The Big PBC Prediction for 2008
December 31st, 2007
Your chance to help predict the next 12 months
Instead of our usual prediction competition for 2008 we have “The Big PBC Prediction” where everybody is asked to give their views on a range of political and associated economic events.
Please fill in the questions below and let us see if our combined wisdom can get the next year right.
Also please can you write comments in the normal way on the thread below and not on the individual poll result pages.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Which FT index?
If this is just a bit of fun (i.e. no prize) would it be possible for more questions to be added later? Something about the London Assembly - e.g. How many seats will be won by Respect / BNP / Green / UKIP / One London Party / Lib Dems? Share of the vote for Lab or Con? Shares of the vote in the first round in the Mayoral election? Local elections in May?
For those interested in forex. The pound/dollar exchange rate will go below 1.90.
Does this mean there will be no individual competition? How are we supposed to cope without the prospect of looking back at the end of the year at how misguided / unlucky in some areas we were at the start, and how remarkably perceptive / lucky we were in others?
Not wanting to bellyache or anything, but could the security be sorted out? I say this when I filled it in, pressed vote, and then got that horrible virus where it says ‘Microsoft Word 2000 trying to install’ (whereupon I had to re-start my computer, which told me it had to check the hard drive).
And I’ve got a decent AVP, which blocks most things.
That minor quibble aside, the site goes from strength to strength. I see that Andy Cooke’s piece got a mention from John Rentoul in his ‘Brown is doomed’ piece on 27th.
May I wish everyone connnected with this site (inc posters) a very happy and healthy 2008.
Being of Scottish descent I shall be shortly on my way to Edinburgh for Hogmany.
If any football punters have any loose change left keep on backing Arsenal Football Club to win their remaining fixtures in the Premiership and Europe.
Be Lucky all!
Nick Palmer- thanks very much for the advice from last night- all seems very sensible.
And Ted- thanks for the amusing observations.
And Mike- just love these questionniares
3 Everyone believes that - wouldn’t be surprised if it went completely the other way even while the UK House of Cards is falling in.
Best wishes for the New Year, Mike et al.
ps.
Mike, why not get a bookie licence and you can start you own exchange? No more welching then!
3 “For those interested in forex. The pound/dollar exchange rate will go below 1.90.”
I suspect it would go lower. Britain has greater debt exposure. Personal debt exceeds that of the rest of Europe. Houses are over valued and over-demand is only maintained by high immigration. The 30-40+ billion spent on maintaining the Northern Rock share price.
I reckon 1.60 - and thats on a weak dollar.
A Man Named Bolted Horse @ 11 re economy.
Housing demand is also sustained by housing benefit which props up the private rental sector and hence buy-to-let.
Northern Rock might cost anything. It still is not clear to me (so can someone let me know?) whether the Bank of England is merely preventing a run on an otherwise sound bank (which will cost practically nothing) or whether it is paying back unsound loans and thus subsidising failed American institutions (which will cost the earth and then some) or somewhere in between.
re 4. Last year we got about 140 entries. This year in the first two hours we have had that many people bothering to fill in the poll forms.
We might well run our usual competition.
11
That’s indeed a far braver prediction than mine.
I hope it’s true as I will be adding to my short sterling position when I see what I perceive as short-term pound strength.
My concern with 1.60 is that the dollar is not in particularly great health at the moment.
The dramatic near 20% devaluation could well happen against some Eastern European currencies ( Checz etc… ), the Norwegian Krona and possibly a 10 - 15 % against the Yen. Against the Euro probably 5 - 10 %.
A very good idea to use the combined knowledge of pb.com.
It would be interesting to ask the same questions of non-pb.com readers/contributors as a comparison, or ‘control’.
Would the combined espertise from pb.com be better at political predictions than the averages from the man-in-the-street survey? Or would the best forecast be the average of the two polls, on the wisdom-of-crowds theory (ie the bigger the crowd, the more accurate the guess)?
11 and 14- A Man Named Bolted Horse is one of those strange right wing, gloom and doom mongers who is almost always invariably wrong. Wouldn’t hold much store to what he? says.
re 1. I’ve amended the question to make clear that it is the FT 100 index.
13. That’s great - I’m looking forward to it! I should say, I think the idea of this thread, running group-predictions is a very good one as well and it should be fascinating to compare the outcomes of the questions with the market prices, where they exist.
15 Except, David, most people - in - the - street would probably give up before they started, as they would say they don’t know anything about the US elections. More interesting is what percentage of the general public you could actually induce to complete the questions (without bribery!!!)
What’s interesting about the responses so far is how much more John McCain is rated compared with the range of betting markets. Our poll currently has him at 40% while Intrade, Betfair and IEM are all at about 20%.
20: but we’re biased by groupthink - several influential people here have been cogently putting the case for McCain (which could well be right - I hesitated over his box before plumping for Guiliani) whereas nobody here has been predicting Romney, for instance. There’s an element of personal liking in that, I fancy - McCain is the more unspun and interesting candidate.
david kendrick @ 15.
We should note that the site currently enjoys a notable Conservative bias that clearly ensures that any PB survey is full of considerable insight, political clarity and sure footed analysis.
Any dilution caused by an infusion of faux Socialism or Lib Demery will naturaly ensure that PB surveys merit the same consideration as a Northern Rock share certificate.
Mike Smithson- I think Jan from Norway holds quite a status on this site, and his tipping of McCain coincides with this.
I called a McCain/ Lieberman ticket on this site last year, and it would be the most sensible (and formidable) option for GOP. I just don’t think that GOP is that sensible at the minute, and the less threatening option would be Romney. Guliani- well the skeletons just carry on coming (the guy was too vain and should have avoided holding himself up to this level of scrutiny), and Huckabee is too whacko.
The Democrats- from reading the US press I get a sense that Obama could pull it off. Certainly sentiments have changed from a couple of months ago.
So my prediction is a Romney/ Obama head to head next November.
21-Nick Palmer- also partisan sentiment. The fact that McCain addressed the Tory conference, and this site is predominantly Tory. The high number of votes for BJ in London, again way above the betting markets.
Thanks for the cat advice
I ‘ve been waiting to ask this question, since yet another discussion about “astroturfers and creatures”, because frankly I am not sure I / we identify the same characteristics, and I certainly don’t fully understand. Is the post at 22 Astroturf? Or does it depend on any party political allegiance you may have yourself whether you classify a post in that way?? I just ask.
Surprised there was no question on who would be the Governor of the BoE on 31.12.08, nor on the $:£ exchange rate at that date.
Tim13 @ 25.
My comment was intended to be light hearted but I forgot to add
to the comment.
re 25. Peter Jacques is not an astro-turfer.
Ken has just overtaken Boris.
20 Interesting but not surprising - we’ve heard lots and lots here about McCain over the past 10 days and very little about any of the other candidates. The same can be said about Huckabee a mere 3 weeks ago, but now he seems to be viewed as dead meat.
Mr Smithson @ 28/29.
Thank you. I fear expulsion from the Conservative Party as my vote probably put the odious Livingstone in the lead!
25: A guide to pb.com…
Here is a normal pb.com post, drawing attention to something the poster likes without overegging it:
” http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/comment/0,,2233405,00.html
is interesting food for speculation about future LD direction.”
Here is a biased post of the kind that I might write, expressing a view but polite:
“…seems to suggest that Clegg recognises that Gordon is genuinely interested in discussion and Dave is not.”
Here is an astroturf post purporting to show contact with grass roots with no actual evidence - it’s not rude, just unsourced:
“…reflects increasing recognition in the general public that Gordon is the more open-minded of the big party leaders.”
Here is a Creature post:
“…shows that Clegg has seen through the dirty scheming of the discredited PR stuntmen leading the so-called Conservatives.”
Morning all - Happy New Year for later. I love these quizzes - will we get the results of last year’s predictions Mike?
Tim13 @25. They are two different species altogether
To my mind the astroturfers are not identifiable by party loyalty, but by the fact that their posts add nothing to this site in terms of political insight or betting knowledge, but generally are a regurgitation of that day’s party media lines or press release email distributions. As someone pointed out over the Christmas period they are often M-F,9-5 posters.
As for the Creatures (I think it was PtP who christened them), they are much more interesting. In full display, their delusional (usually right-wing and eurosceptic) rantings are quite a sight. I particularly enjoy the Da Vinci Code-esque conspiracy theories of francis and something about the 33rd level of freemasonry (which I presume is the latest Xbox release?
Any chance of organising a Lottery of seats for the next Parliamentary By Election? £1 in the hat, pull out the name of the lucky/unlucky constituency and wait for the Grim Reaper or the Chiltern Hundreds. Winner takes all.
28 Mike, are people astroturfers, or are specific posts astroturfing? I can imagine many situations where any of us with specific allegiances are liable to say “loyal” things, but in other circumstances try to be as objective as we can. And does having a minority opinion count as being a “creature”!? Clearly the terms have both been used derogatorily at times - are they just insults, then, or do they have an objective meaning? (perhaps this last is the question I have actually been searching for).
23. That’s what I think too Tyson. It just looks like McCain has too much to do & with Romney likely (so it seems) to win in Iowa & then probably New Hampshire he’ll have the momentum. As for the Dems, the longer it goes on, the more I don’t think Hillary will win with her opponents looking stronger all the time. That probably means Obama coming through but I still wouldn’t write off Edwards.
23. Correct. McCain is what James Willoughby in the Racing Post would describe as the “Wise Guy” selection. Portugal were the “Wise Guy” selection in the last World Cup. They are invariably tipped up by genuinely knowledgable commentators who are looking at angles most of us might ignore and usually involve opposing some flawed favourites.
They never win.
Having said that, I’ve backed McCain and I think it’s arguable that his price is still too big. His relatively late re-emegence in the race means that we bookmakers have taken a lot more money on others in the field and hence his price might hold up for a bit longer.
The last 24 hours have been dominated by pro-Edwards punters here at Ladbrokes. I’ve re-arranged his Iowa Caucus percentage prices in light of informed opinion (reflected on here) that the supporters of the minor candidates may split towards him. He’s also 20/1 from 25/1 to win the whole thing.
Peter Jaques- we will make a good socialist of you some time. You are just fighting off your inner urges. Have seen it with some of my gay friends, the more homophobic they are, the more convinced I am that they are gay. Come out of the closet comrade (and bring the bolted horse with you).
Thanks, both Robin and Nick for your take - I had written my post at 35 before reading yours. Interesting that there are alraeady slight divergences - Nick implies that posts are what is important, whereas Robin seems to identify individuals rather than their specific posts.
I was very glad to hear you say, Robin, that it is total off the wall nonsense, rather than minority opinion which constitutes “creature” however!
Thinking about the opinion poll questions in the quiz. Is there anywhere you can bet on the outcomes of the next set of opinion polls, or on a specific one? Or is it effectively the seats market?
Tim13 - I agree with Nick. It is the posts that define an astroturfer, not the individual. Whilst it is possible for astroturfers to post “normally”, generally they don’t though, and the rule usually holds.
34 Augustus - You have a sick mind.
Good idea though. We could run it at the Party.
42. Have we got a date for the party yet?
20/21. I predicted Romney in the questions (though I’m far from convinced by any of the options). I’ve now traded out of Huckabee and into Romney in advance of Iowa and NH, where decent results should see him move up to close to favourite. Rudi looks well overpriced to me now given his strategy, though that does depend on the extent to which his non-performance during January affects perceptions in the big states for Super Tuesday. Even so, the momentum looks to be with Mitt at the right time.
Thanks Robin at 41.
42 Everyone accuses me of a morbid interest in these things, but I don’t want to wish harm on anyone, I really don’t. It’s just that I am really interested in By Elections, but nowadays the wretched Party Managers go to great lengths to avoid them. In the good old days, some old codger could be shuffled off to chair the Pan European Jam Butty Quango, and we could all come out to play. Not a chance, now.
Re: the Grim Reaper, I blame Blair. His landslide victory in 1997 knocked out a whole load of middle aged MPs who might be older and more susceptible these days.
Is there an Actuary in the house? What IS the life expectancy of am MP?
35 In it’s real sense astroturfing is a co-ordinated attempt by an organisation to create the impression of a grassroots campaign (astroturf being fake grass).
It is used as regards individual posts when these seem to have the form of obvious party propaganda but pretending to come from a disinterested observer i.e. though I’m not a Tory/ have always voted Labour in the past and as I am an environmentalist I’ve decided to vote Tory as lotus flowers spring up with every step David Cameron takes while the grass dies in the presence of Bottler Brown.
Mr Tyson @ 38.
Your delusional jest clearly merits a future in comedy. But there again you do support the Labour adminmistration.
For 2008 may I wish you and your fellow Socialists around 28% in the polls. We’ll call it Michael First Footing!
Morning all
First, a peaceful and prosperous New Year to all though having read the MoS yesterday, I suspect hibernation may be the best option. I’ve rarely read such a doom-laden series of articles (those not written by Liz Jones, whoever she may be).
I wonder if the decline in sterling may be one of “the” stories of 2008. From a peak of around $2 to the £ it’s fallen back toward $1.90 while the rate against the Euro is touching historic lows. On the other hand, there’s the economics and another the sense of national “virility” that a “strong” currency is supposed to bring. I suspect our exporters are happy to see sterling so weak especially in Europe.
33 Indeed Robin, it was I that first used the term Creatures of the Night, and I was delighted it was taken up, not just because of my vanity, but also because it enabled us to refer to the nutcases that occasionally pop in without being so personal as to name them. Unlike you however, I don’t perceive the Creatures as being particularly Left, or Right - just batty. They can be very entertaining too. The ‘DaVinci’ man was a treasure but he hasn’t been around much lately. No doubt he’s too busy hunting conspirators.
As regards Astroturfers, I didn’t agree with the comment elsewhere that they are post-related. I think an Astroturfer is a party apparatchnik, who always posts with the sole purpose of talking up his or her Party. We haven’t seen much of them lately, because of the lack of UK elections.
Btw, Peter Jacques is definitely NOT an Astroturfer. He has a solid record of interesting and well balanced posts and makes a strong contribution to the Site, including on betting matters.
Finally, I note that the Tarquins have been less in evidence lately. Maybe they are getting fed up with not being taken seriously.
Happy New Year to anyone reading this in New Zealand
Worrying developments in Kenya - many dead in overnight rioting following the apparent “re-election” of the President under highly dubious circumstances.
Maybe I should make “Becoming a Creature” my New Year’s resolution…..
44 - I thought I was the only person who deliberately voted Romney (I assumed the others were mistakes!).
It is not in my nature to disagree with Jan from Norway, and he has radically reshaped my impression of McCain’s chances, but I come back to:
(a) all of them are disliked by the GOP for one reason or the other, but Romney has fewer ‘hard’ strikes (never kissed Donald Trump in drag, doesn’t raise taxes and mouth off at Wall St, not a ‘disloyal’ Maverick - just he is flaky on everything)
(b) Only Romney and Giuliani have the money to win big on Super Tuesday (McCain is now funds limited in the primaries by the FEC)
(c) Only Romney has “a voice good for all time zones” - not a Southern Baptist, not a New Yorker, not a Texan. Mr General Conservative from America.
(d) Only candidate who can actually get any momentum before Super Tuesday (five potential victories in the first five)
(e) I don’t see the Mormon thing as a promblem
So on balance, Romney makes sense to me - but only on balance.
43 Khunanup
Party, sponsored this year by Ladbrokes, is on Friday 25th Jan, National Liberal Club, from 6pm. Cash bar - £5 entry fee as contribution to nibbles - half price for Norwegian Tipsters and Italian Doctors.
Be there or be square.
I can’t believe I’m so boring - I took the most popular view on each of these questions, without looking beforehand; the only one where I differed from the majority was in choosing Ken over Boris - but there the lead keeps switching anyway.
Is this groupthink, as someone suggests? Or are we all brainiacs, bound to think alike?
What especially puzzles me is that I chose the consensus viewpoint on the FTSE and houseprice questions, issues that neither affect me nor interest me.
Crikey. I’ve turned into Mister Average. The national belwether. For a small fee, I am available for polling, if MORI want to save money and simply ask me all their questions, rather than 1200 people around the UK.
Clegg attacks Conservatives in his New Year message but does not attack Labour by name.
“We all know the Conservatives don’t have the answers. They would block opportunity, not promote it.
They talk about social justice, but want to return to a Victorian-style voluntary system. They talk about families, but only want to help married couples. They talk about tax cuts, but don’t say where they’ll find the money.”
http://www.libdems.org.uk/news/story.html?navPage=news.html&id=13694
Interesting that this is the second time Clegg has used media space for an anti-Conservative message. A portent of things to come?
Morning all
About Bloomberg:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us/politics/31bloomberg.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1199099873-5ZGN+DJuYAFQfHcf8s0eQg
That is a goo analysis, Morus, and one with which I agree. I like the phrase Mr General Conservative. I also have a feeling Edwards could slip through in the Democrats’ race.
52 No chance, Augustus. Creatures are born, not made.
re 56. That’s a strategic mistake by the Lib Dems. The party has lost nearly a quarter of those who voted for them in 2005 to the Tories and you have to ask whether this sort of approach will help bring them back. My view is that it won’t.
This is the usual news-speak waffle that you get from Lib Dem headquarters. As I said the other day they are brilliant at producing winning by election leaflets but have almost no sense of how to deal with the national media.
What I’ve argued here before is that the Lib Dems should not doubt Cameron’s sincerity but question his ability to deliver given the “baggage” of a lot of the Tory party.
Why, as well, when it is Labour that is weak are they not attacking Gordon? Excluding this element makes it look as though they are supporting Labour.
It’s pathetic. Let’s hope Clegg is able to make the changes required.
Question - and I don’t know the answer.
What was the name of the BBC correspondent who died in a car crash in South Africa in about 1990? I don’t know the answer. It’s been bugging me for years, and no amount of googling has helped.
The name, I think, was John something. John Cole refers to it in his rather pretentious biography.
I’d be please to know the answer, and I can’t think of a better forum of experts to ask!
57 This Bloomberg stuff had me digging into my archived records, and I find I backed the guy back in January at 80/1! I’d written it off, but maybe prematurely.
Can’t see it though. The record of independents in US elections is dismal.
Incidentally, Shadsy of Ladbrokes gave a good clue the other day as to the reason why Ron Paul’s price defies all logic. He has zero chance of winning the GOP Nomination, but he could run as an independent. Apparently a lot of the money on him is for President outright, rather than GOP Nominee.
Another explanation is that his supporters have more money than sense.
61 - for biography read autobiography
61. It was John Harrison in 1994…
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19940317/ai_n14858917
60,
There’s a saying in fencing:
A novice fencer attacks the open line*; An expert fencer attacks the opening line**
*the side not defended
**the side that is becoming undefended.
Translated, this would be to attack the side in politics that is losing support - because that side has done the hard work in weakening the attachment of their voters for you.
61 I think it was John Harrison…?
Whoops. Too late!
Am I the only one surprised that 30% of us think that house prices will rise next year?
64 - 66 thanks - ok I got the year wrong… but I’m pretty sure he’s who I meant. I can picture him now.
O/T reply to Nick Palmer from previous thread:
Sorry you are wrong. ID cards are meaningless if there is no plan to make them compulsory. Eventually, if they exist at all, they will become compulsory.
Otherwise, everyone (including criminals) will simply ignore them.
62. Maybe Paul’s fans have a disproportionate number of punters among them. I presume he’ll totally deregulate gaming as well as everything else.
62-PtP-I don’t think Bloomberg would enter the race just to take some votes, if he enters, he will enter with everything that he has, and he will enter to win(but this is what everybody that is running says!)
Yesterday, Morus put one scenario that would make a Bloomberg candidature seems a very good option. But right now, as you, I can’t see it. When the nominees are decided, I think we will have a clear idea.
I think Newsweek had one story about him, but I don’t remember when…
Re: 60 - You may not be surprised, Mike, but I think you are entirely wrong in your view on this. I also doubt that Chris Huhne would be doing very differently - Chris was the activists’ candidate and he caould lay into Cameron and the Tories every bit as well as Nick Clegg.
Do the LDs simply write off this quarter of support ? No, and the best way to do it is to ask the serious questions about Cameron and the Conservatives that might make people actually stop and think about a Cameron Government might mean for this country (and as voters, they are questions we are entitled to ask and answers we are entitled to expect).
You may not doubt Cameron’s “sincerity” but frankly I do. I cannot forget his central role with Michael Howard and his involvement in the 2005 election manifesto. To be honest, I see him as a Thatcherite wolf who has clothed himself in liberal platitudes and empty soundbites. He has been able to fool a large number of people in to thinking that the Conservative party of 2007 is not the Party of 1997, 2001 or 2005. I am yet to be convinced and the absence of substantive policies (for fear Brown will steal them) is for me telling.
There is plenty to criticise Labour for and that’s easy - the fact is the Conservatives are heading for power almost by default. That doesn’t or shouldn’t make them and their policies immune to scrutiny. Nor does it imply in any sense that the LDs are “closer” to Labour. I’m not - to be honest, I’m in the “plague on both your houses” camp which is where, I suspect, most LDs are.
60 It is all the more weird when you think the centrepiece is attacking ID cards. Lib/Con waverers are going to be baffled that given the one issue he is spotlighting he is savaging Cameron who agrees with him but not Brown. It both weakens the LDs in marginals and restricts their squeezing ability on Tories in Lib Lab seats. In any case as you say why attack the strongest prey and not the other
[60] I think Our Genial Host should give Clegg the Unknown a little more credit than he does.
A new leader’s first job is to unify his own Party, and since Clegg is IIRC associated with the “Yellow Book” he has to re-assure those Lib Dems who identify themselves as “left” - whatever that means. Also, most of their MPs are facing Tory challengers, and that too is a reason for showing that there is a difference between Lib Dems and Tories.
Having said that, I agree with Mike’s “baggage” point, although the bahaviour of Cameron’s party recently makes it difficult to ram home - the kind of Tory we all love to hate has been tiptoeing through the tulips lately…
73 I’m sorry but Mark Littelwood wrote a brilliant analysis on BBC refuting this. He said the way for Clegg to hurt Cameron was to hug him close. By attacking Cameron he gets the Tory right to believe he is one of them (no internal eruptions) but doesn’t get the public to buy it. That chance was was in his first year it is gone now. I don’t think Mr S is thinking credibility but strategy. Regardless of whether you believe Cameron or not yours is a wrongheaded strategy. Littlewood is on the mark
A friend of mine who works for Bloomberg thinks he will run.
So do I, at least he is worth a punt.
If he runs I think America might just be in the mood to back an independent.
And he can afford to outspend everyone without a penny of fund raising.
He could be yet another wild card in the most unpredictable US election in living memory.
60. 73. Nice to see that the Lib Dems are going to start off 2008 the same way they finished 2007, i.e. divided, directionless and increasingly irrelevant.
60 and 65, Clegg seems to be nailing his colours to the anti-Conservative strategy of the 1990s. With Iraq a diminishing factor the major differences between Labour and the LDs come down to the “liberty” issues of ID Cards and 28 days detention.
If Brown flip flopped on those he could entice the LDs back into the working alliance of the 1990s.
74 Agreed. Assume Clegg is trying to be “equidistant” by attacking Brown on ID cards and balancing with attacking Cameron.
Clegg does have a problem though - to recover the 25% lost to the Tories he thinks means convincing them, as stodge believes, that the Conservatives haven’t changed. They have, so that’s a losing strategy. He’s in danger of falling into the trap the Conservatives fell into in 2001 & 2005, of believing that there is no need to change in any way to recover their lost voters as the voters have just been hoodwinked by clever PR. Prick that Blair/Cameron PR balloon and the voters will rush back to support you.
Sorry but voters move off because on balance they prefer what the other party offers or find them more believable. Telling them they are fools doesn’t win them back.
78 Good to see that the political discussion for the new year starts off with an analysis of the Lib Dems, who are obviously causing such concernto supporters of the other two parties.
(81 I’ve not quite got the hang of this Astroturfing thing, have I?)
79 - either, welcome, new contributor OR what is your usual posting name, Tarquin?
[77] If that’s a way of saying that the GOP can’t win next year (I don’t accept it myself) I think it’s half right: Bloomberg may be able to beat Clinton, but Obama would trash him - “here’s this guy thinks he can buy the White House”.
Mind you, an Obama/Huckabee/Bloomberg/Paul 4-way race would be fun to watch, while Clinton against McCain or Giuliani or Romney would be politics as usual.
My only instinct is that our Cousins don’t want politics as usual at the moment. But what do I know?
81. substitute ‘entertainment’ for ‘concern’ and you will be closer to the mark
Re 32, Nick Palmer, ““…seems to suggest that Clegg recognises that Gordon is genuinely interested in discussion and Dave is not.””
Or, could it be that the Liberal Democrats will always consider some form of alliance with Labour but not with the Conservatives?
Vote Lib get Lab?
I am sure that Clegg understands that he needs to differentiate the LibDems from the other parties.
He looks like a Tory, people have said to me, and the press are already labeling as the LibDem Cameron. So he probably feels he needs to attack the Tories to show that he is not one of them.
He may think that he can establish this difference in the public mind and then move on to attacking Labour after securing his hinterland.
The problem in that plan is that the first two months are what sets the long term perception of him. You will remember both Cameron and Brown set out their long term perception stalls very early on. Brown was very successful initially but lost it when events made him look to be no better than the earlier perception of him reported in the polls before he became PM.
Clegg is in danger of tripping himself up by attacking the Tories and sounding like a follow-on to the five tests for Labour of his predecessor, who never escaped the pro-Labour charge. He already needs to shake off the ‘Calamity Clegg’ meme which has stuck amazingly quickly.
But, then again, perhaps Clegg can pull it off in his understated way - although he needs to be really careful that he does not saddle himself with a perception he doesn’t want.
75
A new leader’s first job is to unify his own Party, and since Clegg is IIRC associated with the “Yellow Book” he has to re-assure those Lib Dems who identify themselves as “left” - whatever that means.’
How can you be a major contributor to the ‘yellow book’ and then pretend to be left wing?
Clegg has to avoid looking like an adjunct to Labour - he mustn’t allow the Press to paint him that way. The primary motivation of the “25%” who appear to have moved from the Lib Dems to Labour is to get rid of the current Government and associate the Tories with their best chance - Cameron has reduced the anti-Tory sentiment which has been a barrier to this.
Mike’s point appears to be that Clegg’s on a loser if he tries to revive the anti-Tory sentiment (for the reasons that have been made by him before) and if Clegg doesn’t succeed, he may be associated with the anti-Labour sentiment that’s growing as Labour approach the completion of their third full successive term. This would abandon the voters departing Labour to the Tories and further reduce the chances of regaining those already lost.
84. The question I can’t get a sensible answer to is: if Bloomberg is serious, why is he not running for the GOP nomination? If he’s not serious, why is he running at all?
Perhaps he stood little chance of being the Republican’s candidate, but if so, then surely he stands far less chance of becoming president. Personally, I doubt that even if he did run as an independent, he’d pick up all that much support. What’s his selling point and especially, why choose to go outside the party system?
As someone’s already mentioned, third party candidates have a poor record in presidential elections. Not only is the system stacked against them (often literally so, with more nominations needed in some states for candidates not within the Rep/Dem twosome), but in terms of organisation and historical alignment. Even if he did really well, to win the presidency in a three way fight, he’d need half the electoral college; a Republican would just need to stop anyone else getting half the electoral college given the makeup of the House. Looking back to the most popular ever third party campaign - Theodore Roosevelt’s in 1912 - he was possibly the most popular politician in the country and a former president, yet couldn’t overcome the problems of what was effectively a split ticket, even though the Taft + Roosevelt tally was much more than Wilson’s vote. If a Roosevelt couldn’t do it, I can’t see why a Bloomberg could. It would simply hand the election to the Democats.
Re the Lib Dems - If they want to leave the ‘attacking Gordon’ field clear to the Tories, that suits me fine.
The success Cable and Huhne had in the media was with their attacks on Labour. It grabbed people’s attention.
Clegg has to do the same, yet he is showing signs of doing the opposite.
He cannot attack both Labour and the Conservatives, he has less media attention available and can really only use it with one theme.
Also the media will look for alternative views to the Govt statements/crisis. The LDs need to use those opportunities well.
I see I’ve provoked some small debate on this one
To be honest, I don’t give much credence to the views of the Tory activists. It is in their interests to see their party given an easy ride and if everyone attacks Labour, that’s what will happen. That’s not something any party can or should expect and so criticism of the Conservatives (when justified) is fair game.
Re: 76 - I heard the same argument used about Blair/Prescott and Labour in the mid 90s. It was wrong then and Littlewood is wrong now. Does anyone seriously believe that the Tory Right (I assume we mean David Davis supporters) is going to cause or not cause trouble based on what Nick Clegg does ?
The truth is that the “Tory Right”, as the Labour Left did in the mid-90s, will remain acquiescent as long as the prospect of power is clear and realisable. There’s nothing more guaranteed to unite a party than the scent of power as we all know so that argument simply doesn’t wash.
Re: 80 - Ted, you might say this, aspects of it might be true. I concede the common ground the LDs and Tories have on ID cards though I’m less clear how much further we agree on civil liberties. Cameron talks the liberal talk (no denying it, he does it well but then so did Blair) but I simply do not believe that the likes of Gove and Osborne (for example) are born-again liberals. My cynical view is that Cameron is the softly-spoken front man for a particularly unpleasant form of Right-wing politics. I can be convinced I’m wrong - I’m not closed-minded on this at all.
71 Shadsy
One of our PBers put up a fascinating link to a Site showing where Paul’s funding came from. It comprised a lot of smallish donors, around the $200/$1,000 mark, mostly professional people.
I can understand this. He seems to appeal to the well-educated apolitical person who is doing quite nicely thank you but would be doing a lot more nicely if he or she didn’t have to cough up a lot of taxes for things in which he/she has no direct interest. In other words, selfish bastards.
There are enough of these jerks to keep Paul’s campaign afloat for a very long term, but mercifully nowhere near enough to get him anywhere near the White House.
77 That’s very interesting, Marcus.
The question then is, not what chance does he have (anwer, pretty nearly none) but what effect does he have on the campaigns of others?
The obvious sufferer is Guiliani. He wouldn’t be good for Hillary either. Not sure about the rest.
94 Oh, yes, and David Herdson has just reminded me of the most obvious point - it hands the election to the Democrats.
“62. Maybe Paul’s fans have a disproportionate number of punters among them.”
Yup - on the serious sports gambling forums (ie Pinnacle/thegreek Asian handicap crowd) I’ve seen a lot of Paul fundraising sigs, and some of these are posters whose bankrolls would make you faint. These are the people that have made Pinnacle the largest bookie in the world, and many of them are veryvery loaded indeed.
34: if someone offers me a drink at the party and I drop dead, whoever holds my sweepstake ticket had better be on the far side of the room…
70: look, this is something I know about, and you have misunderstood the position. The debate is about something different: the prospect that recording your fingerprints on a central ID register (which is already due to be required for passports and driving licences) may eventually be compulsory. This enables a check on whether you are who you say you are in cases of legitimate doubt (arrest, traffic accident victim, etc.), regardless of whether you choose to have an ID card for convenient identification or not. This doesn’t mean it’s become uncontroversial - if you go to the No2ID site you’ll find that they are focusing on the register, not on the card. But everyone uses “ID cards” as shorthand for the issue when it’s not really about them.
94/95. I was perhaps a bit certain in my previous post. The only hope the Republicans might have would be if Bloomberg’s campaign were to be an expensive fizzle. After all, Reagan won in 1980 despite Anderson’s presence. That said, none of this GOP is a Reagan, Clinton and Obama are better than a damaged Carter, and Bloomberg, were he to run and spend massively, should look to get the kind of share Perot managed in ‘92 as a minimum, rather than Anderson in ‘80.
That said, ego aside, I still can’t see why he’d want to run as an independent if he’s serious.
92 I agree with David Herdson; carry on Nick, fine by me. - that’s the Tory in me speaking, let the LDs join the sinking ship.
The interested observer is trying to understand his tactics. He said he had three days to make an impression - well those have gone. So how is he going to present an attractive Lib Dem alternative, distinctive from both other parties?
I could see Gordon’s tactics and understand that he was trying to re-brand himself and if successful using that to disengage from Blair’s legacy. I said to Roger & co that it wouldn’t work at the time because IMO he was trying to create a fake persona. He’d disappoint because under pressure the real Gordon would reappear. It was a close run thing because the first 100 days was up before that happened.
Clegg though is facing a two part squeeze which the LDs haven’t had since 1992. They’ve lost vote share to the Conservatives and probably lost a bit to Labour. Indications are that voters are getting tired of the present Government and receptive to a message of change. At same time tight credit, public sector spending constaints, harsher ecnomic climate (with or without an actual recession) will make voters more self interested. Will voting LD become one of the luxuries of better times that voters decide to cut back on?
Re: Cleggs tactics. I think it was the first day of Cameron’s leadership he did a speech and the message and and all across the podium was “libdemsforcameron”. I was amazed by the bluntness of the tactics but, to be fair, against my expectiations it seems to have worked long term. Clegg needs to fight fire with fire. Tories for Clegg should be the central message for the first few weeks (besides there aren’t much (non-core) Labour voters left for him to aim for.)
Yes, Happy New Year to you all and may we meet in battle this May !
Cable’s attacks on Brown and his constant annoying questions about northern rock boosted the lib dems considerably in the media, and made him a star. Swiping at the tories just makes Clegg look like a labour ally, something which can only harm him. He’s more likely to gain disenchanted labour voters than moderate tory ones. I am also beginning to wonder is his whole leadership strategy so far is ‘bash Cameron and the tories’ has he set out anything else major?
75 But IA, both Chris Huhne and Steve Webb (who might have stood with support from the radicals in the party) both contributed to the “yellow” (orange!) book. I think either Chris or Nick would have needed to make sure they have a majority of those radicals on board.
‘this is something I know about’
Really?
Here’s the LD’s problem, the Tories are electable again.
In addition, the economy is not going to be pretty for a while to come. The government has spent and spent and didnt balance its books despite record tax receipts over the last lot of years. It has few levers left, the public finances will probably get way worse in the next 2 years at least and will hamper the economy’s ability to bounce back as rapidly as possible.
I those circumstances the public is not going to flock to the LD’s. The reality is that they are more and more likely to want to get Labour out and that means overwhemingly one thing, they’ll vote Tory. There may be tactical voting in some areas but there is every possibility that the LDs will ship some support to the Tories closer to election time.
One thing for the Tories for 2008, drop that pledge to matched government spending as set out by Labour. The economy won’t be able to afford it without pain.
Plenty of Nick P’s examples of astroturfing with the posts of HF and other COnservative mouthpieces and on cue a tarquin comes along with post 78 .
New Labour spent 10 years bashing the tories - in an attempt to get tory voters…and they were very successful - Perhaps Clegg is on the right path.
Predictions for 2008:
…that the Save Bedford Hospital party will go from strength to strength
97 - Nick Palmer MP December 31st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Yes, Nick, and this something that I know something about as well.
The debate is ot about recording personal data on a central database (which is mis-guided and dangerous in itself).
The debate is about the civil liberties issues of requiring citizens to carry pieces of paper to identify themselves. The ID cards are useless if they do not identify people. If people can ignore them, then their entire raison-d’etre disappears. Thus, enventually, the government will either see them as a monumental waste of money, or will make them compulsory.
Most people will resent being stopped by a policeman while going about their private business and being required to produce “their papers”.
We fought for decades to see the end of the pass system in South Africa - now you are proposing to introduce one in the UK - you couldn’t make it up!
O/T quote from BBCi report on Kenya elections - which looks like its going to get even more nasty - “Elections chief Samuel Kivuitu has admitted some problems, including a reported voter turnout of 115% in one constituency, reports the AP news agency.”
This follows EU observer saying “that results from one constituency had been declared by the Electoral Commission of Kenya in Nairobi, which were different from those announced in the same constituency at local level.” .. the anomalies amounted to 20,000-25,000 votes in just one constituency…”I myself have seen forms which have been changed and no-one could tell me who had done the changes,” he said.”Interestingly enough, all the changes favoured the same candidate.
100. But why would anyone with Tory inclinations want to vote for the Lib Dems at present? The Tories are doing well in the polls so morale is relatively high and only a tiny minority of the most extreme Heffer-style diehards are unhappy - not likely Lib Dem defectors.
A ‘Tories for Clegg’ strategy can surely only have relevance in a few local situations where the Lib Dems need to attract Tory tactical votes to unseat or fend off Labour. Elsewhere Tory-inclined voters are going to take their chance at the next GE to get Labour out by voting - Tory.
104 That’s correct, Spectral. He’s a professional politician with a special interest in the subject.
What are you?
99. Ted
They’ve lost vote share to the Conservatives and probably lost a bit to Labour
Indeed the last ICM & Populus polls suggests that something around a third of the lost support is to Labour.
112 but Labour have also lost support to Lib Dems in the merry game the electorate play so not sure if what they lost is greater than/equal/less than what they gained. Labour and Lib Dems have both shed 2005 voters, whereas Tories (probably because they were at core) retained theirs.
96 Very interesting, I was wondering if something exactly like that was persauding people over here that Paul had a chance.
113. Indeed. Good point. I didn’t check the net figures! That does muddy the waters considerably. In the ICM poll there is a net loss of around 25% of the lost support to Labour whereas in Populus there is a only a small loss.
Interestingly enough I did some analysis on the regional figures for the last set of polls recently (excluding the most recent). It suggested that the loss of Libdem support was nearly as great in the North as it was in the South. How that equates to which party gained the votes in each region is unclear.
However, it might leave Nick Clegg with a dilemma that if he primarily attacks one party he may find success in one region but create problems in another.
92 Absolutely affect the level of trouble they cause. Consider the eruptions when Cameron reached to the Lib Dems prior. If Cameron is being denounced as a same old Tory by Clegg do you think they’ll be less or more likely to rally round, hmm?
110 Given the record number of 2nd places they had to Labour in 2005. MOre than a few now. Perhaps someone can provide a list. Besides say a dollar and day they spend defending IS is a dollar and a day not spent defending Battersea
Re Clegg: The ‘attack Cameron’ line is never going to work; when my own lifetime labour voting mother talks positively about him then you know that he’s coming over too well for that to be an option. It’s like watching someone kick a puppy, the kicker comes out badly and you only get more sympathy for the puppy.
The line that should be taken is an adaptation of the simplistic Littlewood one. This should be to work on the fact that a large lib dem presence negates the power of the battier end of any potential government. If Cameron is ahead then appeal to those from either labour or tories who fear the Wintertons of this world. You aren’t attacking Cameron, just helping him. The same with Brown and the young turks who appear to have no clue, by having a lib dem presence in the government of either Cameron or Brown you will get Cable and not Balls, Laws and not Gove.
This is a positive message and one which shows you helping the forces of moderation and professionalism in any potential governing party.
Of course all we get is another, frankly, vacuous speech setting unrealistic goals as in Clegg’s new year message. A ‘momentous’ year? This is not based on reality. I hope he gets onto the right track sooner rather than later. If he doesn’t we will be looking at a tory government that is reliant on its right wing MPs and which has to mollycoddle them far too much to get legislation through.
111. Given Nick Palmer’s record of posting inaccurate information on subjects like immigration and the European Constitution your naive faith in his quality as a source is surprising. And citing his status as a ‘professional politician’ in support of your view verges on the comical.
118 As a punter, Spectral, I like to think I don’t have ‘naive faith’ in anybody, or anything, but then we are all prey to illusion. Nick is however a known quantity.
What are you?
16 “one of those strange right wing, gloom and doom mongers who is almost always invariably wrong
We warned about uncontrolled immigration - now house prices are out of reach for young britons. Britons are put on the dole by cheaper immigrants. There are now fewer Britons in work than in 97. Terrorist immigrants been involved in bombings, ricin plots, murders. Prisons are overflowing because of the strain caused by immigrant criminals.
We warned about the undermining of the Police, Human Rights law and Political correctness, now Yobs rule the streets. Teenage killings and Teenage Killers are common place.
As for the financial sitiuation, the evidence is fo all to see. The very fact that Brown had to pour 30-40 Billion into a worthless black hole like Northern Rock is evidence enough - coupled with the fact that the country doesnt even have the 30-40Billion.
38 “Come out of the closet comrade (and bring the bolted horse with you”
I’m not in a closet. Ask my partner Adrian.
119. A ghost of course
120 And a Happy New Year to you too, mate.
Clegg is in an old Conservative seat,so are most Lib Dem MPs , they will need all the anti tory voters they can muster to save their jobs.
The only real possibi