Why not be like Boris and get two for one?
January 17th, 2008
-
The betting markets move against the Tory mayoral contender
On the face of it the 2008 race for the London mayor has everything. Two candidates who are known simply by their first names as well as a high profile Lib Dem; what looks like quite a tight contest and the knowledge that voting takes place in just 16 weeks time so you won’t be locking up your cash for long.
Yet compared with the 2000 and 2004 elections punter interest appears to be quite low. Less than £28,000 has been matched on Betfair and the Spreadfair market has seen very little activity.
Of course political punters have been transfixed by the US primaries though it it perhaps pointing out that those who have made wagers on who gets the nominations will have to wait until September before they get their winnings. If you get the London mayor right then you’ll be paid in the first week in May.
And, in my view, there’s great value to be had on Boris. The latest Betfair price has him now at 1.94-1 which is just about as good value as it has ever been.
-
Following the YouGov poll that had Ken just one point ahead I thought we would see a rush to get on Boris who was then 1.5-1. Now that’s moved out even more this is a betting bargain.
Labour are trailing by 10% in the national polls, Tory voters have higher turnout rates, and the chances of him winning are much better than the odds suggest. Ken is a formidable operator but not that formidable. Boris at these prices is great value.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Mike are you having a mid/late life crisis, seems to be an increasing amount of scantily clad ladies in the main postings! not that i’m complaining of course….;-)
There is certainly money to be made at that price. I really cannot believe that his chances are that low. Ken has got a harder fight now simply through longevity. Yes, he is a canny devil but so is Boris behind the facade.
His chances are certainly better than that.
1 and don’t forget the mand with sex appeal in the middle
Which ones Prunella?
Comment on the previous thread. 164
Hmmmm. The point I was making is that the terms WW1 (the Great War) and WW2 are misleading.
When looking at the European situation, it is better to think of it as a ‘European Civil War’ starting with the, Franco Prussian war 1870, and ending with the arrival of Soviet troops in Berlin.
The ‘European Civil War’ therefore ran for 75 years, being replaced by the ‘Cold War’ which was marked by the rivalry of the two super powers the USA and the SU, though in truth the SU was never a super power.
I’ve been tipping Boris at this price for ages. More of a certainty than John McCain and at a much lower price
Fellow punters remained unconvinced!
I’ve now built up a very nice position on Boris..
1 - Perhaps for balance there should be some scantily clad men?
Boris’ victory as Mayor of London will be a great loss to British humour. Ken’s laughable spending of up to $70 million on hydrogen vehicles (average price $1 million each) will never be equalled.
He has yet to find any sources for the gas in London, and he doesn’t realise that the hydrogen tanks on buses need refilling every 15 miles.
Everyday the Evening Standard runs a further update on the LDA funding allegations - this must be having an affect on voters perceptions of Ken and voters are more and more getting in the mood to get out a big broom and make a clean sweep right through city hall taking out Ken and his friends
5. That is a preposterous theory.
I cannot think of a single respectable historian who would give it the time of day.
9 - A renowned mop-head might be the best candidate to clean up city hall then!
10
AJP Taylor certainly wrote in those terms.
10: That’s the basis of Niall Ferguson’s book last year isn’t it? Calling WW1 and WW2 a single World War.
5. If Europe had been a single political entity, then yes. Or if there had been a single cause to such a war (such as religious differences) maybe. But neither applies.
14
Germany the UK, Russia and other European states, were ruled by related dynastic families.
13
Agreed
If you want to see the start of that war, go and look at the statue of, ‘Germania’ (Watch on the Rhine) it was that statue that started the alarm bells ringing.
9 The Evening Standard coverage on Livingstone is indeed extraordinary; if you do not live in the Greater London area you will probably not appreciate the coverage which the GLA Corruption Scandal is getting.
In the main, the pieces are written by Andrew Gilligan (of “45 minutes on the Today programme” fame) and they usually cover at least two full pages - four pages is not unusual, and i once counted six. For an evening paper, that is massive coverage - and it is all bad for Livingstone, and the Administration at City Hall.
It is clear that the Standard has a lot more up its sleeve, and they are ekeing it out on a day by day basis, which makes the coverage look relentless.
This can only be damaging to Livingstone. They have not come out in favour of Johnson yet, and last night there was a small puff piece for Paddick. However, it was written by Nirpal Dhaliwal (or whatever his name is) who has the political clout of a bad Johan Hari, so it is probably not worth a lot. But as far as the Standard is concerned, Livingstone is toast.
15. Doesn’t make it a single political entity - they were rival sovereign states. But even putting aside the “civil war” concept, you can put a (strong) case together for grouping the Franco-Prussian War and the First World War together, but not the Second World War with them.
15 - No. Both France and the UK were governed by democratically elected executives in WW1; and the dynastic ruling structures of Russia and Germany had entirely changed by WW2. Niall Fergusson’s argument is stylish and provocative but not credible (and I don’t think anyone would now argue that AJP Taylor was a ’serious’ historian).
13. I’m not aware of his book last year, but Ferguson has previously argued against any connection between the Second and Third Reichs.
15. But in no sense was this comparable to a war such as that between Valois and Plantagenet for the French throne. Effective power in all those states had long since passed out of the hands of their monarchs.
13. Antony.
I read that book on holiday. It’s called; “The War of the World”.
He took a 100-year period from 1900-2000 I think. And called it a new “Hundred Year War”. Very different to Coldstone. He also didn’t argue it was a European Civil War.
He described it as; “a combination of economic volatility, decaying empires, psychopathic dictators, and racially/ethnically motivated (and institutionalised) violence resulted in the wars, and the genocides of what he calls “History’s Age of Hatred”. “
15- Er France- one of only two common partciapnts in these three wars - wasn’t. Indeed it was a republic for all but the first two months.
Europe was definately not a single political entity and in any case the arbiter in both WW1 and WW2 (the USA) wasnt a European state (hence “world” war)!
17 - Indeed today Gilligan had a comment piece on the state of London’s Transport in which he states that the Tube has only got better for ceramic tile manufacturers! I don’t think Gilligan will be voting Ken!!
Why not extend back to the Crimean War and the Napoleonic Wars as well? Come to think of it, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Thirty Years War, and perhaps even the Roman struggles against the Germanic barbarians could be thrown in too.
19. Taylor may or may not be fashionable, but that is quite different from ’serious’.
12. I have widely read AJP Taylor.
I cannot recall him ever making such an argument.
He certainly may have argued that the 1870s to 1940s were an “age of European Nationalism”, stoked by Prussian militarism, but never a ‘European Civil War’.
Quite the opposite in fact.
5 - I always thought the last two world wars were just further fall-out from the decline of the Roman Empire myself.
As an aside, I remember a comment a good few years ago along the lines that if the then national conflicts in Africa were being played out in Europe, the situation would have been seen as third wold war. As it was, it was just seen as a lot of Africans beating the hell out of each other.
22. That’s a far more plausible case. Indeed, you could probably trace a period of 1789-1989 as an age of competing ideologies which caused most of those factors, ending in the supremacy of liberal democracy as the only surviving Enlightenment ideology.
Re-reading the history of the first half of the 20th Century, you realise how the democratic age was neither inevitable nor likely. The popular imagination suggests that democracy is something that the bulk of people yearn for, but reading academics as late as 1950s Germany it is clear this isn’t true. If you look at how easily Petain took over in France it is clear many people considered the authoritarian age to be the future - and the main opposition to him was for his collaborationist policies rather than anti-democratic tendencies.
23/25. It is clear that Coldstones take on history is one which has to support his political predjudices.
He wishes to rewrite history, retrospectively, to lend support to his view of the inevitability of the European Union!
(Don’t deny Mr. Coldstone
)
Democracy is certainly not inevitable. In fact, I would say that the system of government in most European countries is becoming oligarchic, rather than democratic.
28. Funny you say that. I read recently about the “Holocene Calendar” which puts the year 0 at the end of the last ice age and thus conveniently covers the whole of civilisation in one epoch. With Rome beginning from 9973 to 10476 (in the West) and 11453 (in the East), and us currently at 12008, you realise that Rome wasn’t part of the Ancient world but the beginning of the modern age.
17 - But what’s the coverage of the Standard? I work in the City, and live in Zone 2, so pretty much a central Londoner - and I haven’t read the Standard in months. If I ever want to read an evening newspaper I pick up one of the ‘freebie’ ones which focus solely on badly written sport reviews and “celebrity” gossip. Maybe this is one of those age / demographic things though.
31, becoming?
Hehe. Just look at London’s choice. A corrupt communist, a clown and a plank of wood.
It would be nice if we reinvigorated politics through the addition of a US-style recall law, far more referenda on both the national and local level and the like.
Of course, it would be nice if the Swedish Nymphomaniacs’ Association bus broke down outside my house too.
30 - And that gas privatisation was a far greater catastrophe for mankind than all the tragedies of the 20th century combined.
34 - I meant to ask before: are you a resident of Elmbridge? I’m sure there was a poster here occasionally who used that tag. Apologies if not.
33 - The spelling and grammar in those trash rags are atrocious, but fortunately the ink doesn’t rub off so they are good for chips.
34 - There is a Swedish Nymphomaniacs Association?!?!?!
34 - You want Sven to break down outside your house??
33 Lennon! Get a grip, man! It is your civic duty to read a proper newspaper every day, or, in the absence of one of those, the Evening Standard.
29. Absolutely. Spot on Socrates.
It is astonishing how many post-war Europeans failed to appreciate the moral case against dictatorship and authoritarianism.
All I can say is: thank goodness for Britain and the US.
This is why I love my country. For all it’s faults, it has consistently defended and promoted democracy against sometimes overwhelming odds for hundreds of years.
Our motives may not have always been pure, but we have made a decisive contribution to global liberty.
We often forget that.
It chills the blood to think of what might have happened if we’d acted otherwise.
“London Lite” is from the same team as the Standard so even if you think you are just reading a free paper you are not avoiding the ES and, undoubtedly, it will be pushing the same anti-Livingstone line.
36, no, I’m not sure where Elmbridge is:p
37, oh there must be. I read in Schott’s Almanac 2008 that the Swedes have perhaps the bustiest of all women. Hurrah for Sweden!
38, nymphomania is a female-only term:p
And now I know how to get a trio of instant responses. Maybe Boris should hire some Swedish bunnies to help him out?
34. It was popular support for Julius Caesar that led to the downfall of democracy in the Roman Republic. I think parliamentary democracy is the way to go, but with the removal of the advantage gained from party backing. Thus I support Alternative Vote.
Picking up from the last thread- NOT,
I would just like to say how impressed I am with the knowledge, intelligence and level of debate, literary and historical references of many of the posters here- including you casino, sean fear, coldstone, socrates, and even Don coming from your partisan camps. Riveting, informative and I am sure we could spend a few hours arguing the toss over a few beers, and I would learn much.
OK we hijacked the thread for a bit, but it was good fun. Now off for my root canal treatment- yikes. Unlike Gordon I am going to have as much anaesthetic as they can give.
34. “Hehe. Just look at London’s choice. A corrupt communist, a clown and a plank of wood.”
More and more like a Monty Python sketch every day.
40. Most worrying of all to be right now is Russia. Is there anyone who would care to argue the difference in circumstances between 2000s Russia and 1930s Germany?
44. “OK we hijacked the thread for a bit, but it was good fun. Now off for my root canal treatment- yikes. Unlike Gordon I am going to have as much anaesthetic as they can give. ”
All the best Mr. Tyson. Hope it goes ok!
43, I know only a little about the Roman Civil War and the Republic’s demise, but there are various places you could lay the blame for the Empire’s rise. Augustus could have given up imperial power at many a time.
Something I think we really ought to do is concentrate on creating democratic mechanisms that work between elections. It isn’t good enough to have an election every 4-5 years and then for people to be ignored. hence why I’d love to see the recall law brought over here, and referenda.
A high profile Lib Dem? When I read the name, my response was simply ‘who?’ And I’m not just an interested punter. I used to work for the party.
48 - Ah but there are plenty of means for Joe Citizen to retain engagement between elections, most people choose not to take up their opportunities to do so.
44 Thanks
43 What finished the Republic was the unwillingness of its great men to accept the restraints on their behaviour that their ancestors tolerated. They resorted to violence rather than face political defeat.
51 - In part but credit has to be given for the way Julius Caesar and more so Octavian totally outmaneuvered the political class and were capable of backing that up on the battlefield also. Theirs is a masterclass in seizing and retaining power.
29. You might also refer to the 17th/early 18th century trend towards ‘enlightened despotism’ whereby monarchs centralised power, often surpressing or neutering representative assemblies and other rival sources of authority, in order to make administration more ‘efficient’. That was another period when the wind seemed to be blowing in favour of more authoritarian forms of government.
48. Caesar’s takeover of sole executive power laid the platform for Augustus, which he did on a popular mandate. While Augustus could have given up power at any time, Caesar’s actions allowed Augustus to get away with not doing so - something that couldn’t have happened in a functioning democracy. But it should also be remembered that a corrupt senate caused the popular anger to cause them to back Caesar…
It is a difficult problem. I wish that people could make well informed decisions regularly and strengthen democracy, but I feel the evidence doesn’t show this to be the case. Switzerland’s example has shown that people get turned off by perpetual referenda and less people become involved in the democratic process. Frequent elections in the US also cause congressmen to be more focused on electioneering and voting in a way that can’t be misrepresented in a 30 second ad rather than weighing up what is genuinely best for the country.
But equally we can’t have the increasingly oligarchic party system that chooses the representatives for parliament. Part of the problem with most electoral systems is the significant vote share that one gains from being on an established party ticket. My proposed solution is the AV system, where non-party candidates could stand as “Independent Conservative” or “Independent Labour” without fear of splitting the vote. And voters can vote for those fresh “change” candidates without fear going for the new guy would let the worse of all options in. I prefer AV over STV, because AV would keep the number of candidates down to a small enough number that voters can be aware of their individual stances - and minimising the effect of voting on party labels further.
I usually have a great deal of time for Daniel Finkelstein, who I think is a good writer, but this is useless. He gives ten reasons why Obama should choose Al Gore. Some people have posed it here, so I want to give definitive responses in advance.
“1. He brings experience to the ticket. Inexperience is Obama’s greatest weak point.” - plenty of people bring experience. Al Gore is not top of that list, even with 8 years as VP. Gubernatorial experience would be (if anything) even better.
“2. He represented a southern state, so he would broaden the geographical base of Obama’s campaign.” - Well he didn’t win that Southern State, or any other Southern states, so that’s nonsense.
“3. He would rouse the Democratic base, stoking their desire for revenge for 2000 and increasing the turnout on the Dem side. This would allow Obama to concentrate on swing voters.” - Because Obama doesn’t energise the Democratic base, and Dems don’t want revenge for 8 years in the wilderness anyway?
“4. He would bring lustre to the ticket, which could be important if facing John McCain. The Republican will not be able to boast a VP candidate who has won both an Oscar and a Nobel prize. ” - Lustre? Gore is intensely boring, and I am not averse to him. If you want lustre (which Obama has) I think Oprah, Denzel and Jay Z probably have it covered.
“5. He is a good debater with an excellent track record in the VP debates.” - He managed to lose the debate with Bush in 2000, and therefore only beat Dan Quayle (who couldn’t spell potato) and Jack Kemp, an American Footballer who though soccer brought socialism.
“6. He would push climate change up the agenda during the election, exposing Republican weaknesses.” - and losing Michigan and its 17 Electoral College votes. I’d like to see Obama do something about Climate Change - it doesn’t need to be any higher profile. We get it. Shut up.
“7. He would bring the Democratic establishment behind Obama without him having to select Hillary.” - If Obama wins, they will get behind him, although like RFK, half the reason people don’t like Hillary is that she is establishment through and through. Why ruin a fresh, young leader, uninhibited by links to the party
“8. He served in Vietnam, volunteering even though he opposed the war. This remains an issue and would certainly be one if McCain was the Republican candidate.” - Because making Presidential Elections about Vietnam has worked well… You can’t beat McCain by making the debate about who did what in Vietnam. For that reason, Obama is a great choice for President, because he has the excuse that he was barely born.
“9. His record on terror and Iraq inside the Clinton White House was a good one. He would be able to deploy this to help Obama when foreign policy comes to the forefront.” - Foreign policy is Obama’s weak spot, and plenty of people can help him with it. Pick Gore, and the first question is “So why didn’t you do anything about Osama Bin Laden?”. Hillary can at least claim she wasn’t an official at the time. What’s Gore’s excuse?
“10. His re-election would be exciting for the media and another first, helping the Obama bandwagon roll. No VP has run for a third term. But there is no law against it.” - No law against it, but I think that he either dampens the campaign (born loser) or reminds people of the last time this happened, which is Nixon. Great.
“And wouldn’t it be fun if Obama chose him and McCain chose Joe Lieberman?” - This is another stupid idea, and I cannot bring myself to repudiate it again.
“(Hat Tip: Brett for the original idea)” - Well done, Brett.
46. As long as oil and gas prices stay high, then the Russians are happy with their lot.
51. But the Great Men could not have got away with the violence had legitimacy mattered more than popularity. The success of a democratic system depends on the people’s allegiance lying more with the system than with the individual candidates.
I believe it was all down to Gavrilo Princip’s girlfriend…
A very important woman who’s name history does not record..
She dumped him on the 27th June 1914. If she hadn’t, he wouldn’t have been in the place he was the following day to take that shot at the Archduke..
No First World War
No Russian revolution
No Hitler
No Stalin
No Second World War
No Holocaust
No Korean War
No Vietnam War
No..No..No..
51 “They resorted to violence rather than face political defeat.”
A problem particularly acute in Africa today. Democracy is only as good as the transition from loser to winner.
55. A very good post. Except for point 9. The Clinton-Gore administration did plenty about Bin Laden, but lacked support from federal agencies necessary to go further. Unlike Bush, who just went on holiday for his first year.
59 - If we are defining Republican Rome as a Democracy then we are on a sticky wicket!
One thing that Niall Ferguson’s book does touch on is that there may actually have been a Third World War. Fought between the two superpowers/political blocs, by proxy, across the third world.
Maybe its a much more established point of view than I give it credit for, but it was the first time I’d seen that put into so many words. It certainly follows the pattern with the failure to resolve the First World War properly creating the tensions that lead to the Second and teh failure to really settle accounts there lead to a series of wars around the world, as both sides knew a full-on war would obliterate everything.
58. I believe there were about 6 or 7 potential assassins lined up to hit Ferdinand. It is likely one of the others would have got him.
Although that bullet was just the start. There were unresolved issues between half a dozen expansive European powers, and nobody realised how devastating a war would have been. War was inevitable.
60 - I’m prepared to defer to your better knowledge on this one, Socrates. I simply don’t know enough about what was done, but that’s half Gore’s problem. The truth is probably quite complex, and you can bet the Republicans will spend a great deal of time *claiming* it was simply inaction that led to 9/11, and Gore becomes a drag on the ticket through perception alone.
Unbelievably, he’s now the (very marginal) favourite on InTrade! Obama second (as Hillary’s choice?!), and Richardson is forced to fight Evan Bayh for third place. It’d never happen on BetFair…
64. I know a mid-level staffer on Obama’s campaign who reckons he’ll choose Evan Bayh, for what its worth…
I see both London Lite and the ES. The Lite doesn’t have nearly so many (any?) editorial pieces, so pretty much all of the Gilligan stuff disappears. The ES is completely obsessive in its hatred of Ken, but presumably readers noticed that a long time ago and were either persuaded or are not open to persuasion - it’s got to the repetitive pub bore stage.
I don’t generally comment on other MPs since we all work together but my charity bet on Ken was not based on party loyalty but on observation of Boris at close range for a couple of years. I know a number of people who absolutely always vote Tory who will not be voting for him, for much the reasons that made seanT express doubt the other day. If there’s some huge “Tory uprising” sentiment in May I guess it could sweep Boris in all the same, but 2-1 sounds about right.
Because I don’t think Boris will do the Tory brand any good if he’s their best-known office-holder, I wouldn’t actually mind that much if he did win, though the Broxtowe cats would.:-)
63 - Not involving Britain it wasn’t. Britain was under no obligation to defend Belgium, it merely had the right to do so. As late as 31 July 1914, the pro-war faction of the Cabinet was a minority (5 out of 17), and the stock exchange had undergone an enormous crash on fears of the possibility of Britain going to war. Britain’s track record of participating in optional wars is particularly poor.
54 Augustus was successful precisely because he allowed people to believe he’d restored the Republic, rather than by displaying his autocracy openly, in the way that Caesar had. Hence, he took care to cloak his power in Republican forms, rather than making himself Dictator for Life, or giving the impression that he was a God, as Caesar had. He was much more politically astute than Caesar had been. In many ways this was a sham, as Augustus was the dominant figure in the State, but also points to the Republic being popular among Roman citizens.
As far as I can tell, Caesar’s success depended less on popularity among the people than on unprecedented military dominance. The conversion of the Roman Army from a peoples’ militia to a professional force, was crucial, IMO, to the fall of the Republic. A part-time army made up of the mass of small farmers and tradesmen would never have supported its generals over the Republic. A professional force that looked to its generals for booty was willing to do so.
59. The Romans had difficulty defining it themselves. I’d say it was like Eighteenth Century England, aristocratic, but with certain democratic elements.
63. Nothing in history is inevitable, and much is accidental - you sound like a Marxist determinist!
58: Rod, the dominos were in a line, it didn’t matter who pushed it.
63, actually, they did have various attempts. They bungled three or four, and then finally got the Archduke. If Ferdinand had run off after the first, he wouldn’t've died.
65 - Bayh is not a bad choice, but I still think in terms of winning the Latino vote, and southern swing states (which have congressional races too), not to mention Foreign Policy experience, Richardson has the edge.
My problem with this is that I argue about who *should* the candidates choose, not who they will. I suspect that much of it is down to personality, which would override slim differences in electoral math.
Bayh endorsed Hillary, but that is not a problem. The only collaboration I can find between them in the US Senate was a letter to the military saying “Real Fathers don’t abandon their children” - http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31095
67. I’d agree with that.
68. I’d agree with much of that analysis, but I think Caesar needed both the support of the people and the military to be feared by the Senate, which caused the illegal bill which caused the war. You make a good point about Augustus’ conduct showing that Republican structures still mattered to the people of Rome. What are the lessons to be learned for preventing would-be dictators from breaking a democracy in future then? A good civic education for potential MPs?
69. A fair criticism based on my lack of qualifiers! I stand by my belief that war was, if not inevitable, extremely likely. However, the precise time, participants and alliance structure of such a war could certainly have changed - which could have led to very different historical outcomes. Fair? Of course, to get into a real determinism/non-determinism debate we would have to get into quantum theory and cutting edge physics!
71. Yes, I was vaguely aware of this, but thanks for bringing it up.
Incidentally, does the site owner mind us discussing stuff like this? I think its all relevant for our understanding of politics, but not so much the betting side of things. And we (and me in particular) are guilty of somewhat overrunning the thread. Mike, if you’d like us to reduce such forays into history, I’m sure those interested could take it somewhere else…
72. I just don’t see Obama choosing Richardson on a very deep level, which I can’t entirely vocalise. If you think Obama will get the nomination, it is my firm advice not to put your money on him.
“What are the lessons to be learned for preventing would-be dictators from breaking a democracy in future then? A good civic education for potential MPs?”
Many people in the past would have said the abolition of a standing army. I guess that would have been the view of the US Founding Fathers. Yet, it’s clear in this age at least, that a full time army doesn’t necessarily lead to dictatorship.
I think that the pertinent lesson is that political power should be dispersed as widely as possible, with plenty of checks and balances within the constitution.
75. I always worry that a system such as the USA’s SoP and C&Bs causes two problems for democracy:
(1) No one side ever gets to propely put in its program, so no-one ever gets proved right or wrong. Thus the disagreements between the two sides are permanently perpetuated and this causes excessive polarisation.
(2) The whole system becomes so complex that the public gets frustrated with nothing getting done and thinks badly of the whole democratic structure.
Sadly, the 2/1 against Boris is long gone, assuming it was ever there at all. The best price currently is 13/8 (or 1.625/1) with Paddy Power. This makes the bet very much more marginal - personally I wouldn’t proceed at these odds, but suggest waiting until the “Smithson effect” has worn off.
55.
I agree that Gore would be a middling decision (and he would neither want to be VP again or be on the losing end of the inevitable Republican landslide).
I do however think Joe Lieberman would be a good running mate for McCain
78. I’d like to see how many of the Republican base would turn out to vote for McCain-Lieberman!
75. “I think that the pertinent lesson is that political power should be dispersed as widely as possible, with plenty of checks and balances within the constitution.”
Maybe Sean, but we don’t have that, do we?
It’s not strictly necessary. I’d go so far as to say it’s something very intangible - the strength of civil society and the nations culture.
79- Probably all of them if the opposite candidate is HRC
The Yougov website now has the full details from the Scottish voting intentions poll earlier this week . It includes a Westminter voting intention question and the results with comparison to their last November poll are :-
Lab 36 +4
SNP 30 -2
Con 18 -1
LD. 12 N/C
Oth 5 +1
Note the figures now total 101 and in November they totalled 99 hence the changes do not balance .
Re the Yougov Ken/Boris poll I do not think we can place too much faith in this poll’s results , it was taken immediately prior to Xmas and Yougov clearly had great difficulty getting a proper representative sample presumably because of the Xmas period . They had responses from 498 over 55’s whereas the correct proportional figure was only 220 .
82 Mark - I agree with your conclusion re the Yougov Ken/Boris poll but for those, like me, who missed it, can you please provide the headline figures?
77. Amazing the effect Mike has on the markets, isn’t?!
Already managed to turn a £15 risk-free profit on Boris.
Thanks Mike!!
83 Peter figures were Ken 45 Boris 44 Paddick 7 Other 4 with 9% would not vote and 19% don’t know . Indicating a turn out in excess of 70% .
re 82. Mark - I agree about the timing of the poll and there was a big scaling back of the over-55s. Given that this age group was much more pro-Boris than any of the others and is much much more likely to vote then I think that Johnson is probably ahead with a comfortable margin.
Half those who responded were in the older age group and they went for him by 55-30%. All this reinforces strongly my betting call. Buy Boris.
re 84. Alas I was only able to get on at 1.84-1. I wrote the post on the train and had difficulty logging into Betfair.
84 Yes, it’s clear the likes of “Shadsy” and “Sidney” take more than a passing interest in this site and I’m sure this applies also to the other major bookies. Nevertheless they are all hungry for business so there’s a good chance that Boris’ price will lengthen again over time, either with them or on Betfair.
86 - any odds available on the Henley by-election then?
82. Would imply in seats on a uniform swing..
Con 1 +0
Lab 39 -2
LD 10 -1
SNP 9 +3
The SNP seem to have fallen back a bit to their Oct ‘74 position (their previous best), which, unfortunately for them, is not quite enough for a take-off in seats…
Interestingly, the Lab/Con swing in Scotland is 2.5%, compared to a current GB opinion poll average of 5.5%. This could be a hint of how things might go at the next GE. Before Tories start jumping up and down for joy, imagining huge compensatory boosts in the South,
I am completing an analysis of possible regional swings which prove that, at the very outside, regional variation might give the Tories an extra 5 seats against uniform swing, and probably fewer….
85 Many thanks, Mark. I guess as the election draws nearer we can expect a number of such polls, although as Mike has pointed out before, the real value is lost once the outcome becomes clearly predictable.
I think Boris is excellent value - as a dinner party guest!
Seriously, anything over 2-1 (3 on betfair) is well worth a punt at this stage.
We don’t know how Paddick’s transfers will go. It all depends. If Paddick gets 8%, I would expect most to go to Ken. However, the more Paddick gets, the greater the proportion of transfers that will go to Bozza. I don’t think this necessarily means that a rise for Paddick will steal first preferences from Bozza, as all candidates will be fighting to get the apathetic voter to turn out.
It will be interesting to look at the differential turnouts. Outer London is generally bluer, but do those in Uxbridge or Whetstone really feel strongly about the congestion charge and bendy buses?
92 Probably not. But they will probably be sufficiently motivated by anti Govt feeling to turn out
From the “best” political strategy team:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7193296.stm
93 - you would expect higher turnout in the outer regions of London anyway.
What about the GLA elections? There is little talk of them. Split ticket voting? Ken for Mayor, Tories for GLA… That sends a message to the govt, but dear old Ken is not really a govt man.
92 but do those in Uxbridge or Whetstone really feel strongly about the congestion charge and bendy buses?
Probably not, but they may feel sore, as do I, about having to chip in £20 per annum, probably “forever” (as the costs mount inexorably), towards “Ken’s” 2012 Olympic Games.
USA — the second day of the New Hampshire recounts and still no smoking gun, though the state’s site reports only one county so far:
http://www.sos.nh.gov
But if the computers weren’t hacked and the voters weren’t all card-carrying members of the KKK, how on earth did Obama lose? It is almost as if more voters actually favoured Clinton. Still, I dare say a new conspiracy theory will be along soon.
95 Ken will certainly outperform Labour in the concurrent GLA ekection via his personality but I think this will be primarily due to disgruntled Labour voters in inner London sticking with him for Mayor while going Green/Lib Dem/Respect or BNP for the GLA. With Tory voters in outer London I think it will be Blue all down the line. I can’t see Ken making a real dent.
One wild card thought. If Boris really builds a head of steam it couldopen a door for Paddick. Bayrou tried it and came a lot closer than people thought in France to persude thePS supporters that only he could stop Sarkozy. I think Paddick should cheer Boris on for now
97. It wasn’t Obama that challenged the results.
14 - The central thread running through all three major conflicts was the growing power of Prussia/Germany challenging the established powers of France and Britain, only ending when the US eclipsed them all.
29 - The only problem with that is you could push it further back to 1776 given the influence between the two events, or even the 1640s given the importance of Parliament establishing its sovereignty over tax-raising powers and the role that played in the US (taxation/representation).
Looking at the picture, I suppose Boris does carry novelty value. If Angus the Monkey can win Hartlepool, maybe Boris the baffoon can provide some comical value to Londoners.
The sad thing is I think the Tory strategists forced Boris into this hair brain scheme precisely because they thought he could strike a chord on novelty value.
101 - stategists forcing somebody to have a go is not usually a good idea. Ask Frank Dobson!
97 — no. Indeed, the fact that none of the major candidates in either party challenged the results ought to have given the conspiracy theorists pause.
That said, sometimes there does seem to be a general slackness about American elections that can only encourage the tin foil hat brigade. Running out of ballot papers, massive queues at polling stations, dodgy machines sold by partisan vendors: that sort of thing.
Had to laugh at earlier comment about no one reading the Evening Standard. I looked up and noticed 8 being read in the carriage of my train including my neighbour who was reading a story about ken the Crook.
Didn’t ask anyone whether they are ignoring the stories as Nick rather hopes they are.
More importantly we are all heading out to Blue Kent so either ineligible to vote or would happily lynch livingstone anyway, toe rag that he is.
New Rasnussen poll from SC, some from after the Michigan result. Shows movt to Obama and Huckabee. Changes on 3 days ago.
Dems: Obama 44 (+6) Clinton 31 (-2) Edwards 15 (-2)
The Black vote goes for Obama 64-20
http://tinyurl.com/yvew69
GOP: McCain 24 (-4) Huckabee 24 (+5) Romney 18 (+1) Thompson 16 (nc) Paul 5 (nc) Guiliani 3 (-2)
Little Romney surge (yet) - but he’s not far off the lead.
http://tinyurl.com/2qooxy
Last time there was considerable split ticket voting in the GLA and Mayoral elections. About one in four LD voters and one in six Tory voters went for Ken on the latter. Then the Tory candidate was Steve Norris and he had all the post-Hatfield baggage of his Jarvis connection to deal with. That cost him terribly yet he still came reasonably close.
100. Except the Germany of 1939 was not the same political entity as that of pre-1919, and the aimed expansion was Eastern rather than Western.
Someone on here argued with me a little while back that the American war of Indendence was not Enlightenment based but more Burkean conservatism. He persuaded me. All events have causal linkages with those before them, the point is to look for critical shifts, and 1789 was certainly one of them if we are to frame an ideological age.
66 Nick when you lose the bet you can console yourself that the best man won and that although the cats might be upset Helen House Hospice will happily take money off any MP willing to give it - even a socialist with a blind spot for permatanned Pete and his amazing non-performing policy forum
Tyson
schemes are hare-brained not hair brained; as in ‘Tyson’s hare-brained scheme to convince everyone all tories are evil backfired when he realised he himself was a tory, just too scared to come out of the closet’
One more before my the “creatures” swarm to this site
Darling’s plan to pay off Rock investors
Hugo Duncan, Evening Standard
The Government is drawing up plans to compensate angry Northern Rock shareholders as nationalisation of the mortgage lender draws ever closer.
Chancellor Alistair Darling is eager to avoid protracted legal battles with investors who could have seen their holdings in Northern Rock wiped out if ministers decide to take the bank into public ownership.
It marks a change of heart by Darling and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who have consistently said their priorities in solving the crisis are financial stability, savers and borrowers, and the taxpayer - with shareholders bottom of the pile.
But hedge funds SRM Global and RAB Capital, which together own 18% of Northern Rock, have threatened to sue the Government if it is nationalised. They argue the bank is worth about 400p a share.
While it is highly unlikely Darling will agree to compensate shareholders by anything like as much, the Treasury is ready to compromise.
97. Further, there’s no need for Obama to challenge the results - he won the same number of NH delegates as Clinton.
On the VP debate, I agree with those who can’t see Richardson as Obama’s running mate. Richardson does bring several key strengths to the race, but he’s another choice for the slicers and dicers - who just can’t imagine a Democrat winning by more than a narrow margin that further polarises the country.
My view is that Obama needs a western governor, one who emphasises his strengths as a consensus builder. Who better than Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas: a two term Dem Governor in one of the reddest states (but one Obama has a history with given it’s his mum’s home state), with a record of working (indeed running with) Republicans; a strong, confident, articulate woman (which will placate those women alienated by Clinton losing).
I think there’s a real opportunity for Obama to run the table in November on a scale not seen since Johnson.
The real agenda of Hillary Clinton (and why I detest her so much)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a86pY4CBoF0U
Totally O/T, on a lighter note, though, this made me laugh!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XncucACVLzA
106 - I wonder if Paddick will do better than Simon Hughes did. I recall that Hughes only got about the same as Susan Kramer. When you consider that Kramer was up against three serious candidates, and Hughes up against two - and that Kramer was an unknown, you can realise how well she did (in comparison with Hughes at least).
Well you get all sorts on the inetrnet.
Like a page headed by Boris Johnson and some bunny girls, followed by a rambling discussion of European history.
You couldn’t make it up…
And why Newt Gringrich will NEVER be a Presidential candidate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skv-wWCvGyw
Hehehe
When does it effectively become too late to enter or re-enter the race for the GOP nomination? I built up a large position on Sam Brownback last autumn, believing him to have a good outsider’s chance - IIRC I backed him at an average price of around 45-1, but he now seems lost without trace.
A number here are totally writing off Giuliani’s prospects, yet he resolutely remains 3rd favourite for the nomination.
The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner confirmed that it has received a complaint about 147 Labour members of parliament failing to register payments from third parties to their constituency associations.
Eight members of the cabinet including the Prime Minister have been cited by a cross party letter signed by members of parliament. Two Tory, two Liberal Democrat, Two SNP and a Welsh Nationalist have all signed the letter requesting an investigation into the opaque manner in which Labour MP’s have been caught trying to subvert outside interest of their funding arrangements.
It is believed an SNP member has forwarded a dossier of evidence comprising of some 145 pages of transactions and irregularities in Labour MP’s conduct.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1381083,00.html
116 - would that SNP MP be the Hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan Siar?
116. empty link
116. Try this:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1381083,00.html
Or look on sky directly!
116. Labour wanted war? Now they’ve got it!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Where is Ave It?!
147 Labour MPs to commit Hara-Kiri. Cameron to win all the by-elections.
Con Majority of 50 overnight.
If 147 Labour MPs committed Hari-Kiri, a no-confidence motion would go through, and we would be in General Election territory.
‘the American war of Indendence was not Enlightenment based but more Burkean conservatism the American war of Indendence was not Enlightenment based but more Burkean conservatism’
It was neither. It was about grubby and corrupt commercial interests securing their own positions while hiding behind a smokescreen of constitutionalism.
112 I think he certainly will. Refer you to 98 though imo his only real breakthrough chance as opposed to merely doing quite a bit better than Hughes would be if Boris was so far ahead of Ken he could really appeal to Labour voters much as Bayrou did against Sakozy to PS supporters as the only alternative to Boris
107 - I would hardly put 1989 in the same league as 1789 though!
Arguing that the Germany of 1939 was a different political entity to that of the Kaiser’s is hair-splitting. The point is that there was a period of German expansionism, which led to conflict, which has now ended now that the Germans are busy exporting high-quality engineering and working peacefully within the EU. Make business and bureaucracy not war?
75 - You need to give a majority of the population a stake in the status quo. Strong civic society (charities, NGOs, political parties, tiddlywinks clubs) helps, because its’ the sort of thing a dictator would try to curtail and control - creating conflict. It took a fair few years for Mugabe to finally break the civic society in Zimbabwe, but he did (mainly because he was able to use the unresolved issue of white farms to his advantage).
O/T but no-one else seems to be on thread (is there one?). This sort of refers to a posting a few days ago from Mikhail about disconnection of deaths/tragedy etc. from what we discuss as punters (or pseudo-punters).
Earlier I popped into village shop and there pinned on wall and on counter were airmail letters from British troops in Afghanistan thanking us villagers for the Christmas boxes we sent out via the British Legion. The guys who got them were writing from Musa Qala, the town that was being taken from the Taliban on Gordon Brown’s last visit. Each airmail is filled, not just a short note, with the privates & NCO’s writing about how nice it was to get something from home, about the conditions in Musa Qala and in many cases finishing with a diffident “really I wouldn’t mind if you wrote back”. The letters are humourous, descriptive, some not with greatest spelling and some with pretty primary school writing. Noticed some teary eyes after people read them, men as well as women, because despite the cheer what comes through is desire to mean something to us back in UK.
Suddenly “Our Boys” are real people to us - to the older villagers they may always have been because they or relatives went to WWII, Korea, Malaysia, Aden - but despite the death of Matty Hull (whose family are active in village life) for myself, and a lot of others, Afghanistan and the war there is a distant activity we read about and argue the rights and wrongs about. Not any more.
This Government has been fortunate that the British forces is now not something that many people have relatives or friends in, that Sun has created the cartoon “Our Boys” who aren’t real people - when they become identifiable individuals, who after a terrible battle, living in horrible conditions, respond with such grace to the littlest recognition, then I think, like me, many voters would” ask do we trust these guys to Gordon Brown’s government? If not who would do better by them?”
O/T - The Dow is dropping like a lead weight!
Clinton campaign attempts to close down caucus sites favourable to Culinary Workers Union:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120053210112396131.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
124. No, 1989 wasn’t in the same league. That’s my point - it was the end of ideological conflict that brought in a new age of democratic supremacy.
As for the wars being the same because of German “expansionism”, all wars are caused by at least one country being expansionist, so you could group any set of wars connected to a particular country together.
The first world war was caused by a climate of rival imperial powers looking to expand their power in an environment of a delicate alliance system and vibrant nationalism. The second world war was Nazi Germany trying to overturn the international system of Westphalian states, and bring in a Europe based on racial hierarchy and totalitarian rule. It was a different animal altogether.
Latest Rasmussen on the GOP in SC is a tie between Huckabee & McCain.
Huckabee hasnt surged so much as McCain appears to have dropped. He’s picked the worst time to wilt if Rasmussen is accurate.
I’ve taken a small bet on Huckabee having avoided the primary so far as a betting proposition. McCain is potentially poor value now but I am guessing will make it, just.
126. Not something I’d stick an exclamation mark against meself…
117. Or even na h-Eileanan an Iar?
By the way Clinton still looks ok for Nevada.
OT. I’ve just had dinner with a couple of New Yorkers and they said there isn’t a chance that Americans will vote for either a woman or a black man. They said this was an election the Democrats couldn’t lose ‘but they’re sure as hell going to lose it if they choose either of these two’. They reckon the Republicans are just keeping there heads down and their fingers crossed unable to believe their luck.
I should add that neither of these guys were racist or sexist as far as I could tell but just making a judgement on their countrymen. I know there are a few Americans on here who don’t agree but I must say I found the certainty of these two convincing.
131. If only that were true my bet on Edwards all those months ago would look like genius…..
131 - New York elected Hillary though… I’m confuzzled
131. New Yorkers have a tendency to be hopelessly insular who tend to regard themselves as the beacon of open-mindedness and common sense compared to the hick-dominated, uneducated and bigoted rest of the country.
Huck is still 7/4 with Ladbrokes but is close to that as lay odds with Betfair.
If you take the view that McCain is wobbling that 7/4 may offer a modest bet lay shortly.
130. How so - especially given today’s court rejection of Clinton’s attempt to prevent caucusing of catering workers (an Obama source of strength) along the strip? At best Clinton’s 3% ahead in Nevada (another massive poll collapse there) - but allowing catering staff to caucus at their place of work boosts Obama easily by that much.
136. Obama has had Union backing, hes got the whole vision thing. He won in Iowa…he still hasnt got a lead in Nevada.
Clinton’s margin may be small but its been there.
Secondly Obama is favourite with the bookies despite the polls showing Clinton ahead.
Thirdly, I am guessing Edward’s vote may not quite hold up. He’s had a massive surge in NV which has come out of nowhere. that is what is preventing Clinton getting away and perhaps will spoil her chances. I am of the view it wont quite come through on the day.
Result Obama may will but is poor value, Clinton just as likely to win, better value.
128 On the current figures, there could be a single digit difference between first and fourth for the Republicans in Nevada. Which is as near to pointless as the process gets.
120. Not a great move by labour, they fired the first salvo and have had it returned with severe interest by nearly every single other party. I suspect the sheer hypocricy of labour whining about this united all those parties (probably never happen again). I can just imagine no 10 now, people frantically running around trying to find ways of escaping this new hole they’ve dug for themselves.
137. I wouldn’t be surprised if the attempts to prevent caucusing cause a swing against Clinton, personally.
138. ditto Florida
141. The Florida polls are showing people’s opinions after Huckabee, Romney & McCain have all been covered wall to wall in the news media. When Giuliani starts being talked about, his ratings will rise again.
Good QT line up tonight!
New thread - “Are the Clintons getting rattled”?