Why Lynton Crosby will encourage me to bet on Boris?
February 11th, 2008
Is Ken being ousted the best bet around at the moment?
Cards on the table straight-away: quite simply I believe that the 1.84/1 that’s available on Boris Johnson to win the London Mayoralty is by far the best value political bet that’s currently available. Last October I pocketed £3,400 on Gordon’s general election U-turn and in the coming eleven weeks I’ll be investing at least half of that on Boris - when the prices are right.
As Sean Fear observed in his excellent analysis on Friday Ken won last time thanks to the fact that many non-Labour voters in the GLA election opted to split their ticket and vote for Ken in the Mayoral race.
It’s hard to see in the current climate the “Livingstone Conservatives” or “Livingstone Lib Dems” staying with their 2004 choice and this has two consequences - it will boost the Johnson and Paddick votes and depress the Livingstone one.
Today’s story is a case in point. As part of a plan to fight “incivility, rowdiness, violence” on public transport Johnson is demanding that rowdy and violent youths on the capital’s buses should have their free travel cards confiscated.
Yesterday we had Boris reviving the idea of a London airport off Kent in the Thames estuary as a way of relieving the pressure on Heathrow. Whether this is feasible or not I don’t know but the idea that someone is thinking of their plight should go down well in the outer boroughs to the west of London.
All this is against a background of continued attacks on Ken for the way he has run London. There are further broadsides in the Evening Standard tonight.
In 2004 Ken chalked up a first round total of 35.7% of the vote in the Mayoral election. In the GLA election at the same time Labour got 24.7% - so a massive part of Ken’s success was in securing votes from non-Labour supporters. Will that happen on May 1st? My guess is that it won’t on the same scale and the chances of Ken failing make the latest Johnson odds look attractive.
MessageSpace Advertising
Hopefully he can do for Boris what he did for Howard and co in 2005.
1 - Jonathan, I don’t mean to pick on you particularly, since so many posters of all hues do it, but do you really think that is a constructive way to start a thread?
Boris also getting some relatively positive support from the Sun in today’s leader.
“There are further broadsides in the Evening Standard tonight.”
There are always broadsides in the ES. Nobody takes any notice.
Nevertheless, 7/4 are decent enough odds, especially if LC is assisting.
2. It wasn’t particularly nasty, and it did raise a valid point.
1. Howard might have done much worse without his input.
In both cases he is being brought in very late in the day.
In Howard’s case, the policy platform and slogans had already been set at the 2004 Conference.
In Boris’s case, he has kept his powder dry until the final three month campaign, so Crosby’s arrival might have more impact.
re 1. By all accounts Crosby kept the Tories from disaster and helped them move from the 160s to just under 200 in terms of seats. He also played a big part in promoting the Tory centralised marketing operations which are still here and will, no doubt, be used extensively in the run up to May 1st.
If Boris weren’t Boris the race would be evens the pair. The question is whether the extra risk he carries is accurately reflected in the extra return! Personally I think it is - the market is overestimating the chance of him screwing it up…
4. Commuters read it a lot. And they have uncovered a pretty sloppy attitude towards public money among Ken’s advisers. I think that Lee Jasper will have no choice but to go.
5 - fair enough, I suppose. Maybe I’m having one of my irritable Mondays again - but it does irk me that Mike puts together a piece focusing on betting and with a thesis that we can debate, and posters just take the opportunity to remind us of their own political views (of which we are scarcely unaware :-)).
But I see the point has raised other responses (6/7) so I’ll shut up now.
5 Socrates
Aaron is always in a bad temper on Mondays. It’s something to do with getting in to work early.
Honest.
2 Well I didn’t actually comment one way or another on whether LC did a bad or good job! I guess it’s a case of “Are you thinking, what I’m thinking?”.
12 - I’m thinking that I know what you’re thinking, Jonathan.
4 / 9 - I tend to agree with Sean - while the Standard has often been hostile to Ken the nature of the current attacks (financial impropriety etc..) is very different to the muckraking of the past (what did or didnt happen at a party etc..). It’s certainly enough to make me think very hard about whether to give him my number 2 again and currently I’d be inclined not to.
12. I dont care what your thinking..
13 Well nobody can be in any doubt about what you really think Aaron!!
14. Who is your number one for, Neil?
The Sun have a very anti-Ken leader today. Boris has promised free bus travel for wounded veterans and they respond “We’re looking forward to seeing it matched by Ken. And seeing pigs fly over central london”
17 - Sian Berry
15 So very 2005.
O/T Don’t know if this has been mentioned.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7300737
O/T. Hillary down to 26.8 on the Iowa exchanges!
22 What can you exchange her for?
19. Thanks.
So, to be even more nosy, who are you now considering for your second preference, and would Bicycling Boris have any chance of winning you over?
14,17 - out of interest Neil who would you be thinking of giving your second vote too if not Ken?
Socrates - Just wanted to pick up on your comments about Wisconsin and Indiana, stating that they should lean towards Obama and that he has been doing better in rural and small town areas.
What about the result in Missouri? Clinton ultimately lost the state but she won virtually every rural county and small town while losing St. Louis. Granted it is more Southern and Western (and it borders Arkansas) than Wisconsin but doesn’t this show that Clinton has at least a chance in Wisconsin if she withstands Obama’s momentum.
Also, I’d say Clinton all things being equal should be favoured in Vermont and Rhode Island, as she has done well in the NE primary states. I’m moving towards Rod’s position that mathematically things are looking very touch but still think she has a chance.
That should be tough not touch
I think you’re mad to bet on Boris. He would be in contention (although not necessarily favourite) if the electorate consisted solely of the type of people who read political blogs and work in offices etc with those who do - but in the wider London he hasn’t got a chance.
A big challenge for Lynton Crosby and team will be to avoid Boris Johnson being undermined by having his long history of negative quotes retold time, time and time again.
There are already lots of compilations on YouTube, that suggests this is an issue people do notice. Some may be from political activists but it looks as if many are not.
Examples are http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8d4Z_KHlnGQ and http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EJZ9hTS42sE
Boris can laugh some of these off, but there he could also be damaged by many.
“Boris has promised free bus travel for wounded veterans”
Why? Sounds like the kind of nonsense politics you get in America. Why not offer it to those crippled by industrial accidents?
24 / 25 - While I may not vote for Ken because I’m reaching the point where I dont see him as being any better than Boris I’m still not going to change the habit of a lifetime by voting Tory (even just a second preference). As they are the only two who can win there’s not much point in casting a second preference.
29 - I think that’s the kind of thing people expect, and laugh off, from Boris. If you’re the kind of person that gets offended by it you would probably have never voted Tory anyway (and Boris could win if he just got all the Tories in London to back him).
28 - I disagree - I think you are in danger of thinking of ‘wider London audiance’ as consisting of voters in zones 1&2, in which case you’re probably correct - however, Boris will get lots of Tory votes from the outer London suburbs - what’s important for him is that he just doesn’t lose Tory votes to Ken in Kens stronghold areas.
2 - you seem to have mistaken this for a Tory blog. It’s not. We don’t have to be positive about the Conservative party here.
32 - why didn’t those people vote for Norris in sufficient numbers then? What’s so great about Boris that will get him more votes than Norris?
31 - I suspected that would be your viewpoint - and sympathise strongly with it. If you could countenance a Paddick mayoralty could you see yourself voteing him 1st preference - you’re exactly the type of voter he needs to convince to do that in order to do the impossible and break into the top 2.
“If you’re the kind of person that gets offended by it you would probably have never voted Tory anyway ”
As far as I’m concerned, if that’s true then you’re saying all Tory voters are racists.
34 - Nothing at all, I don’t expect Boris to get appreciably more votes than the previous Tory candidate - I expect Ken to get appreciably less votes.
37 - ah ok. Where will those votes go? Paddick? Stay at home?
New SUSA polls out for Virginia. Changes from 3 days ago:
Obama 60 (+1), Clinton 38 (-1)
McCain 48 (-9), Huckabee 37 (+12)
No surprise on the Dem side, Obama looks to be coasting to a very good victory but if the GOP race is anything like that then Huck is definitely going to be staying in the race. Among the 63% of the voters that describe themselves as conservative Huck is winning 45-40. Obviously McCain is still almost certain to get the nomination, but this is why the GOP odds for the General are so long. McCain is finding it very difficult to coalese GOP conservatives around him. Virginia is exactly the kind of state that could flip to the Dems if there is a big enthusiasm gap.
Mike - although you make a good point about the differential between Ken’s vote and the Labour GLA vote in 2004, I think you and Sean are mistaken in putting this down to the existence of ‘Livingstone Tories’. Whilst I can understand Tories voting for Ken in 2000, I cannot comprehend why this would have been the case in 2004 as Ken was the Labour candidate (who had already introduced the congestion charge) and the Tories had a moderate, sensible and credible candidate themselves.
The low Labour vote in the 2004 GLA elections can largely be put down to the awful results that Labour endured nationally in 2004 (exacerbating the general tendency for incumbent governments to do badly in mid-term local elections). As Labour polled over 200,000 more votes than the Tories across London in the 2005 GE, I see the ‘Ken + non-Labour GLA’ votes in 2004 as coming primarily from people who are naturally inclined to support Labour but who are happy to give the government a kicking in elections they deem to be relatively unimportant (i.e. London Assembley).
Therefore, I don’t think there is going to be a sizeable swing away from Ken. I think that the people who are adamantly opposed to him in this election are predominantly those who didn’t vote for him in 2004 and I think that the result will hinge on the turnout of areas in inner London which are heavily pro-Labour but often reticent about voting rather than the turnout in more conservative parts of outer London (which was already high in 2004). Do we have more polling data on those who split their ballots in 2004?
33 - No-one is asking people to be positive about the Tories - being objective about them (and everyone else) would be a nice standard to aim for though.
35 - Right now I probably would prefer Paddick over Boris and Ken but as he has little better chance of winning than Sian Berry (ie both, unfortunately, have practically no chance) why bother voting tactically when I could vote for the candidate I agreed with most with the same end result.
36 - I’m not surprised that you think that.
Re Obama. Has the world gone mad?
http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/11/ungodly-crowds.aspx
33 - far from it, Stonch, I was under the illusion that this was a betting-related site.
An excellent ABC News four page sourced summary of the present position of both Democrat and Republican races.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1
38 - Stay-at-home + protest to everyone else + people such as Neil not giving a 2nd preference when previously did so for Ken.
re 34. firstly it is four years on from 2004 when Ken was, rightly, basking in the success of the congestion charge.
Secondly the Tories have chosen a candidate who is NOT a director of Jarvis - that cost Norris dearly last time
Thirdly the questioning of Ken custodianship of London is now much broader than just the Evening Standard and provides a lot of meat for Crosby and co to get their teeth into.
Fourthly there’s the overwhelming electoral reality that I outlined in the main article - Ken needs to get the support of Tories and Lib Dems. I do not believe that will happen on anything like the scale of last time.
& 34 - I bet on politics to make money - not to reinforce my own prejudices. It is fools who just back their own favourites who make this such a profitable activity. Keep spreading the word about Ken - it will make the prices better.
4
PTP, on what basis do you claim that nobody notices? Do you not ever watch BBC london news after the main news? Peeps know who Lee Jasper is by now, surely.
ps
I hope you had some Ob. pres on betfair as I pointed out last night. I should have done it myself but all my cards are maxed out on footie for now.
46 - you’re overplaying how important Jarvis was to the mass of voters.
I don’t believe Tories voted for Ken last time.
What proportion of the electorate in London is actually aware of the mayoral election this year? I guess it is quite low.
I remember a few days before the Scottish Elections last year the percentage aware of them was pretty small.
41 - Very fair arguement, unfortuanatly yet another voter disenfranchised by a screwed up voting system…
41 - I’m disenfranchised by not having a preference between Ken and Boris rather than by the voting system. Though I would prefer a full STV election the net effect would be no different (I’d vote all the way down and still be unable to decide between Ken and Boris who would still be the only 2 able to win).
28. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure you’re not a Londoner, so how can you be so positive he “doesn’t have a chance”. There are wards in some of the outer London boroughs where Tory candidates were polling 3-3,500 votes in May 2006. If Boris can get those sorts of votes in the same wards, he’s probably home and dry.
29. If he was going to be undermined by them, his campaign would have sunk without trace by now.
34. He’s not Chairman of Jarvis. He’s well-liked by both Conservatives and swing voters (Brandindex have always shown him to be one of the few popular politicians). Conservative support is higher in London than it was four years ago. And Livingstone’s political skills have deteriorated over that period.
40. Because of the multiple ballots, we know that lots of people who voted Conservative for the Assembly in 2004 voted for Livingstone as Mayor (about one sixth of the Conservative total). I’d suggest that most people who vote Conservative in local elections vote for them at national level (there are exceptions like Brent North).
26. The status of a state needs to be judged on more than just geography. Missouri is certainly southern in it’s mindset and whites in these states tend to go for Hillary. However, Indiana and Wisconin are certainly Midwestern in their outlook. They are focused on Chicago as the hub of the region, although Indiana also looks Eastwards. Just check out this map of the Midwest and notice how the roads run. Chicago’s suburbs run right up to the Wisconsin border. Likewise Indiana, from where lots of people commute into the windy city.
Now scroll down on the map and check out Missouri. Most of the rural population is clearly in the orbit of Tulsa, Oklahoma and Memphis, Arkansas. It’s quite simply a different kettle of fish.
Vermont and Rhode Island are a different issue, and will certainly be much closer. But remember Vermont is the state that elected Dean governor, with whopping majorities sometimes. I think it highly likely they see Obama as a Dean mark II. Rhode Island is the most likely to go Clinton, but again, they have a very educated population and it’s also a very small state, making it easy for Obama to go in and make an impression among a sizable percentage of the electorate, which is where he does best.
42 - It’s this kind of thing that worries me. Obama is on the crest of a wave and politically I agree with him on a lot. I really liked his Virginia speech because it actually started to put the meat on the bone - support for the minimum wage, universal health care and tax relief for the poor.
I want the Democrats to win, and I dont really care who does it for them. Obama is a transformational leader, and could deliver a Dem landslide but the risks are also higher. People are projecting all their hopes on to him, and in a primary campaign he is winning because he is the more attractive character. In the General there will be much heavier policy clashes. Will he be up to it? And more important will he be able to maintain his message? I think that he will because he has been able to do so against the formidable Clinton machine. There is a danger thought that after 8 months, in such a media intensive contest his message becomes stale.
Howevert at somepoint he is going to confront the Blair effect, possibly magnified massively. Assuming he becomes President there will be huge expectations, that no matter what happens he won’t be able to fulfill. He will eventually become just another politician, part of the Washington system. He is compared to Kennedy but he actually wasn’t a very good President. If he hadn’t been assassinated he would not be revered in the way he is.
Obama has the potential to be a great US President and join FDR and LBJ as great transformative Democratic Presidents, or he could end up being another Carter or Clinton. If I were a US citizen I’d vote for him because the potential rewards are so great, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t reasons to be skeptical.
This map!
54 - Fair enough, and thanks for the detail on the difference. I still think Clinton has to make a major play for Wisconsin. It may not be easy terrain for her but I think she has at least a chance of taking it.
Third time lucky
Were the 2004 Elections in London held on the same day as the Euros ?
If they were didn’t that bring out voters who wouldn’t normally dream of voting in a local election albeit a very large one ?
In which case, would such voters not have been likely to have voted disproportionately for the candidate they had vaguely heard of, i.e. Ken
Way o/t - I have one simple rule with betting - dont bet on things I want to happen - so I dont bet on Plaid or Welsh Rugby.
I listened to Mike’s suggestion about Barrack Obamba last year and am looking increasingly likely to make a nice 1000 pounds profit.
So I thought I would share a rugby betting tip - not on the 6N but on the European Cup - bet on the Ospreys to win. They have to play Saracens in the Q/F - and then have a ‘home’ S/F followed by a final at the Millennium Stadium.
That would be a reasonable position but the clincher is the coaching that the the majority of the Ospreys team have been getting by being involved with Wales. The Ospreys’ coach (Lyn Jones) is at best erratic which is why the Ospreys have been erratic all season. But now with the majority of the team recieving additional coaching from Warren Gatland, expect them to be much more focussed and able to deliver the killer punch when it matters.
I will not be betting on them because it will break my rule. But take the tip from me - Ospreys to win the HEC.
55. Agreed, sorta. But I go back to my (somewhat maligned!) Karol Wojtyla (sp?) comparison.
Pope John Paul II was a huge gamble for the college of cardinals. The first non-Italian Pope in centuries, a Pope from a communist country, etc etc.
Yet he turned out to be the greatest Pope for… several centuries.
Sometimes the gamble does pay off. Bigtime. I think right now, with the world the way it is, Obama is worth the punt.
Incidentally, I just read about Obama’s Maryland meetings. Apparently he’s got 18,000, with thousands locked out, and there’s another meeting in the same state later today!
Would that we had such an enthusing figure in British politics.
59 Yes, they were.
59 “Were the 2004 Elections in London held on the same day as the Euros ?”
If this is the case, it probably boosted the UKIP vote at all levels. UKIPpers probably transfered to the Tories.
What will happen to the UKIP GLA seats?
63 I expect UKIP to lose theirs, and the BNP to pick up two.
Mayoral (1st preference results last time)
Labour - 686k
Tories - 542k
LibDem - 285k
UKIP - 116k
Respect- 62k
BNP - 58k
Green - 57k
CPA - 42k
Total 1st preference votes for Mayor: 1.87m
Assembly (top-up votes)
Tories - 534k
Labour - 468k
LibDem - 316k
Green - 160k
UKIP - 157k
BNP - 60k
Respect- 88k
CPA - 55k
Total top-up votes for Assembly: 1.86m
Ken picked up lots of first preference votes from supporters of other parties, Norris didn’t.
48 It’s subjective, EDW.
I travel to the City fairly regularly and used to do so more. Not many people buy the ES, preferring instead to read the freebies. I do buy it. I like it. It’s a good paper, if you ignore the tubthumping.
Much of the tubthumping concerns Ken. I just turn over, because I know it’s likely to be highly partisan, unreliable reporting. As far as I can tell - and I did say this is subjective - a lot of people do the same. Those that don’t are likely to be Kenhaters anyway.
Amongst my friends and colleagues, I can’t recall hearing anybody who took the ES reports at face value, and they are by no means a Leftish bunch. On the odd occasions I have discussed Ken and the Mayorals with them, their attitudes have tended to be close to mine - they don’t like him much, but reckon he can run a City passing well. Boris otoh is regarded as a nice guy who couldn’t run a bath.
The vote amongst my highly unrepresentative sample falls heavily in favour of Ken.
This is my justification for saying ‘nobody notices’ the ES reports. It may be wrong, but it is not unreasonable. I believe that if the ES were itself less dogmatic and partisan, it would be taken a lot more seriously when it does come up with something of substance. I’m afraid its reporting of the congestion charge, and the silly ‘party’ incident, damaged its credibility enormously in relation to its reporting on Ken generally.
Thanks for the heads-up on the Pres. market. Yes, I did increase my Ob. position, which glows with health and promise this evening.
Cheers.
65 But compare the difference between the votes for Conservative and Labour at constituency level, and the votes for their Mayoral candidates.
61. I don’t think we go for Great Men worship, in quite the way Americans do. American patriotism is on a quasi-religious level, and certain figures of its history get woven into the fabric of American identity - Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan etc. Churchill is the nearest thing we’ve got, but we’re must more level-headed in our appraisals, with frequent references to his alcoholism etc.
55 - What is interesting is not that people don’t know where Obama stands politically, because they do (he’s a liberal), but that he gets support despite his politics being different.
Sod it:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=illinois&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIC&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl
67 - I’m not disagreeing with you, Sean, though the constituency total of 562k votes for the Tories isn’t all that much higher. I’m sure the Jarvis connection did damage Norris, as probably did the high UKIP vote because of the Euro elections.
For all the attention Sian Berry is getting [relatively speaking - featuring on the Heathrow ads et al.], you wouldn’t guess the Greens had come seventh in the Mayoral election last time, would you?
I assume the BNP are likely to come fourth this time around - what’s your opinion, Sean?
Despite the almost universal writing off on here of Hillary’s chances against Obama the 2 latest tracking polls still show her leading Obama Gallup by 2% and Rasmussen by 5% . Perhaps the US voters as a whole don’t quite see things as we do and they have a vote we don’t .
69. As long as they get assurances that someone isn’t a radical, most Americans are willing to give liberalism (or in more recent parlance “progressivism” a go right now. There’s nothing like of eight years of Bush with a compliant congress to bankrupt the GOP’s special brand of conservatism.
72. PBers are looking ahead to what the media narrative will be over the next month or so. US voters haven’t experienced that narrative yet, so they’re yet to reflect the arguments we are espousing.
53 (Sean Fear):
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure you’re not a Londoner”
The Dome of St Pauls is visible from the end of my street. I’m a Londoner alright.
“Because of the multiple ballots, we know that lots of people who voted Conservative for the Assembly in 2004 voted for Livingstone as Mayor”
No. You don’t “know” that. You’re assuming that. Those people could have voted for candidates other than Norris or Ken, and some might have left Mayor blank.
53 (Sean Fear):
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure you’re not a Londoner”
The Dome of St Pauls is visible from the end of my street. I’m a Londoner alright.
“Because of the multiple ballots, we know that lots of people who voted Conservative for the Assembly in 2004 voted for Livingstone as Mayor”
No. You don’t “know” that. You’re assuming that. Those people could have voted for candidates other than Norris or Ken, and some might have left Mayor blank.
71 What your figures clearly show is that a lot of people who voted Green in the Assembly voted for Livingstone as Mayor. I can’t see that changing much. The Tories who voted for Livingstone were partially offset by supporters of minor parties (principally UKIP and BNP) who supported Norris.
Assuming UKIP drop sharply (which must help Johnson), and the SWP wing of Respect doesn’t poll well (which must help Livingstone), then the BNP must stand a good chance of coming fourth in the Mayoral election.
Kieran speaks for me too (as does Scorates’ quote, and I know Socrates rates Obama), but I’m coming to accept that Obama will probably win the nomination, in which case I hope he wins in NNovember and turns out well.
As for the thread topic, rather than repeat what I’ve said before I’ll just repeat my offer to Kingbongo to extend our charity bet by another tenner. It’s possible that Boris will win, of course. But in my opinion very, very unlikely, for the reasons in PtP’s post. The Conservatives would actually have a better chance with somebody nobody had heard of.
75 Fair enough.
But no, I’m not assuming anything. We can compare the way people voted at Mayoral and Assembly level.
64 - you always seem to talk the BNP up!
I might have a touch on Gord to go sooner than we think.
Trade deficit worse than expected
Britain has been running a trade deficit for a number of years
The UK trade’s deficit with the rest of the world for December came in worse than experts predicted, Office for National Statistics figures show.
It seems to be all negative news now for the miracle. PPI hits record since 1991 and the deficit gets worse and worse. Government spending is outside EU guidelines, house prices are headed south, reposessions soar, BoE revise growth figures downward again today………..
Gordon gone by the 2nd Q 2008?
74 - Yup, that’s about right - the media merely react to trends but, at pb, we’re ahead of the game!
80. Not really. They only need 7% or so to win two seats, and they won 4.9% last time.
So in other words they need to increase their vote share by 70%… at a time when the party is divided. Doesn’t seem likely to me, unless you consider the far right to be on some relentless march toward electoral success. And why anyone would think that is beyond me.
Ruth Lee was great on R4 this morning. Condemned the trade figures saying something must be done, but defended the consumer’s right to buy what they want from where they want. Now I am sure there is a perfectly consistant point in there somewhere. Hands up who’s working on a British manufactured PC.
85 - I hear she’s got a role on Eastenders. Going to play Gus’s aunt.
84 - Election results show that the BNP is doing well in many areas, the electorate don’t care if they are split, as far as they are concerned a vote for thr BNP is merely a kick up the backside for the other parties. Anyone who knows certain areas of the north or east of London will have seen it.
I think Sean has it right unfortunately, the BNP may well get representation on the GLA.
re and even with everything hidden off the balance sheet and the “most quarters of growth ever” as he once crowed at a budget the public finances are still £30bn+ in the red.
re 85 me - it was put together by my lodger!
87 - but if they’re divided their ability to campaign and get their vote out will be impaired.
re 83 it’s the same in the Europeans - the BNP only need a modest increase in votes in some regions to pick up a handful of seats. With the implosion of UKIP whose voters would I imagine be more inclined to vote BNP than anything else this is a highly likely scenario I’d have thought. Shame no-one’s got a market on it yet.
90 - They don’t need to campaign, the vote they get is more dependent on national news stories like today’s ‘migrants arrested every four minutes’ or something like that. I wouldn’t be surprised if heavy campaigning actually had the effect of suppressing their vote.
I’m not an economist (a typical precursor to a post about the economy:p) but I think house prices might be the single most important factor right now.
House prices affect consumer confidence, which is far lower now than in the recent past. If they plummet you get negative equity and repossessions… and if you have a nationalised bank you get the government repossessing your house.
Finally, on houses, if the price slumps the NR assets fall in value and the prospect of getting our money back diminishes. “Vote Labour, we lost you £100bn” ain’t a vote-winning slogan. (I’d be staggered if they actually lost that much, but multi-billion losses are entirely possible).
Plus there’s the “An Englishman’s home is his castle” sense of attachment we have over here.
Off-chance of a recession this year or next (if I were a betting man and had decent odds I’d put a little on it). We’ve got a better housing situation (because demand still far outweighs supply) compared to America, but we can’t dick about with fiscal things because we’ve got a great big deficit and there’s an £8bn hole in the public finances anyway.
I feel quite sorry for Darling.
74/82 You may be right but perhaps it is us that are overreacting to what is happening now and not at taking note of the bigger longer term picture . I include myself here as I have balanced my book to be all Green plus £ 25- £ 28 on each instead of laying Obama to wait for a Clinton come back .
Romney’s campaign is “on hold”. What does that mean?
If Romney endorsed Huckabee would his 300 or so delegates switch to Huckabee giving him over 500 and not that far behind?
I just can’t understand the Obama hype. No policies and (next to no) experience should equal no chance. I see his speeches and I keep think 45 state (at least) Republican landslide. If Obama wins the nomination the odds on the Republican carrying Delaware, New Jersey and even New York are looking very attractive.
86 - are we confusing Ruth Lea, former head of the IoD, and one time TV chef and Game for a Laugher, also UKIPper, Rustie Lee, who is indeed going to appear in Eastenders?
Ruth Lea has been in a soap opera. Apparently she used to play Mrs Mangel in Neighbours.
96 - What odds? £50 says that Obama would win all three (at the right price).
Intrade have (at my prompting) added a market on the Mayor of London - an alternative to betfair.
A new poll by AP-Ipsos also has Clinton leading Obama 46-41 and Huckabee closing a bit on McCain . Confess I am puzzled .
96. Matthew, are you sure you’re not being mislead on this whole thing by your convictions about the Iraq war? I know you are extremely pro-war and probably regard anyone against it as naive and foolish. Is this not clouding your whole opinion against Obama?
I am not an Oamatron as everyone knows on here - but do feel against McCain he will be the next POTUS - if he can keep Obamania going he will do really well - I would love to see some head to head polls state wise regarding a McCain v Obama match up as the national picture does not really mean anything -
oops Obamatron
98. Yeah, I’m not a betting man, but I’d like to hear what odds he would give on Obama winning, say, 20 states?
I was skeptical of Obama but the speech in Virginia is on the right track adding meat to the bones - I was very impressed so was my partner - more of the same and he could be the next nominee - it all hinges on TX and OH whoever wins those for the Democrats is the next POTUS - and by the looks of things it is a toss up at the moment
84,
Ask Professor Helen Margetts, and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.
Link to powerpoint
BNP up from 2.7 to 4.7 from 2000 to 2004 in London Assembly.
Danger of significant BNP gains in local elections 2006 (as it happened, the BNP representation went from 20 seats to 46 that year, after the prediction).
BNP net increase of 1 in 2007.
There is a real danger of BNP successes.
96. With the greatest respect Matthew, I’ve noticed that you tend to be wrong on everything.
100 - These polls are national polls and therefore include places that have already voted. Gallup explicitly say that their polls should NOT be seen as indicative of primary results because they are not based on likely primary voters. The national polls should be seen as mood music and aren’t that significant. However the fact that Hillary is still in the lead, and gettign 40%+ should caution people against thinking this is all over. She has a big and enthusiastic base and can come back, especially if Obama slips up. Her problem is that she is not fighting on favourable terrain and by the time she is it may be too late.
Also, to pick up on the point about the design of the system (specifically ST) being favourable to Clinton. Actually if you look at it there are lots of things that have been favourable to Obama (by chance not design).
1. ST happened because so many states wanted more influence. Clinton encouraged it, and it proably benefited her, but there were other factors at work.
2. Michigan and Florida - if these states had voted on ST Clinton would probably have come out with a clear lead, and would be about 50 delegates better off.
3. Proportional system - if all states were WTA (similar to GOP) Clinton would be ahead by about 400 delegates.
4. Caucuses - these benefit Obama’s demographics (richer, better educated), and have more delegates per voter due to lower turnout.
Even NH being so close after Iowa, where she was always going to struggle nearly saw her off.
It just goes to show that circumstance can play a big role in politics. (Similarly on the GOP side if all states had the same rules Romney may still be in the race).
I understand the historical reasons for state peculiarity but it would be much fairer to simply have one member one vote, and the nominee is the one who has the most votes at the end.
OT, but the provisional recommendations for the new Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies are released on Thursday.
Has Boris decided yet if he can continue as MP for Henley if he wins the mayoralty?
Clearly, a double-edged sword - he won’t want to be labelled a ‘part-time Mayor’ but at the same time will want to avoid a by-election if he does win.
If it goes to Texas then things get very complex. They have a weird hybrid caucus/primary system. Obama could have an advantage her too in terms of winning delegates. They are allocated to state senate districts based on Democratic performance. This means Black districts get more delegates, probably benefitting Obama.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/texass_unique_primaucus.php
108. The problem in having one national primary nationwide, with whoever winning the popular vote winning, is that candidates like Obama would never break through.
Mark Senior @ 72/94.
The Gallup is a tracking poll that has the Clinton lead continuing to narrow over the past week.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104281/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx
15: I wish I could say I don’t care if you’re always demonstrating appalling grammar.
110 - I am currently working in Henley, but I will have finished there before any by-election. Shame!
Ken did continue to the next GE, but his seat was in London.
107 - Matthew confidently predicted that Iraq would prove a vote winner for Labour. We are still waiting for the Iraq bounce.
Livingstone Lib Dems - Surely this only matters if they switch to Boris or abstain on second preference unless you believe Paddick could make the top two. I mean even if Boris topped the first round he’ll still need a sizeable number of Lib Dem second preferences I think correct
The correct term for an Obama fan should be an Obamensch.
94, 113. The polls haven’t changed that much because the media narrative of Obama stacking up wins hasn’t started yet, although there were hints of it this morning. You can expect media reports exploring this to start on Wednesday morning, and then the polls to start reacting two or three days after that as the feeling sinks in to voters.
113. Same true of the Rasmussen tracking poll.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history
The Clinton lead in the AP-Ipsos has shrunk from 13 points to 5 in two weeks!
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080211-3topline.pdf&id=3813
116 - I can easily see Boris being top on first preference. However, if he does this by squeezing first preferences out of LDs and others, then he can expect fewer second preferences from LD diehards.
In short, the more the Tories squeeze the LD vote, the more anti-Tory the residual LD vote will be.
113/119 I take your point but my interpretation of the graphs is that Clinton is leading now by virtually the same lead she had at the end of Jan ie no significant change . I have followed the pb lead and levelled out my position but gut feel tells me I should be laying Obama at the current odds .
112 - I’m not suggesting all states vote on the same day (although I think it unfair that the same states always get to go first), just that they all use the same system and a national tally of votes would be kept. Rather than a delegate count you would have a vote count.
120 Am I not reading the table correctly , the lead was 7 points on the previous poll compared to 5 points now 40/33 cf 46/41 not a signoficant reduction .
I admit that his antiwar stance puts me off him. However, Hillary is antiwar - and I’ll admit that she would make a reasonable president. I generally don’t like to buy into hype whether its someone who has been in the Senate for 4 years in the White House or the idea of David Petraeus on the Republican ticket. If Obama had spent four years longer in the Senate, had some substantive policies and wasn’t so naive where foreign policy was concerned I wouldn’t be so negative towards him.
98. Sounds an interesting bet. What odds would you be willing to give me on McCain winning one of DE, NJ & NY if Obama gets the nomination?
92. We’ve got a better housing situation (because demand still far outweighs supply) compared to America
I’m afraid that may turn out to be an illusion. Economic demand is a function of affordability as well as desire. There are currently over one million properties listed on Rightmove for sale in the UK. That’s a lot of property and mortgage approvals are plummeting to levels not seen since the height of the last housing recession.
126 - how many were listed a year ago?
121 I think Sean F has shown very persuasively that this election will not be decided by 2nd preferences - well I thought it was persuasive anyway.
I have always thought Boris will win - for no other reason than that Ken is looking tired, v. bad tempered and even more sneery than usual. He has been this way for about 18 months and I think it will cost him the election. Many of Ken’s excellent election winning techniques are running out of steam and even he doesn’t seem to put much faith in his ‘racist smear’ speeches anymore.
It will be a great fight but I don’t think trying to persuade LDs to give him their 2nd preference vote is the way for Boris to go - he has to get all of London’s tories to vote for him and then he will win.
SUSA polls for Maryland, changes on 3 days ago.
Obama 55 (+3) Clinton 32 (-1)
McCain 52 (-4) Huckabee 26 (+9)
The polls on the Dem side for VA and MD have been remarkably similar, SUSA, Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon and ARG all in agreement. With their track record though they’ll still probably be wrong.
125 - I’ve put down my stake, I’m just waiting for you to suggest the odds.
125. How on earth do his healthcare and education proposals not count as substantial? What about his plan for a Housing Trust Fund? To increase the minimum wage? The Green Jobs Corps for unemployed youths? The introduction of a cap and trade scheme? His privacy protection plans or commitment to net neutrality? Have you even looked into his policies or have you just thought “He gives a good speech and opposed the glorious invasion - must be policy free!”
As for experience, he’s more experienced than many previous Presidents. Does working in a state legislature not count? Nor community organising? Nor his legal experience - essential for someone who appoints Justicies? What about living in Hawaii and Indonesia, actually understanding the mindset of people outside of the continental US.
As for naivety, I would say his judgment on the Iraq war when most of the Western world still believed the manufactured was both insightful and correct. Unlike the foreign policy of John McCain, who seems to believe in some sort of stab-in-the-back myth in Vietnam and thinks it’s sensible to commit troops to Iraq for a century until we win.
126. Surely price is one variable in the demand function, thus the function itself is not affected by price?
84 No they need to increase their vote share by 2.1%. The BNP split hasn’t affected them in London, and compared to 2004, they’ve established quite a strong base in North East London. They had no councillors in 2004. They have 14 now. A rise from 4.9% to 7% or so hardly constitutes a big increase.
Going back on topic, this is reminiscent of the Bush/Kerry contest. So many people thought Bush was a prat that they shut their eyes to every bit of evidence suggesting he was heading for victory. Likewise, people who think Johnson’s a prat simply assume that because they couldn’t vote for him, others won’t. Yet the only poll we’ve had this year with a decent sample size puts him level-pegging with Livingstone. The evidence suggests this will be a close contest.
133 - Bush/Gore
As I pointed out on here very recently, the best way of backing Boris appears to be via Spreadfair’s 25-10-0 index (assuming you consider this is a two horse race, which it surely is), where his current price is 14.8 - i.e. you win 10.2 times your stake if he’s elected and lose 4.8 times your stake if he comes second.
This represents odds of 2.12/1, compared with Betfair’s current offering of just 1.7/1, i.e. 24% higher odds.
If I had to call it, I think Ken will hold on. Boris doesn’t have a serious campaign at the moment, the popular resonance against the establishment that he really needs. A Cameronesque figure would do better. He’s a step into the unknown, and he’s just too easy to campaign against. If Gordon doesn’t stuff up too much in the meantime, I can see Boris heading back up the Thames to Henley in May.
125- Hillary is not anti-war, she’s as hawkish as Bush. True, she’s gone cold on this war but there’s no reason to think that she wouldn’t have acted entirely as Bush did in the circumstances, and she is just as much a cheerleader for war against Iran as he is. She also gives Israel unconditional support in its bombing of its neighbours
136 He may very well lose, but not by much. Some peoples’ belief that Ken Livingstone will walk it is silly.
Completely off-topic, but I’m currently reading volume one of the New Cambridge Medieval History, and I was struck by the following passage: “in 500 rivalry existed between Arles and Vienne whose renowned bishop, Avitus, extended his power of consecration to the territory of Arles”.
CON GAIN ARLES?
131 But would a President Obama really act differently in foreign affairs? As I’ve said before, America’s power and position requires her to use force to defend her interests, just as much as Britain’s did in the late nineteenth century.
Obama is pretty Hawkish too - his comments on bombing Pakistan make him little different in my eyes - I suspect we will see little difference in U.S. Hawkishness no matter if McCain, Clinton, Obama get elected.
137 She also gives Israel unconditional support in its bombing of its neighbours.
Well, representing New York she’d need to.
139 - would Van Gogh have voted Tory in Arles? I think not. Van Gogh also lived in Brixton and Ramsgate, both of which have Labour MPs.
139 - yes that is in line with my understanding of elections of this period.
LDs won nothing then, either!
144 - don’t knock the LDs; we may well come second (or third) in the Russian presidentials.
141 By way of analogy, Gladstone hated imperialism, but he still oversaw a huge expansion in British imperial territory. He wasn’t a hypocrite, but circumstances left him little alternative.
a poll for Rhode Island
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_brown_university_rhode_is.php
I’ll offer you 1.25 (in betfair terms or 1/4 in traditional terms) so if you win you get £62.50 back.
145 Zhirinovsky is back……….
Happy birthday NPS
http://tinyurl.com/yv99w9
Just to confirm
1/4 traditional 1.25 digital
You lose you pay me £50
You win I pay you £12.50
133 - wasn’t that poll done on a very small sample? And wasn’t it for the Evening Standard?
134 There wasn’t the same degree of loathing and contempt for Bush amongst enlightened intellectuals in 2000 that there was in 2004. In the latter year, the assumption that he would lose bordered on the surreal.
The highlight of the campaign, for me, was to have people like Richard Dawkins bombarding the inhabitants of Cook County, Ohio, with e-mails telling them what a cretin Bush was, and how they’d better vote for Kerry. I was rather hoping that Bush would win a wafer-thin victory on the back of voters in this county.
152, No it was on a sample of over 1,000. There has been a more recent poll giving Livingstone a 44/40% lead, but with only 240 people being surveyed, the margin of error is 6.5% either way.
4 There are always broadsides in the ES. Nobody takes any notice.
PtP - I know you’ve been running something of a one man anti-London Evening Standard anti-Ken Livingstone campaign on here for some time. Whether or not you’re right is open to debate, but certainly with its sharply depressed circulation, the Standard does’t have the clout it once did.
What I think you may be overlooking is the fact that as the election draws nearer, a number of the same issues which the newspaper has been highlighting will inevitably feature large on TV and radio.
Couple this with Labour’s current deep unpopularity and I really don’t see Livingstone winning this time, not by some distance.
Disclosure - I’ve backed Boris to win on Spreadfair’s 25-10-0 index, referred to in post # 135 above.
138 - yes I’d agree with that Sean. In fact Boris is probably value - just - but I see no prospect of a Ken walkover. He will have to scrap and campaign hard - it will be dirty, but as I see it there is simply too much that will stick on Boris.
lol if Boris wins I predict an imploding of lefties.. “How could you vote for a toff…..???? …. wail etc”