Could the GOP nominee not even be in the race yet?
January 17th, 2008
Should you be betting against all the current front-runners?
With White House nomination races continuing to dominate the political betting markets in the UK we are sticking with that this morning. In a round-up of where the Republican race lies after Romney’s emphatic victory in Michigan the Guardian’s man in DC, Richard Adams, raises the possibility that the eventual winner might not yet be in the race.
Under the heading that “only a lunatic or a fool would predict who the eventual nominee will be” Adams writes: “After months of campaigning, tens of millions of dollars spent on advertising and a quartet of primaries and caucuses, the Republicans of America have spoken loud and clear in choosing their presidential candidate. With one voice they have said: “Uh?”..From the snows of Iowa to the snows of New Hampshire to the even deeper snows of Michigan, one thing is clear: nothing…there is a non-negligible possibility that the eventual Republican nominee is not currently running in the primaries. “
The challenge for John McCain, the 3/2 favourite on Betfair, is that the next primary in South Carolina, is closed to those voters registered as independents so that he won’t enjoy the boost he got from that source in New Hampshire. Also, it should be noted, it was this state where his 2000 battle against George Bush effectively came to an end.
So what of the others? You can just about make a case for each of them - but only just. Giuliani’s strategy of not being serious until Florida might just pay off - but that would muddy the waters even more. Romney won Michigan but his polling against the potential Democratic nominees is dreadful. One poll matching him up against Obama had the black senator from Illinois a staggering 30% in the lead.
Thompson, who was pushing for the favourite slot not so long ago has to make an impression in South Carolina or else he is probably doomed. And what of Mike Huckabee - the charming preacherman from Bill Clinton’s home-town who won Iowa. His performance since then hasn’t been great. Even if he wins on Saturday it’s hard to see him gathering the broader backing to seal the bid and he is loathed by the GOP establishment. The interesting Ron Paul is still there but he is a long way from making a major impact.
Adams, in his article, raises the possibility of the state’s governor, Mark Sandford, as a possibility for the nomination. The excellent Real Clear Politics site had an interesting profile on him some time back but I’m not convinced. He’s not even listed in any betting.
So what does the risk-averse punter looking for a profit actually do? There’s a case for saying that you should be looking to lay (bet against) all of them when the price becomes right.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It would wind us up on here no end, we’ve been talking for months about who it will be, and if the answer was ‘none of them’ it would certainly feel pretty flat from a speculator’s pont of view.
Peter Hain for PotUS anyone?
On the last thread, Sean T wrote “Indeed for all its many huge problems London feels like a relatively well-run city: thriving and lively.”
But that’s because you live in a Conservative borough. You know you want to help Ken spend more time with his newts.
So the 700+/1 that I and PfP had on the Newt wasn’t such a ludicrous bet, then? In fact, if anything, we should have backed more big-name non-runners, where possible. Indeed, we still could.
This situation has been predictable for a while - hence the reasoning behind my bet. As PtP said a long time ago, it’s like a steeplechase where none of the runners looks good enough to win (not that I know anything about horseracing). The point is right though - who in the GOP field could beat Obama; who could beat Hillary if she’s not too strident? Either one of the field needs to up his game or the possibility of other entrants becomes not only interesting but quite possible. The only realistic opportunity is at the convention as it’s too late now to hit the ballot papers before Super Tuesday, and too many delegates will have gone after that - especially if candidates are loath to drop out, which should be the case while there’s no front runner.
It’s always worth remembering that the primaries are more like a game of cricket than, say, football (and not just because it lasts forever). Getting into a lead part way through and then trying to hold on isn’t enough; to win yourself, you have to achieve a positive outcome. In other words, getting most delegates isn’t enough if that total is not over or at least close to half the total, and enough other candidates remain in the game.
So what happens now? If McCain takes Nevada and South Carolina - as he might - that should be enough. The GOP leadership don’t particularly like him, but the emergence of a clear front-runner in the race (and hence the avoidance of the nightmanre scenario of a battle for the nomination lasting into September), should appeal to them enough to get behind just about anyone credible at the polls.
If he takes South Carolina, that should see Thompson out - though was he ever in? - and put a big spoke in Huckabee’s campaign, though he will still have other chances. If Romney takes Nevada, that keeps him in the running for now. If Huckabee wins SC, he could become frontrunner again. If Thompson wins SC (unlikely), or McCain loses both (certainly possible), that really messes the picture up and drags things out much longer.
On a separate note, does anyone care to comment on what impact if any, the editorials of the main US political magazines such as the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Nation and so on, have on the electoral process?
I have been thinking about the Republicans and will have further thoughts on the Democrats soon.
Republican Presidential
Michigan: Mitt Romney further complicated the GOP nomination battle with his big win in Michigan.
Romney absolutely needed to win Michigan to stay alive, and he won big. He now joins John McCain and Mike Huckabee as a demonstrably viable candidate. Romney’s recent drop in national polls was the fallout from his losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now that he has won the largest early state, Republican voters will have to consider Romney.
Having stumbled in New Hampshire when he went negative, Romney stayed positive here.
McCain continued to show that he is not favored by Republican voters. He won New Hampshire on the strength of independent voters, and those voters simply didn’t turn out for him in Michigan last night. Overall low turnout, bad weather, and broad Democratic distaste for the Republican Party kept the Democratic impact minimal on the GOP primary. This sank McCain.
Huckabee’s distant third-place finish is not a good sign for him. It confirms the pattern shown in Iowa and New Hampshire: His appeal is limited to evangelical Christians — a demographic insufficient to carry the nomination.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) and Rudy Giuliani both were dismal in Michigan. Their continued failure to show up in the top three erodes the support they might have in later states.
Michigan, after being penalized for its early primary, sends only 30 delegates to the Republican National Convention. Most likely, that will be one delegate for every congressional district and the rest divided proportionally among the candidates garnering more than 15% (Romney, McCain, and Huckabee). Whatever his final tally, Romney leaves Michigan the leader in national delegates — a category that might actually matter this year.
Outlook: The Republican field is very messy now, with the possibility looming of a brokered nomination. Republicans have three more contests in January.
This Saturday’s South Carolina primary looks like a battle between McCain and Huckabee, but Romney’s win could give him momentum.
South Carolina is Thompson’s chance to make a splash. A third-place finish or worse is very possible here, and it could be deadly. Romney’s resurrection deflates some of the potential gravitation towards Thompson as the conservative candidate.
In Florida, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney are nearly in a four-way tie, with McCain and Giuliani slightly ahead of the other two. A Romney bounce could relegate Giuliani to third, which would effectively end his campaign. Huckabee also has quite a bit at stake in Florida if he doesn’t win South Carolina.
The outlook for February 5 Super Tuesday will depend on these questions: (a) Will Giuliani fall in Florida? (b) Will Huckabee be diminished by losing South Carolina? (c) Will Thompson be a contender? (d) Will Romney still have momentum?
In the long term, these are three most likely scenarios: (a) McCain rides South Carolina and Florida wins to a February 5 sweep; (b) Romney wins Florida, and his huge cash advantages carries him on crowded February 5; (c) neither McCain nor Romney dominates, one of them leads in the delegate count, but neither wins a majority of delegates, leaving Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani, and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) with the balance of delegates.
2 sean- is it possible in your eyes that Labour could run something more competently than the Tories, or is this just a contradiction in terms?
Do you just think that the right are naturally superior in every single facet of life, everywhere without fail? Just interested to know.
Before I dash to learn the latest on Northern Rock, this may be of interest.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican John McCain holds a steady 7-point lead over rival Mike Huckabee in South Carolina two days before the state casts votes in an unpredictable presidential nominating race, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Thursday.
Support for McCain, an Arizona senator, held firm overnight at 29 percent, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee sliding one point to 23 percent. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson climbed two points to move into third place at 14 percent.
A portion of the polling was conducted after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s breakthrough win in Michigan on Tuesday, but he still slipped one point to 12 percent. Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani were tied at 5 percent.
“Essentially there was no real movement overnight in what looks like a very stable race,” said pollster John Zogby.
All the polls and the primaries so far are telling us is that whover gets the epublican nomination will be the best of a bad bunch. I was happy to fly the Newt kite last month, on the assessment that he had seen that too, and chosen to sit on the side-lines and “await his Party’s call” at the Convention. He’s a shrewd political operator, who may not be liked - but he knows the system inside out. Which in November might be a bigger problem than not being liked, because America Wants Change - about the only message which does seem to be playing in the primaries.
The other candidate worth just having a few bob on IMHO is Condi Rice. Given that the Democrat is almost certanly going to be black or a woman, why not trump them and instead of either/or, have both! It would certainly be BIG change and Condi would prove difficult for the Democrats to run against. I think her position depends on how Iraq goes betweeen now and the COnvention - if (as seems to be the case) it is turning round, violence greatly reducing, oil production (and hence the economy) on an up - then she could run on the basis that she didn’t start the war but she did sort it out when it was going wrong. I think people would buy that.
Big problem though surrounding her sexuality. I’ve seen reports that she was openly in a relationship with another woman at university. What would she say on this question today? Asking those good ole boys in Alabama to vote for a black les-be-an Republican - REPUBLICAN! - might prove challenging. But what is their alternative?
re 6. That’s an interesting question Tyson - could be the subject of a decent thread on a quiet day. I put it all down to how long a party has been in power nationally. The longer they’ve been there the worse they become as we saw in 1992-1997 and as we are seeing now. Whatever the overall outcome of the next election it will do all parties a lot of good if Labour lose power. They’re tired, arrogant and getting to be more corrupt.
An interesting scernario would be if McCain wins Nevada; Huckabee or Thompson win South Carolina and Giuliani wins Florida. We would then go into Feb 5th with no clear frontrunner. In that case I would favour the canidates with all the money, Giuliani and Romney.
It certainly would be exciting to see a primary race that went beyond Super Tuesday for once; however I agree that whoever wins the GOP nomination is likley to get destroyed in November.
re 3. Good thought David - only the Newt price had moved out to 1000 and I got the last £3 on.
Similarly, I’ve noticed that Dick Cheney isn’t listed on Betfair’s “Next President” market and the overround is at 99% at the moment. Two of the last nine presidents have been shot while in office, and the current President Bush has already had a grenade thrown at him, so Cheney is possibly not that bad a bet…
6. Yes. Both Harold Wilson from 1964-1970 and James Callaghan from 1976-79 ran more competent administrations than Ted Heath did from 1970-1974.
In local government terms I’d say that *in general* Conservative administrations are more efficient than Labour ones, but there are certainly exceptions to that rule.
13. I’d agree, but i think that’s because, generally, Conservatives let the officers run the council (occasionally disasterous, but normally OK) whereas Labour, locally, like nationally, constant intervene and interfere with everything.
For all those betting on this race there is one event that could radically alter the nature of the race which is out of the hands of poll and candidate watchers: Iran. This “Filipino Monkey” stuff is very sinister. Please read this http://schneiderhome.blogspot.com/2008/01/filipino-monkey-just-fact-or-sinister.html
Make of it what you will and alter your betting positions accordingly. Good luck.
Thanks to David and Herbert for the interesting analyses. A new candidate seems to me unlikely at this stage - if there were someone plausible in the wings it would be a different matter, but none of those mentioned sound it.
O/T: the media discussion that I’ve seen of the proposed changes to MP pay and allowances miss a couple of important issues. Based on a hasty skim yesterday:
1. The most significant - the report recommends abolishing the severance pay for MPs who stand down voluntarily or because they were deselected by their parties, though with effect from after the next GE (beccause they say it’d be unfair to people who’ve already announced they’ll stand down to spring it on them). (They also propose to standardise it as 75%, i.e. currently £45,000.) This would have a drastic impact: people would be much likely to hang on as long as possible, and to stand as token independents if finally deselected at the age of 103. I doubt if it’s in the public interest to encourage doddery MPs in safe seats to hang on forever.
2. The report endorses the Comms Allowance but suggests taking £2500 off the IEP to compensate; they also want to take another £5K off the IEP and pay rent in a sseparate allowance.
These changes, together with one to increase staff from 3 to 3.5, have been referred by the Government to a Parliamentary committee for further consideration, and I think only the pay and pensions elements will be voted on this month. I’d guess we’ll successfully defeat the rebellion and stick to the 2%, though it’s hard to be sure - there are quite a lot of rebels on that on both sides. The pensions element is complicated, but essentially seems to say that the scheme funding is OK for now but in future MPs should share more of the cost (and indeed the savings) if this changes in future.
All based on a quick skim, as I say.
9 Governments are like babies’ nappies. They should be changed frequently, and for the same reason.
6. Labour must be handicapped in any such comparison - the intellectually challenged individuals attracted by the idea of socialism are unlikely to be good at running anything.
Space for all the preconceptions and prejudices here, I am sure. Now speculation on the Republican race has run its course after a couple of handfuls of posts!!
In my experience, quite a number of “traditional” Tory local administrations do act in an “officer - led” manner. oppositions that develop to them are therefore often “anti-officer” decision (and therefore “change” orientated). the longer an administration remains in power, generally, the more they fashion the officer team in their own image, as people are replaced. With Tories, you can see all the way from the doorstep “I am not very political” supporters through to the high flying Council and PPC types, mostly interested in power, you have this sky-blue thread. Best not to change too much, don’t rock too many boats. Thatcherism, of course, shook that up! But for a contemporary, if rather OTT exposition of Tory thinking on their opponents, which is even better at defining Tory views than what it attempted to do in caricature, was Casino Royale’s post of 2 or 3 days ago about the ideals of Lib Dem activists. He foamed at the mouth, almost, at ideas of democracy at an international level, at ideas that we might change criminal and violent behaviour by predominantly other methods than prison etc.
If you define views from “left of centre” as trying to develop a better society and a better world, which I do, then it is clear why in Reflecting’s words at 14, politicians from the left “constant intervene and interfere with everything” (sic). (S)he describes this as a Labour tendency, but I believe anyone coming from a leftish position is very tempted, because they are looking for change for the better, their motivation for being in politics anyway.
What I have written is clearly oversimplification - and doesn’t seek to explain different views and traditions from left (and right), or the fact that all parties are amalgams or coalitions of views from all sides, take NuLab as a good example, and Chameron (a good description which seems to be going out of fashion on pb).
So if it IS a quiet day today (until Byelection results!) perhaps today is the day to discuss this. However, busy day for me elsewhere, and although I shall look in later, I may not be here for a while.
16
‘The most significant - the report recommends abolishing the severance pay for MPs’
What’s wrong with the standard statutory redundancy terms for MP’s,which the majority of the population is subject to?
I would just like to say, if anyone would like to pay very large sums of money to have breakfast with me, I’m up for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7192598.stm
On councils, it would be true to say, that Labour councils do have a tendency to be in areas, which you could describe as, ’socially difficult’ Running some leafy suburb, or Kensington & Chelsea, can’t present the same problems as a difficult inner city borough, or a run down industrial area.
I do think its time, to introduce PR to local elections, to break up these monolithic areas, (like the NE) to increase democratic accountability.
21 I would be willing to pay a fiver to meet you at the PB.COM party next week, Coldstone.
12 - But you can’t bet on him and for precisely that reason. It would leave Betfair open to attack on a tasteless death bet front if it did indeed happen. That said, they could have phrased the rules better to say who will be elected next President or some such.
On the question of whether to vote for an non-runner, I note that there is more of it in the Democrat race even though the chances of deadlock appear lower. That is because Gore would be an obvious choice and at 95 on Betfair at the moment is reasonable value for a small wager.
With the Republicans, almost all the big figures are running so there isn’t an obvious compromise candidate and the Convention could be bloody. Of course, if the Republicans had a bit of verve and style, they would suddenly turn around and say, “I’ll see your Clinton or Obama and raise you Condalezza Rice”. But I think she is genuine when she says she doesn’t want the job, and I don’t think they’d have do it even if she could be tempted.
23 - Condi would make an interesting veep choice though, although I understand she has ruled out elected office.
21. The amazing thing is, all these areas have always been ‘difficult’ (at least in modern times) and despite electing endless Labour councils, they remain so. Rather reinforces my earlier point.
25 - Are the labour run because they are difficult areas, or are they difficult areas because they are labour run.
25 Hmmm Kensington and Chelsea owes its status to the Tory council then. don’t make me laugh.
[13] Sean Fear writes In local government terms I’d say that *in general* Conservative administrations are more efficient than Labour ones, but there are certainly exceptions to that rule.
I would agree, with a significant caveat. I think - again in general terms - Tory councils have traditionally sought to be efficient, Labour councils to be effective. The problem of course is that efficiency is (relatively) measurable, effectiveness isn’t. It’s the old problem of being able to measure inputs but not outputs.
I also suspect that coherent boundaries that make sense to the area’s residents - a “civic pride” factor - may be just as good a predictor of quality as political colour. Once again, I recommend the hilarious Kent Districts thread over on Vote 2007, with its detailed - and informed - discussions of the chaos that is Swale District Council. It would be silly to suppose that that’s got anything to do with Tory ideology, just as it would be daft to suppose that the longstanding hatred of the Tottenham Labour Party for their “comrades” in Hornsey & Wood Green has any connection with socialism. In each case, the residents - whether in Swale or Haringey - just have to suffer.
I strongly suspect all parties have difficulty in finding sufficient candidates of good quality to stand as local councillors, and that if the rest of us followed Scotland and NI in having STV local elections it would increase. I doubt that, outside political activists, there’s any support for single-party control of Town Halls - or that the quality of local government would be impaired by, say, requiring budgets to be passed by a two-thirds majority. And in areas (often in inner cities) with a long history of poor administration, a “Whitehall rule” option might well pass a referendum!
[28] Sorry, last para not clear - I meant that STV would increase the quality of local councillors.
Since a bunch of you have gone O/T onto London politics, I have a question for those who know these things. I want Livingstone out but Johnson is far from convincing - even to himself I suspect. Is it even arithmetically possible for Paddick to win?
[30] No.
30 - Technically yes, but probably not. Unfortuanatly for him the voting system works against him rather than for him - if he can get into the final 2, even if some way behind, then he would probably win (Livingstone supporters would generally back him over Boris, and Boris supporters back him over Ken). The great difficulty is of course persuading enough people to vote for him as 1st preference to get into the final 2.
Sean Fear
I am not sure that the Callaghan government was consciously competent, but rather could not do too much because they were a government with a minute majority which kept diminishing and this meant they had to be much more careful than, say, the 1960’s Wilson government which despite a huge majority - which it had used for masses of legislation - lost so massively 6 years before. By the end the Callaghan government had become close to legislative paralysis with no parliamentary majority at all.
It does support the argument that small majorities often lead to better government.
At the other end of the scale is the Blair government which pushed through so much legislation of all sorts that it equated to one page of legislation for every hourduring the first ten years.
Absurd.
30 If more people vote for Paddick than Ken or Boris then he will win.
The chances of this happening are the same as those of me ever voting for Gordon Brown - theoretically possible but in reality inconceivable.
It’s Ken or Boris - both campaigns no doubt devestated by Gary Bushell’s withdrawal from the contest.
30 I’m not sure what the rules would be if Ken and Boris were to enter into some bizarre suicide pact on the eve of the poll. But you are in that realm of straw-clutching for Paddick to have a chance.
This is from Associated Press this morning and speculates about a brokered GOP convention.
http://tinyurl.com/35m4po
30. Of course it is. Anyway the voting system for London Mayor allows you to choose a favoured candidate and then choose a second choice candidate for your vote to transfer to if he’s not one of the top two. On the basis of your posting sounds like you should make Paddick your first choice and Johnson your second.
Ok hang on, Newt is no go. He can stand but will not win. The GOP is way to broad a church to put him in.
McCain looks to be hanging on in SC and hasnt taken too much of a hit from his loss in MI, An SC win is psychologically massive after his kicking in 2000. He is lucky at this stage to have big Fred helping to stymie a Huckabee surge. Mitt hasnt much bothered and is after Nevada and Guiliani is probably on suicide watch at this time.
There are two things about SC, one good one bad for McCain come Staurday. Bad, he’s under 30% in many polls. That kind of figure is always vulnerable even in a fractured field. It also applies to the national polls.
On the plus side, no indos means that McCain is at least leading amongst the GOP base. If he could get a third of those on polling day that wouldnt be bad at all if he could replicate that on Super Tuesday, assuming the full & fractured field is still in place, that’d be winning form at least in primaries.
I suspect however that after NV & SC we will see drop outs.
By the way, I said it before It is not impossible that Paul could run on an independent ticket. Technically I don’t think there’s an issue, he can continue rattling cages and raising issues and he needs to do something with the money he’s got..
24 Would Condi REALLY decline if the Convention were dead-locked and the Party knocked on her door and said “Help us. Please.” I’m not so sure. (The Chairman of my company is in a similar position in his country….)
One final note as well, come weekend end we will be a mere 5 states in, medium sized and small to boot. There’s a lot to go.
Super Tuesday could see something akin to a breakaway and then teh conversation will be different.
I’m just popping in quickly to let you all know that my home phone line is not working at the moment, so I am in an internet cafe desperately trying to catch up on a 2-day backlog of interneting all within one hour.
Bah humbug - trust you lot to do squillions of messages and loads of threads about the USA. Can’t possibly read it all now. I missed all the excitement of the primary the other day (wherever it was). Without pb.com I had forgotten even that it was happening.
33. Was the Callaghan government competent? Hmmmm - questionable. There was certainly an improvement in the conduct of aspects of economic policy after 1976 - but that was under IMF orders (which were largely observed despite some attempts at circumvention).
But in other spheres, especially industrial relations and industrial policy more generally, it’s hard to see much evidence of competence - rather a continuation of the clueless approach of the second half of the Heath administration.
Thanks to those who responded to my question on London/Paddick. I suppose I was imagining a scenario where Johnson - and let’s face it, this is entirely possible - becomes clearly incredible as mayor. Getting Livingstone out is my priority but I would on balance, despite the pain of seeing Liberal Democrats happy, prefer Paddick as mayor. What’s more, I suspect Cameron would.
30. the Lib Dems need something like 300,000 more votes than they got last time round with Simon Hughes. I hear there are now 250,000 more Polish people in the capital, so perhaps they would do well targeting that vote.
Mind, that still leaves them 50,000 short…
I feel that I’m probably the only one who doesn’t know the answer to this, but its been nagging me so long that, at last I can hide my ignorance no longer.
What does GOP stand for?
grand old party
22
I wish I could make it! Hope u all have a good time.
[45] GOP = Grand Ole’ Party (I think)
From CBS News:
“The Republican Party, on its official web site, points out that Grand Old Party - while certainly the accepted meaning for GOP, for many years - is not the original meaning, or even the only one.
The Republican National Committee says the acronym dates back to 1875, at which time it meant “Gallant Old Party.” And in the early days of the automobile, it gained another popular, although ultimately fleeting, translation: “Get Out and Push” - the treatment early cars often needed. “
It always a relief to find out that the answer wasn’t obvious and you didn’t know it all the time! Thanks for enlightening me!
44 I’d be surprised if more than 10% of them vote, though, and not all will vote Lib Dem.
47 - I wish I knew anything other than the fleeting details that it is on, however it seems subject to the official secrets act.
51. Agreed, but you have to try and keep Brian’s spirits up.
At least with the London Mayoral election, you can vote with your heart first, and with your head second. So, if you want Livingstone out, but think that Johnson is just a wee bit too flaky, vote for Paddick with your first option, and then give Johnson your second preference. Of course, if enough people think like you, Paddick might get through to the second round, so you can live in hope.
[53] Having disposed of the notion that Paddick can win, is there any danger of his coming fourth?
55 - Who do you think might pip him to third?
55 - 4th behind who? No independant that’s got any following. (Unless Julian H starts up his dolphin based campaign, but he’s been strangely silent on it for a while…)
39 - Yes, I think she would decline.
Plus it isn’t as simple as being asked - compromise candidate do the whole “oh I am so surprised but honoured” thing but actually you need to mobilise a serious behind the scenes campaign amongst “friends” to make it happen (bit like electing a Pope - they don’t really sit around waiting for divine guidance). Gore might do that on the Democrats’ side but Rice wouldn’t.
Finally, I don’t think they’d ask her. It would be a very bold gambit and when you are going through the nightmare of a deadlocked convention, the last thing you want is a bold gambit. What you want is an old skool senator or retired governor who you can unite around and who will fly the flag to probable defeat.
55 I can’t see him dropping to fourth. I expect either the Green or the BNP will come fourth.
Okay, my second question on London. Considered answers only please! Can Boris Johnson win?
60. Yes. Latest poll had him only 1% behind Ken. If he can build up lots of momentum there’s no reason why he can’t.
His only problem is getting a majority Paddick’s second preferences. He really needs them to win.
re 43 & 60. I think that you are under-estimating Boris’s appeal. I can see him picking up a lot of second preferences simply on the grounds of name recognition and his popularity as an entertainer.
There will also be many more Tory voters than Labour ones in the London Authority election at the same time - the margin could be in excess of 10%.
Remember that Steve Norris picked up a surprising number of 2nd prefs in 2004.
Boris is a good bet at current prices.
55. I cant see him coming lower than third. Does anyone know anything about his motives? I think he could be an amazing Lib Dem PPC.
62….especially with the whiff of scandal surrounding the Mayor and his proteges at present…
I agree with the many posts above regarding town halls under control of one (any party) for too long. On the basis that town halls under long term Labour control tend to be in poorer areas I think it becomes more noticable when things go pear shaped. In areas where Conservative have always been in power it can be less noticable that things are being badly run as the status quo is ok. Surrey Heath is a case in point I think where the administration is just asleep and very poor compared to Conservative run councils around about where there is competition for power. It is interesting to compare Surrey Heath to some of the Conservative run councils in London. I might not like what these councils do, but at least they are actively managed and not asleep. I get the impression that long term Residents Association councils are pretty similar as well so it isn’t politicaly based. It is just there is the motivation to be proactive without competition.
59. The Green candidate has been backed at 100/1 with Ladbrokes. She would be our worst result at the moment.
I completely disagree. Giuliani is effectively dead and I have more chance of being the Republican nominee that Ron Paul. Heck if they nominated Ron Paul they would have to nominate Alan Schlessinger as his VP choice (people who were closely following the 2006 elections will get the reference). Are you seriously telling me that the GOP will nominate an anti-war, pro-drug legalisation, 9/11 conspiracy fronting anarchist? Thompson is the only candidate who might come back, but anything short of a victory in SC will spell the end of his candidacy. The draft Rice idea was daft when it was first introduced but seems ludicrous now.
19. Tim13.
It was satire, Tim
I’m not dogmatic. I do not reject ideas out of hand just because they go against my established way of thinking.
I agree that many prisons are brutalising places. I agree that fewer people in prison would be a *good* thing. The best place to change criminal and violent behaviour is clearly not through banging them up in a cell. The best way is to strengthen families, communities and civil society so they never commit crimes in the first place.
Prisons need reform, but that doesn’t mean I share the radical Lib-Dem view of “abolishing” prisons and giving criminals a sweetie, crying at their sob story and a sympathetic ticketing off (joke)
They need tough love. Yes, they need to be treated with some semblance of respect as a human being. But they also need strong discipline, a strong mentor, rebuilding of emotional relationships, but, also, a noteable punishment. You need ‘em both.
This is why I think “boot camps” are such superb ideas. NCOs are very hard on the prisoners, but they do build a mutual respect for each other over time which can turn lives around.
However, some people will always need to be locked up because they are just too dangerous to be released into society. This is the main reason for prisons. The onus should be against releasing prisoners back into society, until they have proved they aren’t going to reoffend. Not just because the prisons are full up - i.e. “early release”.
As for your other view;
“If you define views from “left of centre” as trying to develop a better society and a better world, which I do”
This is just patently ridiculous and so bias it’s almost not worth commenting on. It says far more about your dogmatism than mine.
It’s incredibly stupid the way so many erstwhile “intelligent” people on the left persist with this kindergarten level argument that right-wingers are regressive neanderthal who don’t want to improve the lot of our fellow man.
We all want a better society and a better world. It’s just we all have different views on how this should be achieved.
If anyone needs to reexamine their world views, Tim, it is *you*.
66 - That’s 100/1 to win presumably… 100/1 to come 4th & I’d imagine we’ll all have some please
I have followed the thread about the question I posed to sean fear about whether the right is inately better at doing things.
One thing is clear is that government turnover is good.
I do though have a very good friend who swears that ideological marxists make excellent bureaucrtas. He has the marxist lecturers doing all the departments admin, and very effectively.
67. “I have more chance of being the Republican nominee that Ron Paul.”
Matthew; are your odds up on Betfair?
Boris for Mayor? Very possible. He should inherit all of Norris’s 2004 vote, plus those who’ve bought into the sanitised Cameron Tories, plus those who’ve given Ken one more chance for the last time, plus some LibDems who want to get rid of King Newt, plus all the Poles (Boris is bound to have Polish ancestors somewhere), plus the odd spotty youth who accidentally wanders into the polling station and liked him on HIGNFY; minus the odd sod who thinks he’s an ove-promoted, self-promoted, adulterous onanist who should really be standing for Mayor of Ancient Athens and anyway could do with a proper haircut.
By my calculation that gives Boris 39% to Ken’s 36 to Paddick’s 13 to others’ 12 on the first round with Boris 55, Ken 45 on the second.
62: Which makes the Tories picking someone who can easily be stereotyped as a bumbling upper class twit all that more strange.
Mike, if any of your readers are still struggling to decide who to vote for, maybe this will help them out:
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/thought-for-the-day-21/
Sorry I meant “9/11 conspiracy theory supporting anarchist”. How anyone could support someone who is even more insane that Michael Moore is beyond me. A more interesting question would be regarding Ron Paul is the impact he will have if he runs as an indepedent - will his 1-2% of the votes come from the Republicans or will he peel away some antiwar votes from the Democrats as well?
68
I remember the. ’short sharp shock’ introduced by the Tories (Willie Whitelaw) In fact I lived near one of the centres, (Send, Woking) it was brought in with a great fanfare, (this’ll do the trick) it was quietly put to sleep after two years.
70. Yes they were very good at organising forced deportations and mass executions as well.
65 - Agree with your point, my local council has been conservative run since 1974 and it often appears as if it is a pension top up scheme for the socially concerned rather than a bulwark of local government. Jobs such as leader and committee chairs are chosen on the basis of who has the time not who has the skill. This is combined with a woeful tendency for the committees to act as rubber stamps for the officers decisions. It is a dire example of a one party state, the shame is that even with PR the Conservatives would retain a 2/3rds majority although it might give an opposition group of more than 2 other councillors!
66. Don’t let it give you sleepless nights…..
62. Indeed. And I have backed him heavily at over 2.90 on Betfair.
Nice little position.
IMO, Boris clearly has more chance than the 35% to Livinstones 65% chance currently indicated on Betfair.
Don’t think he’ll do it, but the price should reflect something much more like 45%/55%, which the polls do.
By the Shadsy it was you guys that were offering 13/8 on Romney at one point for winning MI wasn’t it? Did you take much on it?
52 - And still I wait in vain!
45: In the spirit of outing ourselves as ignorant, why are the republicans red and the democrats blue? Shurely shome mistake?
And what’s with the whole Elephant/Donkey thing? Am I the only one who thinks that having a donkey as your official logo is hilarious and rubbish?
This is all far more interesting than this phony pre-election election. Apart from Clinton, 90% of people here haven’t heard of any of them, and 99% haven’t heard of ANY of the Republicans, yet life seems to go on much as usual.
82 - I know that it’s at the NLC (National Liberal Club), and is a ‘pay on door’ affair. No idea which day or time though…
81. Yes a few people took that. It was still our preferred result as all the early money was for McCain.
83: That says more about the failings of the media, not how interesting things are.
83 - Not sure about the elephant, but the Donkey came about when a Democrat candidate/President was called a jackass.
The Elephant for the GOP
The mascot symbol, historically, is the elephant. A political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in Harper’s Weekly on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol.[51] In the early 20th century, the usual symbol of the Republican Party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic rooster. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.
84. I believe it is Friday 25th Jan k.o. 6.30.
87: Andrew Jackson?
88. Whatever happened to the Whigs and Federalists?
90 - I think so, but wasn’t sure if the similarity between Jackson/jackass was clouding my recollection.
72. “… plus some LibDems who want to get rid of King Newt, …”
Nice try, but LibDems who want rid of Ken would vote Lib Dem first, then Boris second.
81. 11/4 on Romney was available on Sun am if you got in quick!
38 - So two independents? Bloomberg and Paul?
If the Republican nomination race continues to be deadlocked, it surely makes it more likely that Bloomberg will stand. If the Republicans are waiting until their convention for their candidate to be decided, the stage is wide open for Bloomberg to steal a march on them.
The Republicans could easily become irrelevant compared to a Bloomberg/Democrat contest.
What sort of rich guy is Bloomberg anyway?
Yes, the party is at the National Liberal Club, 1A Whitehall Place London SW1A 2HE at 6:30ish on Friday 25 January. As a result of Shadsy’s generosity, the cost will be a mere £5, payable on the door. Peter the Punter will collect tha cash, and mete out retribution to anyone who blags their way in and doesn’t pay in due course. No idea who is attending, but the last time I heard there were at least 25 people coming along. It would be hepful if you could announce your intention of attending, so that the food can be organised accordingly.
The nearest tube station is Embankment, by the way.
I didnt quite get on that quick did I…bollocks though i di ok out of Romney winning.
You ever take an interest in Brit Awards Caveman? Havent looked at the odds yet but I seem determined to give it the once over this year for some reason.
93: Only if they think Ploddick has a hope of winning.
Party map. Sadly I can’t be there. Might be easier to tube to Charing X.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&q=national+liberal+club&near=London,+United+Kingdom&fb=1&cid=0,0,5858680732635024485&sa=X&oi=local_result&resnum=1&ct=image
I hope it works for you as it is formatted for Safari as you can see.
93. If they want to get rid of Ken, they will vote Boris first or second. Either way, assuming Paddick doesn’t make the run-off, they will count in the Boris column when it counts.
96 - Ooh Embankment is like a 10 minute walk from my office. I shall in political terms throw my hat in to the ring etc and attend barring contraction of the novovirus or being brutally mown down in my prime by an errant black cab driver.
72 last time around a lot of Tories voted for Ken
this time they will come out for Boris - turnout amongst Tories will be higher - if the labour vote does not come out this could be significant - i agree with your analysis so long as Boris stays serious and focussed on the campaign .
98 - No, transfers are at full weight so you might as well vote for your preferred regardless of whether they have a realistic chance. The only way a tactical consideration could come in for a Lib Dem is if they thought a fourth candidate might deprive Bozza or Ken (depending on their second pref) of a place in the top two. But that’s less plausible than a Paddick win (which I concede on current polls is unlikely).
77- folk on the right side of matters had a penchant for genocide and mass executions, some of them vigerously supported by Maggie Thatcher.
103. Oh dear touched a nerve there, eh? Perhaps you are, after all, just a touch embarassed by your misty-eyed nostalgia for an ideology of conflict and death.
97. Not yet Yokel, but i’ll have a look at the nominees this evening when I have a bit more time. A few more markets up on SC and Nevada with PP, VC and Ladbrokes. No standout prices so far - but I note that back in November last year VC were offering 16/1 on McCain to take SC. Wish I’d had some of that!
Tyson are you forgetting those People’s Democratic Republics that sprang up everywhere from Yemen to Ukraine, Romania, Cambodia, China and not to forget their progenitor, Uncle Stalin. All had individual and institutional murderous streaks that turned easily and readily into genocide.
Ask a Kulak or Cossack, a North Yemeni, a Cambodian or Muslim Chinese, a middle class business man in south China in the 1940s……. the list is extensive.
There is no difference between Left and Right wing extremists, bigots or dictators. They all use ‘the people’ to justify murder and terror, and they all finally attack the very people who brought them to power, and luckily, that is usually the beginning of the end for them.
107 - it is slightly more complicated than that!
68 Casino
There was of course a level of satire in my post at 19, as I implied at the top of the post. Again, unfortunately (for me, not necessarily readers of this site!) got time to answer your two posts answering mine at moment, but suffice it to say I am comfortable with what you call my “world view” and how it sits with practical politics, which is inevitably day to day in nature.
You commented in your post a few days, which you now say was satirical, that something that turns on Lib Dems was the fact that politics is something done at different levels - local, national, European, and global. Yes, I am very comfortable with that idea. We cannot limit our political/ democratic reach in the modern world to just nation states. The other limitation of course is in time. Things which are desirable for “a better society in a better world” may not be immediately achievable, but that should not stop us aiming for them. People who rubbish this as “woolly thinking liberals” should read their history - many ideas of improving our society have reached fulfilment many years later. To fit movement towards those ideals into a framework of practical politics is the point.
And, I would merely suggest that “the left” in broad terms does this better than “the right”. And, in case you have formed a view that I am unable with my “world view” to deal with the politics of the “right”, or with those who are representative of that, I believe you are wrong - I have many friends who are from that tradition.
Commenting on the way this topic has developed, I have practised Lib Dem politics in places where both Tory and Labour have had long term unchallenged tenure. They both share an arrogance and a changing of officer culture to fit their mentality. I would not dare to comment on long - term Lib Dem tenure, which I have also seen, but never worked “politically” with. Long term Independent tenure - which I have lived in for nearly 20 years, IMO, produces poor results. So, yes, change is very often a good thing!
78 James Burdett May I ask where you are - which Council?
103. I think the geopolitics of the Cold War were *somewhat* different to today Tyson.
A global standoff against a nuclear-armed superpower bloc; which was relentlessly expansive and hell-bent on eclisping our liberal, democratic political system with something infinitely more unpalatable; required us to take some pretty unpalatable foreign policy decisions to defeat it. Doing “nothing” was just not an option. It’s called “Realpolitik”.
It’s amazing that people today underestimate how real this threat was at the time. Even as late as the 1980s the USSR was very, very dangerous.
Besides, our LABOUR government today *still* humours China (mass executions) and Saudi Arabia (err… mass executions).
Both are very unpalatable regimes.
Unless, and until, democracy takes route in all countries, globally, this will always be an aspect of our foreign policy.
110 - broxbourne borough council.
110. Funny how the Labour party was against Britain having nuclear weapons when there was a real nuclear-armed threat, and are now in favour when there isn’t.
108. Tim13.
I don’t know what point you are trying to make?
You are mashing together a hybrid of posts and comments and discussing different threads and arguments all at once.
I’m not going to debate with you all day on which is “better” the Right or the Left. It’s pointless. I just wanted you to acknowledge that “the Left” does not have a monopoly on wanting to achieve an improvement in peoples quality of life. We *all* want that.
As for your argument that “change” is a good thing, you are absolutely right.
I couldn’t agree more.
110-Casino- I think the threat posed by the USSR has been somewhat exaggerated and exploited by many on the right to justify a whole range of unpalatable, and pretty catastrophic activities. Arming Baathists and Bin Laden for instance.
Maggie Thatcher cosying up to Pinochet was outrageous.
And how do we create democracies in countries? You sound like a classic neo con.
114 Tyson That is just sad. If you had dealt with reality you would not be so trite. I lived in Addis Ababa during the ‘Red Revolution’ of Mengistu Haile Mariam where thousands of Russians supported Mengistu’s genocide. And why? For Russian access to Red Sea ports.
114 - I have said before that America’s biggest mistake was not supporting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets may have had several motives for invading, but a primary one was to prevent an Islamic fundamentalist regime, which may have spread fundamentatism in southern Russia (like Chechnya) and the central Asian SSRs.
114: ‘Maggie Thatcher cosying up to Pinochet was outrageous’
That was in recognition of the help Pinochet gave us during the Falklands War. Sometimes our enemies enemy is not that nice a chap.
117 - cosying up to Pinochet was awful, Pinochet invented personal pensions, which Thatcher introduced in 1988 and led to the pension mis-selling scandal.
Currently, there is much mis-selling of Critical Illness Insurance. This product was invented in South Africa in the years of apartheid.
116. That should equally be seen as a failure of Soviet diplomacy, in the same was as Iraq was a failure of American diplomacy.
Saddam’s main arms suppliers were France and the Soviet Union.
WRT Afghanistan, hindsight’s a wonderful thing.
116
That makes 2 of us.
If u are planning or know someone who is leaving or arriving at Heathrow, they could have problems: a BA 777 has landed short and pancaked, no one hurt, but its chaos there.
114. No, I am not a neo-con.
To be honest, Tyson, I don’t know “how” we create democracies in countries.
Yes, there is a strong neo-con/imperialist argument. The main historically proven way to create democracies is to have the country be a colony of a democratic country long enough for its values and institutions to change so that *it* evolves to be democratic.
US Occupation: Germany, Japan, Puerto Rico, Phillipines
UK Occupation: India, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Kenya (sort of), Pakistan (barely) etc. etc.
Alternatively, a country can be so close to a series of democracies that the culture permeates to such an extent that it itself becomes one, especially with the death of an autocratic ruler: Spain, Portugal, Mexico?
Over and above that, I think the only options are to open up countries to the global market and democratic cultures, plus covertly fund & support democratic oppositions, which isn’t always advisable.
120. “WRT Afghanistan, hindsight’s a wonderful thing. ”
Couldn’t agree more Sean.
Hingsight makes “experts” of us all.
Looks as if the plane landed on the grass by the end of the runway. The fuselage is intact, but there appears to be some damage to the rear of both the wing fillets on the fuselage. Could it be undercarriage problem?
Tyson - you might do well to read Koba The Dread by Martin Amis on leftist mypoia.
To my mind, one of the biggest errors of US foreign policy, during the Cold War, was the belief that if they backed decolonisation, nationalist anti-communists would come to power. So, the ended up backing some appalling creatures like Mobutu, and Savimbi, whereas continued colonial rule would have been hugely preferable.
While I think colonial rule was an anachronism by the 1960s, it would still have been better in places like the Congo or Angola for the colonial power to govern for some more years, and then hand over to a government of their choosing.
121, 124 more from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7194086.stm
Seems that Bungler Brown was on the scene… No-one seriously hurt.
Tony Blair was exploring the left/right progressive/reactionary stuff in his scintillating UMP speech (really worth seeing if you understand French, annoying though it was for French socialists). I’m not sure it really gets us far, though, and I certainly don’t think one can generalise about the quality of councillors by party - there’s no correlation that I’ve ever noticed, except that parties with a huge local near-monopoly on a council tend to be more tolerant of useless members.
20: the difficulty in applying redudancy pay to MPs is that if they lose an election it’s more like being fired than being made redundant (since the post of MP for Snodbury is still there, just occupied by someone else). The SSRB proposal is (after the next GE) to give a hand to people who are turfed out without warning, but not (as now) to anyone who simply stands down or is deselected, since that’s more like someone voluntarily leaving an office job. But as I said above, it’ll have the effect of making MPs try to hang on forever until voted out, however aged and frail, as it’ll be worth 45 grand to them and their families to do so.
Unbelievable to see Tyson downplaying the evil nature of the Soviet Union. The threat wasn’t exaggerated - it was consistently downplayed by leftists who were, at best, ambivalent about which side they were on in the great struggle between democracy and communism.
114- agreed- I think the Cold War was a lot more preferable than the Islamic thing we are contending with today.
Preferably would not like either mind.
127. “scintillating” - I look forward to seeing you use that adjective in relation to your present leader.
Afghanistan, in my case it isn’t hindsight, I was saying it at the time.
Despite the despotic and cruel nature of the Soviet regime, (It didn’t stop that well known leftist Churchill entering into an alliance, with Stalin, when faced with a common enemy)our relationship with the Russians, will always be rocky, (despite the change of regime, they still are) but they are sane.
The Russians we should remember were defeating the Taliban, it was the decision by Thatcher to supply the Blowpipe and then later to convince Reagan to supply the Stinger which handed the initiative back to the Islamic loonies. The film, ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ I believe covers some of this territory.
The defeat of the Soviet Union, the most important Islamic victory since the battle of Hattin, convinced the loonies that it was a message from Allah to cleanse to world of infidels.
128- Don- the sacrifice made by the USSR in WW2 was the greatest taken by any country in human history. Hardly surprising they took many of the positions they did in the post war period, and why many in the west were vaguely sympathetic.
120 so far as Saddam goes the Austrians were very helpful. There are many pictures of Saddam wearing an Aquila Lodenmantel very similar to my own - yes the socialist governments of Europe were big Saddam fans.
133
Yep! Socialist regimes like this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq
131- I was always disgusted by the news footage of the mujhadin attacking USSR convoys by encamped journalists, rather glorifying in the killing of young Soviet men with British weapons.
I always thought the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was utterly pointless, that is until we have seen Islamic forces unleashed on ourselves.
122- casino- I agree completely with this post.
Psychologically, the USSR remind me of a spider (albeit one with nukes), in that it would appear they (or at least their leadership) were always more afraid of us than we were of them.
Apparently with just cause given Churchill’s desire to rearm German divisions and invade the USSR at the end of WWII.
127. Was that the reason a Scottish Labour MP ended up contesting South Hams in 1983(-I think) ?
136. Really? I’d never heard churchill wanted to do that.
125 Yes, the US ‘anti-imperialism’ of the 30s, 40 and 50s has resulted in many problems that might have been avoided in Africa and Asia.
Its odd how the philosophy flipped around to suddenly be the biggest neo-colonialist power in the world. It started with Korea I think.
The British told them (Churchill included) that once you become a world power all those easy slogans are meaningless as real politics and vital national interest take precedent.
&