this section of the site. New arrangements will be put in place in the New Year.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
Recorded wagers, of course, only work if both parties are willing to actually keep their promises. Good on you, Mike, for following up on this one; and shame on The Observer for letting you down. I advise no one to enter into any bets with him in future!
Northern Ireland, perhaps for the first time since its foundation in 1920, is entirely united behind a piece of economic policy. But it cannot implement the policy, because Gordon Brown is terrified of the Scottish National Party.
As First Minister Ian Paisley puts it:
Back in November last year Gordon Brown slapped down his minion, then First Minister Jack McConnell, for having the temerity to consider standing up for his country:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/Treasury-mandarin-grabs-the-corporation.3602666.jp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7150780.stm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20061118/ai_n16855880
Renaging on bets is the act of a small and mean person. If that person is indeed a senior member of the Lib Dems, then it brings into question the honesty of every member of that party’s leadership team. Perhaps whoever it is should consider that point when making comments about ‘thinking about the bigger picture for the party’s sake’, which is in any case nonsense because as far as I’m concerned, there’s no need for the name to be made public - merely for them to pay up and for Mike to say that he or she has done so.
It really isn’t very sensible engaging in bets with unknown, let alone unnamed individuals, unless done through third parties like Betfair, where the money is put down in advance.
Keep your sense of outrage, but not your common sense.
Just to bring everything back to earth a rather er… vicious piece in the Times.
Ann Treneman “It is not healthy to be in an enclosed space with so many Liberal Democrats, not least because, as a party, they tend to suffer from body odour.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3071125.ece
Happy Xmas to all.
4 - “then it brings into question the honesty of every member of that party’s leadership team.”
Is it really reasonable to damn an entire party because an alleged senior member is wriggling on a bet? Get some perspective, David! I hope you don’t actually believe everything you write.
5. Yes, I’d agree that entering into bets with unknown individuals on the assumption that they’ll pay up later is a risky enterprise. That’s a risk Mike has taken, as was his own 500 pounds. Whether the individual would have shown such reticence had they won is open to doubt.
Perhaps I could make a suggestion that in future, recorded bets only become active when the contracting parties have provided adequate information on their personal details to allow payouts later.
7. If this had been another party, I might have been a bit more cautious in that comment, but given that Mike himself is a Lib Dem, I can’t believe he would have put the comment up had he not had at least some grounds for believing Observer to hold some senior position with the party. Wriggling on a bet is refusing to pay a debt; it’s dishonest.
To answer your point about the party, no, it’s not reasonable to damn an entire party - and I don’t. I do make the distinction between individuals and the organisation, and we’re only talking about one person here, but it could be any “senior member of the party” (reference to the leadership team probably was not a valid conclusion to draw on my part and I should have quoted more accurately), and a question mark will hang in the air until this has been resolved.
I hope Observer does the decent thing and coughs up. Not difficult. The postal order method seems an obvious and sensible suggestion. Or what about paying through a third party, such as one’s builder, in order to preserve anonymity?
If Roger looks in, are you still offering the bet for an ICM poll to show a Tory lead of less than 6 per cent before the end of January 2008? If you are I am ready to do business. 25 pounds says you are wrong.
O/T.
Edwards campaign could be about to implode, the US tabloids are running a story that he has had an affair with a former staffer (all this while his wife is seriously ill with cancer). Could all be baseless titley-tattle but even so it has the potential to really harm him.
http://www.politics1.com/
Also, Clinton slipped into third in a recent Iowa poll (Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Clinton 24%), but its effectivley a three way tie
Observer = Lower than a snakes belly in a tyre rut……..
Mike, please don’t forget my two bets with Roger that still aren’t recorded.
I have Boris to beat Livingstone and
Boris’ to top Norris’ ‘04 % of the vote (1st & 2nd prefs combined).
£100 each, potentially cross cancelling (in which case nothing is payable) payable to a charity of the winners choice.
Cheuqe Payable to the Royal British legion please Rog ! (Winky thing)
Merry Christmas to all
TB
I think we can assume that Nick Clegg was flattered by Observer’s confidence in his likely performance. So all Observer has to do is give Nick Clegg £500, and he can pass it on. Or Observer could ask another friendly MP to do it. Or he could get a bankers’ draft, and post it to Mike. It really isn’t difficult! Pay up!
10. Roger may be misguided politically, but he’s not financially stupid
11 - that stupid rumour is from the National Enquirer of early October. It’s like the Daily Sport but with less credibility. So far, no corroboration of any sort, from anyone.
re 8 . David - I saw Peter the Punter in London on Monday and he is going to manage the whole process of recorded wagers - one of the conditions being that the parties provide him with their private details.
re 12. when PtP does take over there’ll be a big trawl so we can record those bets that were agreed on threads but have not been posted on the page.
Meanwhile….. (as Jack W posted)
Be very afraid Lib Dems - Simon Heffer supports Clegg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/19/do1901.xml
and Clarke finally attacks Gordon
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2229601,00.html
15 - Normally I’d agree, but this seems to have more tracktion that a simple wilde rumour (it’s was the tabloids which broke the Clinton affairs).
11 - Another poll out from IA which has the race as; Obama:33% Clinton:29% Edwards:20% , which moves to Obama:37% Clinton:31% Edwards:26% when the second preferences of the candidates polling, so no real change.
Morning everybody.
It is well known but always worth repeating that bets are not enforceable as the law stands. You should therefore not enter into them unless confident of the honesty of the counterparty.
Observer would have been absolutely sure of Mike’s probity. He has a little while yet, I think, to demonstrate his own.
Mike has alluded to a new Wager Service I will be running on behalf of the Site. It is hoped this will help to eliminate little difficulties like this one.
We should not be too quick to judge Observer. As a ‘Senior Liberal’, he is likely to have been very busy of late and maybe hasn’t had time to get his cheque book out. Once he thinks about it and the implications of failing to honor the bet, he may well decide the better option is to settle promptly.
I mentioned that bets are not legally enforceable but of course there non-legal means with which, as an habitue of the track, I am perfectly familiar. Mike is far too much of a gentleman to even contemplate these, even assuming he could identify and track down Mr Observer, but I can assure the latter that if he knew the kind of penalty commonly imposed for infractions of the kind in question, he would be writing that cheque out right now, just in case.
Toodle pip!
All this is interesting because it shows that the Clegg team, and the Lib Dem hierarchy in general, were thinking that Clegg was a shoe-in from the beginning. As someone mentioned yesterday, from the day he announced his candidature, the race was Clegg’s to lose -and he almost did it!
I genuinely think this does not bode well for the Lib Dems - he is not the ‘natural champion’ that Cameron became through Tory process. If anything his stature has actually been weakened by the race and not strengthened by it. Of course the Lib Dems now have to settle in and hope for the best, that Clegg can turn a new leaf. I actually don’t think there will be much in the way of recrimination, as the party can’t afford it. However I think any concept of immediate political momentum has been significantly hindered by this.
17. Sorry someone has got to say it - “the observer” is “Prince Monalulu” and I claim my £500!
Press very poor for Clegg
22 - given the effective tie in the contest, shouldn’t the LDs accept that the party is split right down the middle and adopt a dual leader approach, like the Owen-Steel partnership that was such a success for them in the 1980s?
I mean it’s not like the two of them aren’t best buddies…
BTW, was this a straight simple majority contest? Wouldn’t they have done better if members could have expressed first and second preferences?
12 Tory Boy
Mike will be doing a proper announcement shortly. One of the things it will do is make it clear that bets aren’t registered unless both parties have emailed me to confirm the details. Meanwhile, anybody who thinks they have a bet which they would like officially recorded can email me now so that I can start tidying up all the open and outstanding business. The address is arklebar@talktalk.net
Please note that it is not, and will not be sufficient simply to post your bet here on Site. Emails will be mandatory to count as an Official Wager.
This won’t necessarily eliminate Observer-type cases, but should help.
I actually don’t think Mike should have made this post unless it was quite clear Observer was not going to pay. Saying he cannot give you a real name and address is not the same thing as reneging. There are other ways to pay and a few days is not much to wait and see if he really intends to disavow a debt.
Instead we have this post openly asking members to speculate on his identity less than one full day after the bet became due. Which is why presumably many senior people are very cautious about posting online.
Betting’s a pretty seedy business all around, I think, and people should think five or six times before getting into it. Not that I don’t think you are decent, PtP, obviously you are, but your post above refers to the seediness of betting and the consequences - addiction, poverty, criminality, embarassment.
23 Bob Sykes “BTW, was this a straight simple majority contest?
I think Simon Hughes said it was a Straight Choice. and as the impartial President he put out statements reminding the members to vote for Clegg.
Groupillon - Yes you have found him! I had quite forgotten about His Highness!
25. How pompous - thinking of restarting the Temperence Society, are we?
Why don’t you open a book on the identity of “Observer”?
Michael Moore 1/7
Jo Swinson 2/5
Malcolm Bruce 1/2
Danny Alexander 1/2
Willie Rennie 3/5
Alan Reid 4/5
Robert Smith evens
John Thurso 3/2
John Barrett 3/1
Menzies Campbell 5/1
Charles Kennedy 7/1
Alistair Carmichael 11/1
That is my guesstimate of their chances of holding on to their seats in GE 2009 by the way, but I wonder if one of those could be the “Observer”?
24 PtP.
This is just a post to officially record that I fully intend to honour the bet made by my previous incarnation “Gladstone” with Mark Senior over whether Lynne Featherstone will retain her seat in Hornsey & Wood Green at the next election.
It is necessary that I do this, because I am coming round to the view that Mark is right, and she will hold the seat, thus obliging me to pay up!
25. Test. This site is called politicalbetting.com
You sound like a vegetarian addressing the annual dinner of the Butchers Guild.
29 why not open a book on the identity of Michael Moore?
He is rumoured to be the LD spokesman for Foreign Affairs.
O/T
In America, I remain of the opinion (espoused and generally rejected here last week) that Fred Thompson and John Edwards could still be two of the biggest winners from Iowa. When the main Iowa newspaper is printing articles like the below, their cause is helped:
http://tinyurl.com/2oqbqk
Of course, yesterday’s undignified Obama-Edwards spat will have been music to Hillary’s ears but I suspect it might be because the Obama camp has realised quite how difficult it will be to beat Edwards in Iowa. I think they should still be working to finish ahead of Clinton becuase Obama can win the nomination from second place in Iowa. So can Clinton. But it’s a more difficult route from third place - especially if that has a knock-on effect on New Hampshire later in the week.
The Telegraph really is naughty with this intro for its comment piece by the Hefferlump aka ‘Gladstonian liberal Simon Heffer’
23 “Given the effective tie in the contest, shouldn’t the LDs accept that the party is split right down the middle…?”
Bob Sykes - You are not the first poster to make this point and I’m damned if I can see the logic in it. Can you be the first to explain?
It’s a non-sequitur, isn’t it? I mean, a tie might be an indication of a split, or not. It may, for example, be an indication that the candidates were closely matched and ideologically similar, and that members were reasonably happy with either outcome.
On the evidence of postings by LD’s here, I should say the latter explanation fits the facts better but if you don’t agree, I’d be interested in your reasoning.
30 Noted with thanks, Disraeli, although in future I shall be insisting on emails!
(I think we can safely take it you are not Observer!)
31 yes but despite the name of the site, it’s 95% politics, 5 betting - if that. Luckily
33 - Disagree about Thompson - his candidacy is pretty much dead, and his crabby showings in the debates havent helped, the real surprise for the GOP race could be McCain re-emerging in New Hampshire following a Huckabee victory in Iowa, all this while Romney is struggling and Gulianni is in real trouble.
But I’d agree on Edwards, his operation in Iowa is very strong (with lots of Union endorsments helping him to boot), he’ll still be doing well to win - but it’s by no means impossible. Beyond Iowa though i cant see Edwards (unlike Obama or Clinton) riding the momentum to the nomination, instead I think things could pan out more like the ‘88 cycle when Gephardt won in Iowa but simply couldnt translate that into any further traction. If Edwards wins in Iowa then either Obama or Clinton can probably survive comming second but I;d agree that it would be very hard to come back from a third place in Iowa.
38 the scandal will kill the Breck Girl if there is anything at all to it. Cheating on a cancer stricken wife whom you’ve used in your campaign = toast
39 “Cheating on a cancer stricken wife whom you’ve used in your campaign = toast”
Not if you are a Tory in Wiltshire.
No comment (Reagan rule)
How are the LibDems in that seat, out of interest?
Ben @ 38
Thompson has REALLY improved in the last month and his final debate performance was considerably stronger - commentators said he won that debate. So I really don’t think he’s dead.
McCain certainly pushing hard in NH. He has to win there. It’s the only way his campaign stays alive.
Of course, on the Democrat side, the National Enquirer story cited earlier has the potential to end Edwards’ chances before Iowa. In any case, I suspect you’re right to compare Edwards to Gephardt - both have the particularly anti-poverty, pro-labor blend that appeals especially to Iowans and some southern states. The Obama/Clinton appeal is far broader.
Mike, “…the seriousness of welching on bets …”
Good to see the time-honoured practice of racial stereotyping is alive and well in the Lib Dems.
40:LoL
Turnout is an indicator of the level of engagement that people have.
64% the turnout of LD members in this contest. (72% in 2006)
53% the turnout of Labour members who voted in their Deputy contest.
77% the turnout of Conservative members voted in their Leadership contest in 2005.
39 - Agree, but it remains to be seen if there really is any truth to it, but as i said it seems to have more traction than somthing like the druge report’s coverage of Kerry’s “affair”. We’ll see…
42 - Still cant see it, he’s polling at just 10% in Iowa and less in NH (iirc - so could be wrong), if Romney collapses (and so far all the GOP “front runners” have eventually collapsed - McCain, Gulianni, Romney… I get the sense that Huckabee will win in IA by dint of timming and having become the “front runner” at just the right time more than anything) then Thompson might be able to expliot it - but i just dont see that he’s got the time to do it.
25 Test
‘All of life’s a gamble - and mostly the odds are 5/4 against.’
I’m sure you recognise the quote and I’m happy to live by it. You can’t avoid gambling, any more than you can avoid life. Why not enjoy both?
Betting is not, in my experience, a seedy business. On the contrary, I find racing people and punters generally a gregarious, lively, entertaining bunch - and on the whole extremely trustworthy. By way of example, I can tell you that I don’t always bother to take a ticket when placing my bets. A glance at the bookie is usually sufficient. He knows who I am and we both know what the agreement is. Disputes are very rare and have always, in my experience, been settled amicably. I really wish I could say I had found the same levels of honesty in the City, where I have spent much of my working life, as I do at the track.
Sure, betting has its sleazy side, but nobody has to go there, any more than drinking has to be a lonely, depressing and addictive activity. If you can’t trust yourself, don’t imbibe. Same with betting. I wouldn’t criticise those who abstain. No need for you to criticise those of us who partake.
Anyone read Jonathan Freedland’s column in the Guardian? For a left-winger, it cuts everyone!
Some choice extracts:
“Clegg’s start was less auspicious than Blair’s 13 years ago and Cameron’s in 2005. They won thumping victories; Clegg squeaked in by a Florida margin of 511 votes. More alarming, turnout of Lib Dems was down by about 10,000 votes since they chose Ming Campbell in 2006. With a third of Lib Dem members not bothering to vote, one unsympathetic observer noted: “If you can’t excite your own party, then how can you hope to excite the country?”
That hurts the Lib Dems, especially because many had high hopes for this campaign. It wasn’t just about selecting a replacement for Ming. Some imagined that the process itself would be invigorating, much as the 2005 leadership contest energised the Conservatives. But that did not happen. With serial disasters torpedoing the government, there was little airtime left for the battle of Clegg v Chris Huhne.
What’s more, while Cameron and Blair could both claim a mandate for a new direction, Clegg can hardly do the same. It’s not just the anaemic size of his victory: it’s also his failure to set out a clear programme in the course of the campaign, preferring to play safe lest he erode his lead. As a result, that most vital sentence for a new leader forcing through difficult changes - “You elected me because …” - is not really available to him.”
and
“Of course, much of Clegg’s fate will not lie in his own hands. Instead, he will navigate his way around a landscape shaped by Labour and the Conservatives. Previous Lib Dem success has come when the second party is ailing: Labour in the 1980s and the Tories from the mid-1990s until 2005. With Cameron surging and confident, that is clearly not the position now.
Most depends on the government. As the year ends, most Labourites shake their heads at how rapidly their fortunes have reversed since the summer. They ask each other one question: how deep a hole are we in? The Blairite ultras believe the situation is recoverable, but that it will not, nevertheless, be recovered. They believe that Brown does not have the political agility to do what needs to be done - they agree with Cameron that he is “simply not cut out for the job”. They trade rumours that the PM is digging himself ever deeper, retreating into the bunker, starting work at 4am, shouting at secretaries. With alarm, they report that Tony’s fruitbowl in the Downing Street den has been replaced by Gordon’s stash of chocolate bars. They wonder if he can take the strain.”
and lastly:
“The irony is that Labour’s underlying position may indeed not be that unsound, but its day-to-day politicking has been appalling for 10 successive weeks. (Even an amateur could have told them the late appearance at last week’s Lisbon signing was a disaster. As any parent would tell a recalcitrant child: either don’t go at all or go with good grace.) The Tories have underlying weaknesses, but their tactical plays have been consistently canny.”
46. Your view is obviously more realistic. But I can’t help wondering if Huckabee hasn’t arrived just a week or two too soon to nail down victory. Thompson’s definitely cutting his recovery fine!
I agree about the Edwards story needing to gain traction. But in such a close race, with several popular candidates, even the rumour can be damaging enough.
47 PtP
Hear hear
Sorry, link for Freedland:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/comment/0,,2229660,00.html
Interesting looking at the Electoral Commission website. The search engine seems to show something quite interesting about impermissible Donations.
Since 2001 the Tories have returned over 50 donations totaling £91,800 including voluntary forfeiture to the Commission three times including the two cases of which so much fuss has been made (because the Labour party has just caught up with the Commission’s month old press release).
The LibDems have returned nearly 20 donations valued in total at £55,000. One of these was voluntarily forfeited to the Commission.
In the same period the Labour party has returned only one donation of £1,000 because as a impermissible donation.
So in fact this current Labour attack again highlights how careless (or worse) Labour have been if they have only found one case since 2001 where the donation was impermissible while the other two parties have found and dealt with so many more.
Even the Green party found two donations and Respect one that had to be returned. The BNP found nine but the PC and SNP found none.
34
Very interesting column from Heffer, he really hates Dave doesn’t he! Read the first letter in the comments, from Arthur J. Smedley, wants Musharraf to come here and start a party: hmmmm!
47. Quite right Peter.
Re 31, Stjohn “25. Test. This site is called politicalbetting.com
You sound like a vegetarian addressing the annual dinner of the Butchers Guild. ”
BTW, It has only been a day, maybe Obderver has been tied up?
19. Prophet.
“I mentioned that bets are not legally enforceable but of course there non-legal means with which, as an habitue of the track, I am perfectly familiar. Mike is far too much of a gentleman to even contemplate these, even assuming he could identify and track down Mr Observer, but I can assure the latter that if he knew the kind of penalty commonly imposed for infractions of the kind in question, he would be writing that cheque out right now, just in case.”
If you mean what I think you mean - and this sort of stuff still goes on, widely - then I find it very worrying.
I’d hate to think of someone who’s a little bit financially irresponsible and desperate getting knee-capped because he can’t pay the bookies.
What kind of country do we live in??
Maybe the government SHOULD consider making bets legally enforceable and get rid of this criminality.
Talking of wagers….interesting that no-one has taken up my cats/dogs offer of Monday. That £10 is still on offer - the dogs say Labour will dip below 29% (ie 28.99% or less) in a national poll (Smithson adjudicated) by 31st March 2008.
Are there no puss-loving Labour supporters prepared to risk a tenner? Or are you really all accepting that your man still has that far to fall to plumb these new depths? What about The Fightback?
35 - I think most commentators have made the point that by only getting 50.x% of the votes Clegg has hardly secured a great mandate from his own party, and it’s not just partisan Tory voters like me. Had Cameron beaten Davis by the same margin, then I very much doubt he would still be leader after some of the difficult early months and the rough patch last summer. Or, he would have had to adopt a wholly different tack to the very successful one he has taken.
So I think it is fair comment that Clegg is hampered slightly in what he can do when half his party may not be with him, or certainly didn’t think he was the best man for the job.
It’s particularly bad because the general expectation seemed to be that it would be a walkover for him, that he might win by 60-40 at least. It must have left Team Clegg very shaken; Nick Robinson seemed to think so on the Ten last night. It suggests that highly significant numbers of LD members developed doubts about Cleggy during the campaign. Not good.
Just a thought on turnout for the LD leadership. Could it be that many could not make their minds up. As posted previously here I was in that position (eventually I voted Huhne) and that appeared to be the case of many others from conversations I have had. It is a dilema. I didn’t want not to vote as that looks like apathy. I also didn’t want to spoil my paper as that is negative and my view of both candidates was very positive.
43 LOL Gwynfa!
I was wondering if anybody else would pick up on Mike’s use of that term. I think it was you who once picked me up on it, long ago.
As I explained at the time, it’s one of those terms so ingrained in certain parts of our culture that its ‘racial’ origins have pretty much been forgotten. Certainly I never, ever thought about the Welsh when using the verb ‘to welsh’.
I honestly doubt it causes any offence now but correct me if I am wrong. If it does, it ought to be avoided. It would be a pity though. Everybody knows what it means, and ‘to renege on a bet’ is an altogether less satisfactory formulation.
You’re the Welshman, Gwynfa. You decide. Is it OK, or not?
Memory cells going, but I have a charity bet with…er…someone that Ken will beat Boris. IIRC it was £10 at 2-1, i.e. if Ken wins the cats get £10, and if Boris wins another charity gets £20. A not very frequent Tory poster has confirmed the bet before, but I’ve forgotten again who it was and am not sure of the exact bet. Can anyone (ideally the person I bet with) advise?
By the way, test, can’t remember if I confirmed receipt of your £20 for the cats a while back, but it came promptly, thanks!
43 Gwynfa. I heard that the actual origin of “welshing” on a bet is actually a slur on English people. In this version of events, it was applied to bookmakers who fled over the border to Wales to avoid paying up on large debts.
(See “Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins”)
43 - Another insecure welshman giving the rest of us a bad name??
58. I have yet to find a Clegg supporter who wasn’t happy with Huhne or Huhne supporter who wasn’t happy with Clegg. That certainly wasn’t the case with the candidates in previous leadership elections. I think you are barking up the wrong tree (wishful thinking on your part.)
[47] Peter the Punter laments I really wish I could say I had found the same levels of honesty in the City, where I have spent much of my working life, as I do at the track.
And yesterday (sorry if this has already been dealt with, but Virgin had a technical fault so I was disnetted) John Pilger wrote: In 2007, reported the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the United Kingdon faced the highest levels on inequality for 40 years… The International Monetary Fund has designated Britain a tax haven, and corruption and fraud in British business are almost twice the global average, while Unicef reports that British children are the most neglected and unhappiest in the “rich” world.
I do hope that Nick Palmer MP, Roger et al will have the grace not even to try to defend this outcome of ten years of NuLabbery, whilst I am confident that the Blue Harpies will be falling over themselves to argue simultaneously that Pilger’s sources are a bunch of wicked Marxist fantasists and that Cammy will sort it all out in less than no time.
58 So by the sam logic, Bob, and overwhelming majority, or a walkover even, would have been much better?
You must have been mightily impressed then by Gordon Brown’s election then!
Why can’t he just PayPal the money over to you? Then nobody needs to know who he is
Since the LDs are no fans of FPTP, why not run the leadership on a proportional basis, Clegg for 184 days, Huhne for 181? I think we should be told…..
60
I believe the term to, ‘Welsh’ meaning dishonest, was brought about during the middle ages, when along the Welsh/English border Welsh farmers would sell cattle to their English counterparts. These cattle were of the, ‘homing variety’ and would return to their previous owners, to be sold again and again.
I have to say, this seems a bit premature to be maligning this man’s character in such a big way.
Of course it might be justified in which case I think it would be worth tracing Observer’s IP to see if it links up to Lib Dem HQ (although I suppose Mike wouldn’t really want to use it as party political material against his party).
But after one day? People have other things to do in their lives, honestly.
56 Casino
The bookmaking community would dearly love them to be legally enforceable. Ask any bookmaker about their bad debts and they will tell you the extent of the problem.
No, I don’t think thuggery is common in pursuit of betting liabilities and certainly no more so than in pursuit of other more commercial debts. More common and effective sanctions include exclusion (’warning off’) and the removal of credit facilities.
It is, as I have remarked elsewhere, a remarkably well-ordered and honorable community and somebody with genuine financial difficulties is likely to treated sympathetically. Of course, somebody who is just taking the pi*s might get treated a bit roughly, but that’s life.
We’ll find out in due course which category Observer falls into.
47. Peter. I recall many years ago, when I was a bespectacled callow youth of about 14, placing my first bet with a Rails Bookmaker, at Goodwood.
The bookie instructed his clerk to put the bet down to “glasses”. I waited patiently and then with growing consternation for my ticket. The bookie, sensing my anxiety, then made a bolt for it with my fiver. His Rails colleagues roared with laughter while exhorting the increasingly embarrassed and bewildered “glasses” to chase the fast disappearing felon.
68.
The scary thing about that proposal is (provided the leader didn’t have to be an MP) I could be leader for about 13 minutes.
O/T Con gain Seoul !
Presidential election in South Korea - first exit polls
It looks like an easy win for Lee Myung-Bak (conservative)
KBS/MBC poll
Lee Myung-Bak 50.03%
Chung Dong-Young (Liberal) 26%
Lee Hoi-Chang (Independent Conservative)13.5
SBS poll
Lee Myung-Bak 51.3%
Chung Dong-Young 25%
Lee Hoi-Chang 13.8%
I think the difference between the Libeal Democrat leadership conest and the Tory one was that in the case of the Tories, there were very considerable political differences among the candidates (Clarke v Rifkind v Fox…), whereas in the Clegg-Huhne contest, political differences wre virtually non-existent (probably because in the case of the Liberal Democrats, it is the party that decides policy anyway, not the leader).
Apart from that, the Tories received millions of pounds worth of free advertising from media coverage, during an excessively prolonged campaign; hile the Liberal Democrats did not. Bearing this in mind, it is really shameful and highly significant of Tory apathy that their turnout was not higher.
The above is in answer to the postings from HF and Bob Sykes.
Re 72 Stjohn “The bookie instructed his clerk to put the bet down to “glasses”. I waited patiently and then with growing consternation for my ticket. The bookie, sensing my anxiety, then made a bolt for it with my fiver. His Rails colleagues roared with laughter while exhorting the increasingly embarrassed and bewildered “glasses” to chase the fast disappearing felon.”
Are you saying a bookie did a runner for a fiver?
76 Indeed?! And a Rails bookmaker at that! Generally I don’t go to the Rails for less than £50, although they will take less.
And weren’t you a bit underage?
It was all a joke, surely?
Did anyone hear Clegg on Five Live this morning? He seemed very hesistant and nervous, even answering questions such as should the England football coach speak English.
He will have to up his game a bit if he’s to make any impact.
Who says “Observer” is a “senior member” of the party - apart from himself? And what does the term mean anyway? Somebody above produced a list of MPs in an attempt to slur them all.
I would have thought that Observer was elderly (”senior” in the sense of “long-established”); and/or self-important (since Liberal Democrats don’t do hierarchy); and/or somewhat delusional (since he was so wrong; and also under the impression that he would convince anybody); and possibly even not holding any position of importance within the party. He also seems to have money to burn.
I can think of one name tht would fit this description; but he is not even a member of the party.
76,77. Peter, Benedict. Yes, they were all winding me up. Needless to say the horse lost so I was not able to test the probity of their bet recording system.
A fiver was a lot of money 32 years ago to a 14 year old. Can’t be sure of the horse’s name now. Possibly Sula Bula?
60. If you go down that road then the use of ‘Welsh’ in any context should perhaps be disapproved of - the original meaning of the Old English word ‘wealh’ was something akin to ’slave’ and was quite derogatory.
37 “31 yes but despite the name of the site, it’s 95% politics, 5 betting - if that. Luckily”
I like to take up this point, Test, because it goes to the very heart of what we all do here.
I believe, and I know Mike does too, that it is the betting element that makes the Site. Without it, it would be little more than a propaganda forum. You have only to go to a selection of other ‘Political’ Sites to see what I mean. Name one than comes anywhere near this in terms of quality and range?
Furthermore, I think this site works best when the betting and the political elements are combined. The best threads are when the politics has a betting edge, and vice-versa.
It is true that the overwhelming majority of posts have nothing to do with betting. Many posters have nothing to contribute to the betting element. They are not despised because of it; nor should ‘the punters’ be denigrated for their priorities. It’s a broad Church here and all the better for it.
Getting the mix right is important and difficult. In this respect, Mike and his team do a brilliant job. I would suggest that we could do with more betting, rather than less, if only because the betting threads tends to contain less of the tub-thumping partisan postings which I personally find so tedious - but then it’s a personal view.
Meanwhile, I’m happy to jog along with the mix as it is and hope others can put up with my preoccupations, as I try to do with theirs.
Of course he should pay. This is a matter of honour. His name must, in the public interest, be published if he doesn`t pay. He`s not fit to hold public office.
78: Just out of interest has anyone honestly been impressed by Clegg’s performance?
84. Oh yeah - like a Labour or Tory (or Nat) hack is going to say he is good, even if he is.
75 Tressage the examples you give were not the choices members got when 77% of them voted for either Cameron or Davis.
If Tressage you are right that 77% turnout is “shameful”, then a 64% turnout must be the pits!
Do bear in mind that I have in the past pointed to research into campaign volunteering at previous GEs which show for GE2005 that a similar % of Conservative and LD members volunteered whereas Labour’s % was well down.
These voting turnouts are an indicator that if a GE happened today the participation rates we can expect are 1st Conservatives opening a gap on 2nd place Lib Dems and in a distant 3rd Labour.
84. Ralph. Generally not but he came alive towards the end of his interview with Paxman last night. Time will tell but my impression so far is that he lacks fire.
72. St John - in the mid 80’s I recall going to Cheltenham with my wife and being bilked by a rails bookie who did a runner before paying out on the last race. Coincidentally he was Welsh although I never associated the word “welch” as in welch on one’s bets with this before! My wife and I now often refer to rails bookies as “slippery Sam” if the subject of going to the races comes up because of our “experience”.
84 not impressed by Clegg but I reserve judgement on him, as I am waiting to see how he does in these first months.
I did state that Clegg would be better in 3+ years time.
Ralph @ 84
No. (although as a Tory I am probably biased) However, I thought his performance on Newsnight last night was woeful. He and Paxman kept interrupting each other, he looked uncomfortable and unstatesmanlike and came really unstuck over the issue of ‘Town Hall meetings’, where apparently he won’t be ‘listening’ to people if they tell him things he doesn’t want to hear i.e. if they want a referendum on the EU Treaty.
Huhne in my view is much more left-wing, but speaks slower and more calmly than Clegg, who gives the imprssion of being flustered. I have heard the word ‘waffler’ used against him a number of times by commentators.
80 Sula Bula is an anagram, yes?
84: No, and (before Alan J accuses me of being a Labour or Tory hack) I am an undecided voter. I think Clegg is very unimpressive. when I hear him speak he reminds me of Blair, my mind wanders and then the radio is switched off. He talks in broad meaningless generalities. The LibDems should be attacking the Tory/New Lab economically liberal consensus - I think that Huyne would have done this. What a shame.
84. - I think he did ok vs Paxo last night - not stunning, but a lot better than ‘dead man walking’…..reminded me of that other young one…..
80 On reflection, StJohn, perhaps the horse you backed was the legendary Selohesra…
Early on I felt that the sensible thing for the LibDems would have been to go for Clegg. As the campaign progressed I changed my mind. Two reasons for this:
1) Perhaps it’s me, but Clegg comes across as very, very dull. Sure he’s personable, but entirely lacking in the “charisma” that Cameron seems to possess.
2) The danger to the LibDems is, obviously, from a Tory revival picking off their seats. The best defence is to attack Cameron as being inexperienced, vacuous etc. Huhne could have done that with some credibility. Not Clegg.
All in all, I think the LibDems could have made a serious mistake in over-reacting to Menzies Campbell’s problems with age (his selection in turn being an over-reaction to the perceived lack of gravity of Kennedy). Time will tell.
Re 80 Stjohn, “76,77. Peter, Benedict. Yes, they were all winding me up. Needless to say the horse lost so I was not able to test the probity of their bet recording system.
A fiver was a lot of money 32 years ago to a 14 year old. Can’t be sure of the horse’s name now. Possibly Sula Bula? ”
What were you doing putting a whole fiver on a hrose for anyway?
Did you get it back?
I wonder if anyone can help me with a small problem of etiquette?
We received a Christmas card yesterday from some old friends of my wife’s. A nice couple, they came to our wedding, apparently good sorts the pair of them. However, in the missive they announce that he has just been appointed Conservative Parliamentary Candidate ….. in a Lib Dem held seat!
As I have explained in the past, Mrs Carp is completely a-political. After 17 years of hard work, I have trained her to understand some of the more basic facts of life, such as, for example, that all Conservative candidates by definition are multinational drug traffickers who eat babies. And now all my good work has been undermined in a moment.
Should I ensure that they are struck off our Christmas card next year?
88 Really, Goupillon? That’s very rare, and at Cheltenham too. Presumably you informed the Ring Inspector?
I’ve only heard of this happening once, in a very famous incident at Epsom on Derby Day, but that was a carefully constructed scam.
I’m really very surprised to hear of this.
Re 97, Augustus Carp, “I have trained her to understand some of the more basic facts of life, such as, for example, that all Conservative candidates by definition are multinational drug traffickers who eat babies. And now all my good work has been undermined in a moment.”
“Should I ensure that they are struck off our Christmas card next year?”
No just write the card in green ink… Oh? you do that already
Re Clegg:-
*** disclaimer ***
I am a Tory, my opinion of the Lib Dems is biased…
However, during the TV news interviews Clegg made yesterday I made this basic observation…
He made the point about being different and how Labour / Tories were the same?!?
I can see what he was trying to do, but then he dug himself a great big hole and jumped in.
He went on to - almost exactly - repeat Cameron’s sound bites on overall policy / party direction without the conviction or PR charm of Cameron.
At least one interviewer said as much and it made him look very shallow and lightweight to be honest.
Picture Cameron with Clegg as a ‘mini-me’ if you will…
Lib Dems and Tories are very different parties, but it just shows how much Cameron has moved to capture the Lib Dem ground while Ming has been in charge. Can Clegg capture it back? or will he drive people to the ‘real thing’?…
Strikes me as the Lib Dems would die for Cameron as leader and have elected the person who most fits that aspiration. Clegg is going to be tagged by the press as a ‘wannabe’ / ‘light weight’ Cameron.
Many may ask, what is the point?
78
I saw him (Clegg) on Newsnight last night.
No wonder his profile in the election was so low.
Best described as a dull montone/ recite political cliche speaker.
I mentally compared him to the David Cameron/David Davies leadership debate.
I would rate him about 10% better than DD and about 25% less charisma.
I then compared him to the Gordon Brown leadership debate : and of course Clegg won handsomely
I believe the term is “no contest”.
I wait to see what happens.
Read the Torygraph article by Heffer. For a long time he has struck me as a bitter and twisted old fart. That article confirmed it.
88. Goupillon. That’s surprising and unfortunate. Just to be clear, my anecdote at 72 was the bookies having a joke on me.
Personally I endorse PtP’s views. I have never had an unfair encounter with a racecourse bookmaker. Not that I go racing much nowadays.
He could transfer the money to your account and all you’d have would be his sort code and account nummber, which wouldn’t reveal his identity. If that’s too revealing he could just post 10 fifty pounds notes via registered post, or even try the Abrahams approach and pay you through an intermediary. The problems on remaining anonymous are hardly insurmountable.
85: Alan, I find that in the mornings this site has less of the partisan nonsense that infects it later in the day.
The consensus of ‘not a great start but we’ll see’ sounds fair to me.
Augustus Carp @ 97
Was this in a formal printed section of the card, or as part of a hadnwritten message from the sender?
65: What makes me doubt what Pilger says (apart from his past record) is that if things are so corrupt why aren’t we seeing a larger amount of trials?
I heard one chap on Radio 5, this morning, advocating Nick Griffin in preference to Nick Clegg.
105 Augustus
You are a Liberal. Be magnanimous.
Though they have strayed, they are honest enough to admit it. Most would try to hide the fact from their cherished friends. Send them a nice card back indicating that you intend to remain friends and hope they will see the error of their ways in due course.
Not quite sure what you are going to do with Mrs C though.
96. Benedict! The horse lost so, no, I didn’t get my money back! I think that’s the side of the deal that works as an incentive for the bookies.
105 The photocopied Family Letter thing; daughter’s violin exam, the holiday in France, that sort of thing.
86 HF I think you have missed one of the points that Tressage and I have made. Many LDs found it hard to make a choice. That is certainly my experience from speaking to many others. I certainly voted very late and nearly not at all for this reason. I have never done that before. Whereas with the Conservative party leadership there were very clear choices.
If ytou don’t know how to vote what do you do with your vote?
Don’t don’t that to me please! I thought looking at that picture the headline was “Lib Dem lead of 18%!”
112-LOL!
Re 109, Stjohn, “96. Benedict! The horse lost so, no, I didn’t get my money back! I think that’s the side of the deal that works as an incentive for the bookies.”
i just wondered as it appeared he had not quite taken your bet!
108 Wise as ever, PtP!
[106] I normally discount Pilger, too, but I trust him to quote his sources accurately - although it’s not clear whether the “twice as corrupt” comes from the IMF or out of his own fevered brain. It may be that it’s not only in terms of party political corruption that the law isn’t fit for purpose.
Augustus Carp @ 110
Well I suppose that’s not so bad then. I have a friend who votes Labour or Green (shocking, but true) who, when we shared a house shortly after University and didn’t have much money, used to make his own Christmas cards with leaves and twigs and insisted that people should always write long newsworthy messages inside, rather than just “To X, Merry Christmas from Y”.
So on that basis, your friend was probably just being informative, although mentioning you politics to friends can be a risky business if they don’t share your views.
Heffer has been an aggrivating idiot for a long time now. He hates Cameron, constantly declaring his style and tactics as wrong and useless. Now the tories are well ahead in the polls he’s gone suddenly quiet over it.
Brown has got a friend to help him in this month’s press conference.
119 he just said “the tripartite system of regulation is working well”. er Northern Rock shows its working well……
You will recall that a few days ago there was a discussion here about the Rev Dr John Cameron, who has been on various sites on the internet saying mildly rude things about the Prime Minister. As promised, I spoke to Mrs Carp about her political campaign whilst at Edinburgh University in the 1970s, when she assisted Magnus Magnusson in a heroic but doomed attempt to prevent Gordon Brown from securing the Student Rectorship.
Mrs C was involved in both the Official Wing and the Provisional Wing of the Christian Union at Edinburgh, but she has no recollection of the good Dominie. She assumes, therefore, that he must be some sort of Episcopalian (or “heretic” as they are known in the more waggish Presbyterian circles).
I mentioned that Rev Cameron had referred to Brown as a “bully”, and Mrs C. became most indignant. She assures me that there were never any rumours of Brown being anything other than completely respectable when he was at university – the only thing held against him was that he was “political”, i.e. he was weird enough to join a political party. She said that if he was a bully, rumours of that sort of thing would have got out, but she heard nothing about it.
Britain’s economy is better than America’s and better than Europe’s.
O/T-”The Huckabee Backlash”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/the-huckabee-backlash/
119: “Brown has got a friend to help him in this month’s press conference”
Brown has got a “friend”? When did that happen?!
82 - offering wagers is also a good way of quietening the exciteable. “Dave is rubbish and will be out on his ear by February”; “Spurs are great and will win the League, FACT”; “England will win the next Ashes series 5-0″ - such patently absurd claim can easily be demolished by calmly inviting a wager on those things, which is invariably refused with a hasty “err, well I would, but I don’t bet, y’see”. So it’s not only fun, and profitable, but it silences the tiresome braggart.
69 - I’m not quite sure why, but the notion of “homing cattle” sneakily mooing their way home has made me laugh like a small child for several minutes. Excellent stuff.
Well welching on a bet is the act of a dishonourable man/woman but that’s a minor point in this affair.
As Mike is one of few lib dems who are prepared to be openly critical of the party’s direction the major point is the threats to him to keep his silence. This is unacceptable whoever it is from, whether from an influential politician or a common or garden voter.
In any case, surely I can’t be the only person who gets annoyed at those who publicly agree with their party whatever they do? I just couldn’t do that, it’s completely unnatural. In fact, the idea that you have to support a party line is what keeps me from attempting to join any party and it’s no wonder that membership of all parties (and lib dems are suffering more than most given their need for foot soldiers) is declining.
101. Clegg’s acceptance speech was almost like a rory bremner perfomance, taking off a cameron conference speech. Huhne massively impressed during the election, and clegg has a lot to prove now - not exactly what he’d have liked on day 1 of his new job.
Apols if this has been raised before but can anyone explain the lower turnout in this election? Ming was elected on a 72% turnout, while the Clegg/Huhne battle only spurred a 64% showing. Was the last contest that much more exciting?
Shame that “Laurel and Hardy” aren’t standing closer together at the press conference. Would have made some great ventriloquist and dummy photos!
” The bookmaking community would dearly love them to be legally enforceable. Ask any bookmaker about their bad debts and they will tell you the extent of the problem. ”
It’s the bookies fault.
In a previous career, I was involved in managing a betting office.
There were very reliable credit customers who always paid if they lost but they were mostly well off old school’ types, so that made a huge difference.
However, the general rule is that you should never ever give credit to punters, even for small amounts.
For example, I’ve seen a -£500 betting balance try to be wiped out by someone phoning and backing an odds-on dead cert (think it was the horse, Tenby).
Logic being, easy money - cancel out the debt, job done.
Only it lost and the balance then stood at something like -£1000. You can guess what happened next and it didn’t involve the person walking in with cash and a smile to pay up.
Happens no matter the amount as well. I’ve seen people dissapear off the face of the earth over £20 before.
Before anyone says - we always paid up when a punter won legitimately - it has to work both ways.
So, never ever offer or agree to credit if you are a bookie even if you have been taking bets off the person for years over the counter or via deposit (which is always tricky when they run out of money… I’ll pay up this afternoon…). It’ll go bad as sure as the Lib Dems will never form a government.
I don’t miss it much I can tell you. Stressful business.
Same goes with lending anyone money.
Bah humbug.
From the press con:
Female foreign journalist, eulogising about Brown.
Brown: “Anyone would think I personally invited you!”
Journalist: “You did!”
Much laughter…
119 Brown with Darling are coming over impressively at the Press Conference this morning.
127 Why the lower turnout? The main reason given by LDs (at 111 etc) is that the two candidates are very similar and some members just could not make their mind up.
Personally I view participation rates in all surveys as a good sign of the state of morale. It is very applicable in surveys of employees where a low participation rate is a sign of employees switching off into a catatonic level of participation.
Therefore I believe that morale within the LDs has declined compared to the previous Leadership contest and this contest has not reinvigorated the party.
The other indicator of morale is the direction and scale of change in the membership numbers which in terms of the scale of the decline, are Highest drop = Labour, 2nd biggest = LD and 3rd = Conservatives.
I am afraid I was one of the 36% non-voters. This is an awful admission, and had the majority been only 1, I would have felt dreadful. But I was never a confirmed Huhne-y, or a Cleggie at all, so I felt it was reasonable. I understand there were about 200 or so spoilt papers, and I did think about that option for a while. This is the first leadership election I have not voted in, btw.
*It’ll go bad as sure as the Lib Dems will never form a government.*
Before someone asks for odds, I would like to backtrack and say that I really mean’t…. it’s as likely as the Lib Dem forming a government…
Never is a long time and of course the likelhood is that ‘one day’ in the future a Lib Dem party (or a version of it) might be in a positiion to win outright however doubtful it may seem in the 00’s.
Since you mention it again, Matthew T (27), only too pleased to oblige (likewise, again)….
When you are faced with a straight contest between two outstandingly good candidates, and you find you would be very happy with either of them, you don’t become wildly partisan. And because you