Obama wins the second battle of Iowa
March 16th, 2008
Ten more delegates go on his overall total
ABC News in the US is leading on the above story about the second delegate battle for Iowa - scene of the very first caucus in the nomination process on January 3rd.
According to ABC Obama “saw his delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., grow by 10 on Saturday when Iowa Democrats took the second step in picking national convention delegates..Obama’s gains at Saturday’s county conventions came from successfully wooing Iowa Democratic Party activists who had previously backed former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., as well as picking up the support of some Iowans who had backed Clinton during the Jan. 3rd precinct caucuses.”
As ABC’s Chuck Todd observes Obama has boosted his delegate margin from this activity by more than Hillary Clinton secured in her famous victory in Ohio nearly two weeks ago - underlining the ruthless efficiency of his campaign in piling up the delegate totals.
Other states which have had caucuses will go through a similar process which must leave open the prospect of more gains for Obama on this model. Todd wonders whether a factor might have been the Clinton campaign’s effort to denigrate the states which uses the caucus model.
This latest development will help move the narrative on from the difficult focus that there’s been on the Pastor who married him and Michelle.
Latest Democratic nomination betting has Obama at 0.4/1 having moved out quite a bit in the past few days.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Latest Presidential and Primary Trackers and Florida Poll :
National :
McCain 46% .. Clinton 43%
McCain 47% .. Obama 43%
Florida :
McCain 47% .. Clinton 40%
McCain 47% .. Obama 43%
Primary :
Clinton 44% .. Obama 47%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/florida_2008_presidential_election
Latest Gallup Presidential and Primary Trackers :
McCain 46% .. Clinton 46%
McCain 47% .. Obama 44%
Clinton 45% .. Obama 48%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104971/Gallup-Daily-McCain-47-Obamas-44.aspx
Clinton has turned off far too many Democrat activists through her behaviour to be credible as a uniting candidate (the behaviour of supporters is of much lesser importance in this).
It would be best for her party if the contest could be concluded before Pennsylvania or just after. It’s in the hands of the superdelegates and maybe the DNC could give a lead by suggesting that people declare their support sooner rather than later.
The one problem are the scorched earth 25% of her supporters who say they would vote for McCain. Their bluff has to be called and the new coalitions being built around Obama solidified. If they want to be part of it then fine but they will only hurt themselves by not being so.
2. Obama supporters shouldn’t be counting their blessings yet. It takes a few days for a media story to filter through to polls in the US, so I imagine by about Tuesday or Wednesday Obama will lost a few more points. I think it should start to recover by the end of the week though, due to the good media handling of the problem.
4 - I always take polls as being a lagging indicator. I don’t take today’s polls as being totally concerned with the budget for example, there are also elements of the week and a half or so leading up to it contributing to those figures.
Another link to Mike’s lead :
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/16/773831.aspx
……………….
4 Socrates. Some of the pastorgate scandal should have filtered through into the Sunday trackers, but Obama’s numbers have remained remarkably solid.
Yes, I think this result is emblematic of what’s happened through the whole campaign.
Hillary keeps winning the “big” states, and/or making these great comebacks…. but bit by bit, delegate by delegate, vote by vote, small state by smaller state, Obama is building up an almost insurmountable lead.
Indeed the only way I can see for Hillary to win now is if she destroys him with some super-nasty negative campaign. That might just enable her to scrape through, but the end result will be an America appalled at her gruesome behaviour - and a McCain win in November.
The Dems are in danger of losing an unloseable presidential election.
Essentially the difference between the two contenders is that Obama understands the process and has exploited it to the full - Hillary hasn’t. Who would make the better nominee and President? In my view, the one who has shown he knows how to win.
Matthew Partridge - do you still think Obama is “toast”?
How’s the Saville Inquiry getting along these days? Is Lord Saville being paid a bonus NOT to report?
Latest spreadsheet to reflect these changes as best I can..
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/Democrats.xls
8. Why is knowing how to win likely to make him a btter President? To me, it one of the flaws of our political system that the skills required to win (and which Blair had in abundance) are not that similar to the ones required to govern.
As much as I find her fake (and I wrote her off 6 months ago) I’d feel more secure with Hillary in the White House than Obama.. But she is less likely to beat McCain, so it’s a gamble.
9. They’ll get the money back by releasing a 700 part magazine, which week by week will tell the story of the inquiry.
First issue half price at £2.99………….
Could it be the case that an Obama candidacy would result in an easy McCain victory come November, given that Obama’s main areas of strength in the primaries are strongly Republican areas in which he would have no chance in?
french exit polls from Swiss media:
49.5% for la gouche and 47.5% for la droite (CSA)
13 Noisy. I’m afraid that’s Clinton spin. Obama is extremely competitive in a number of swing and red states. Indeed the suprise of todays polls is Florida, where Obama appears to be outpolling Hillary.
11. De Tocqueville and others worked out that would be the problem with democracy a very long time ago.
so how many other states are going to be doing this?
13 - No, the primaries/caucuses have different electorates to the General Election. It is equally likely to posit that he would win all her ‘real’ Democratic states simply by being a Democrat (Massachussetts and New York will vote Democrat in the general), and that he alone can reach out beyond the foregone Democratic states, to win somewhere like Missouri or Kansas.
Essentially, it is hazardous to extrapolate a candidate’s states won in the primaries to states he or she could win in a GE. I’m not entirely convinced it informs anything, except a candidates ability to get out the vote amongst the party faithful.
I notice the polls, again show McCain ahead of both.
Before anyone says that they are false and wait until the Dems sort out their nomination, we could say the same about any poll that doesn’t suit our outlook.
14 Andrea. You have to report Swiss results in four languages !!
Andrea is Katie Boyle and I claim five Eurovision songs NOT !!
19 - Which is why McCain is surely the value bet for the presidency now - once it becomes a 2 horse race he’ll surely move closer to evens, right? Well that’s where I’ve been putting my money.
re 8. Surely having an appreciation of how to complete a complex and prolonged operation is something that you want to see in a president. On the basis of the campaign Obama has it - Hillary hasn’t.
Surprised Ave It hasn’t spotted this one. Conservatives gain Iran!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7297923.stm
22 - Exactly, but I’d pose it in the negative. If you can’t run a campaign, your not ready to run a country - winning elections is perhaps a necessary but by no means sufficient condition for good government.
22. And on that score the old goat beats them both. At one stage out of cash, derided by some of his own party’s establishment.
That takes some operation to come back and beat that.
re 24. Unless, of course, you are Gordon Brown who managed to become an MP without fighting a contested election and then went on to be party leader and Prime Minister in the same way.
A contested election last May-June would have seen the same result but Gordon’s campaigning skills would have been honed up. He would have also come under some intensive scrutiny - vetted in the Hillary Clinton word - which so far he has not really undergone.
So Labour go into the general election with a completely untested and unvetted leader. What fools the members of the PLP are.
22 Mike S. Quite so. In the dim and distant past when I was a mere stripling at 104 and George Osbourne was still in short trousers …. oh …. he still is ?!?! …. my main concern that Obama would fail to secure the nomination was based on the ‘Clinton machine’.
That machine has proved that complacency and a candidature based on inevitability is mighty vunerable to a well planned and funded insurgent operation that is fronted by a youthful and charismatic opponent.
Jack W is 105 (Campaign funds £7 15/- 9d and a half bottle of Royal Lochnagar Single Malt)
26. ” you are Gordon Brown who managed to become an MP without fighting a contested election ”
were there really just 1 applicant in his first selection contest ahead of 1983?
I know Scottish seats are still very stitched up in some occasions, but they usually have some nohopers to stand just to make it look like it’s a selection contest (a recent Scottish selection with 6/7 applicants 5 of whom didn’t have a hope)
What fools the members of the PLP are.
Indeed. Post of the year.
26&28.They still decide who has won before the contest, makes things nice and neat. That’s why we have Wendy.
Labour has selected Karl Turner for Hull East. Gary Wareing was second. Then the rest
30. I’m talking about parliamentary selections, not leadership elections (Wendy). I know they’re often stitched up, but my question was precise: were there just 1 contender or more but just 1 with chances.
26. Fighting against Brown would be as dumb a career move as moving against him now. You’d be damaged goods for the rest of your political career.
Michael Portillo had an excellent documentary about how the Tory parties decision to knife Thatcher in the back led to successive defeats for those who removed her. It took someone unconnected with her to bring the tory party back.
if we look at the current travails of the Lib Dems, it’s a perfect cipher for the scottish play.
We have a cast of:
Macbeth: Campbell, Clegg and Huhne
Duncan: Kennedy
And of course Banquo: Cable
It does seem that none of the anti-Kennedy plotters have been able to wash the blood off their hands or do anything with their new found role as controlers of the party but bicker and stab each other in the back.
brown hasnt had to fight for much then.given a seat, then given the PMship. no wonder his judgement is rubbish and support team inept.
A question I always wondered about: how many people usually apply for selection in LD held seats?
31
Andrea,was that the constituency that Prescott was lineing up for hios son?
26. Well, a leadership election would have ‘honed’ Brown’s skills, but it might have done some damage to him aswell. Reid would have exposed him badly IMO, whereas Miliband could have seemed like ‘tomorrow’s’ man rather than yesterday’s. I think Brown’s supporters knew the limitations of their man very well and didn’t risk it. Also we were constantly being told that with the Union block vote tied up, Gordon couldn’t lose. Or perhaps that was just spin from Brown’s backers? It was also rather unfortunate that McDonnell and Meacher got the same no. of nominations. Now one of those candidatures COULD have helped him.
Back to Hillary, I think mistakes in her campaign strategy are being exaggerated. Given her comparative voter appeal/likeability compared to her opponent (which is usually critical), maybe she is doing well to still be in there?
36. JohnF, yes, it is Prescott’s current constituency and his son was on the shortlist.
38 - Though I gather he just scraped onto the shortlist?
re 37. The Tories went through an a massive fight in 2005 and Cameron will be a much better general election leader because of it. He was also “vetted” and at times it wasn’t pretty.
Cameron also had to fight for his seat in the first place at a time when there were not many opportunities for ambitious Tories.
All of this honed him up.
Gordon has yet to come under scrutiny. Just read the Tom Bower biography to get a flavour of the potential lines of attack which will come up day by day in the election campaign.
All of this could have been dealt with last May/June
32 Andrea is very precise !!
ChrisD … Beware … He brooks no generality … or failure … Gulp !!
Andrea is Rosa Klebb and he claims all his internet victims !!
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/061109/143538__lenya_l.jpg
37. instead they made sure he didnt get exposed, leaving him open to accusations from the tories, and in the end has left brown incompetant at contests. he panicked and dithered last autumn, and now is trying tactic after tactic to get at cameron and the tories. he has no long term strategy to defeat the tories, and i doubt he ever will have.
39. Neil, he finished third in the end.
Pelosi has made it clear today that it would be problematic if the superdelegates overturned the popular vote.
first estimations
Socialists set to gain Caen and Amiens and narrowly holding Angers.
Close race for Bayrou in Pau
33 - I think you have got it wrong. From what I have heard Kennedy was unfit for office by then.
As Tony Blair once said “If you knew what I know, you would agree…”
Honestly, some of the CK stories I have heard are quite extraordinary. Once I heard them, shortly after the 2005 election, I realised he would be gone soonish. If he had stayed, it was only a matter of time before some enormous embarrassment befell him on a public occasion.
PS set to gain Reims. Education minister could lose Perigeux
32.Andrea, take Mike’s advice and read the Tom Bower biography. IIRC, Brown only put his hat in the ring for his constituency seat when he was given the nod that it would be his.
41.
46. Kennedy wasn’t fit for office. But the way it was handled did no credit to any of the “Plotters.”
Kennedy was a fantastic leader, but a flawed human. But the very fact that he was “human” is more than you can say for any of the current party leaders. I had a lot of respect for him. I have virtually no respect for his replacement; Clegg.
Martine Aubry re-elected in Lille. La droite hold Mulhouse
48. “IIRC, Brown only put his hat in the ring for his constituency seat when he was given the nod that it would be his. ”
yes, but this is not my question. My question is “did other people apply even if they were no hopers?”.
51 - If anyone can find the answer, it is a certain brilliant and charming Italian student based in Milan. I hope he will soon be visiting the site
52. John, I wasn’t born..so I’ve an excuse not to know it.
It wasn’t a political point, but just a curiosity.
I recall there was a Holyrood Labour selection with 0 applicants once…but it was for a very no hope seat
49 - I have a lot of time for Kennedy too. He was a very good leader until he seemed to lose it in about 2004. He was pretty poor in the 2005 election campaign.
Deux-Sèvres and Somme to swing to the left at cantonales elections
ukpaul: “The one problem are the scorched earth 25% of her supporters who say they would vote for McCain. Their bluff has to be called and the new coalitions being built around Obama solidified. If they want to be part of it then fine but they will only hurt themselves by not being so.”
Hell, no. I remember Labour people arguing just like that in 1983 - in fact maybe ukpaul was one of them, as I think he said he used to be one of us? Whether the nominee is Obama (whose big drop in yesterday’s trackers wasn’t repeated in today’s update) or Clinton, they really need some serious outreach and TLC for the losers rather than a ‘get on board or get lost’ approach. There are worse refuges than McCain if people are sufficiently cheesed off.
53 - Andrea, Not sure this definitively answers your question but this site
http://www.gordonbrown.co.uk/bio002years74to83.htm
asserts:
“….At the same time, if he was to secure a safer Parliamentary seat, he needed the support of trade unions who often ran constituency parties like their own fiefdoms (or at least, wielded significant influence). Gordon Brown offered to train union officials in how to handle the media effectively, working closely with the amenable Jimmy McIntyre, of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. In return, in 1983, McIntyre supported his candidature in the safe Labour seat of Dunfermline East. It was agreed that Brown - who had been elected the Scottish Party’s vice-chairman in 1982, and its chairman in 1983 - was the right candidate. Other challengers were seen off and the seat was his…”
Unclear whether these challenges were “seen off” before or at the selection.
40. You are working on the assumption that Brown ‘could’ turn himself into a good campaigner. I doubt it. And if bad things had come out last year, I doubt they would have been forgotten.
57. John, thanks. Some Scottish selections still operates in similar ways now with challengers being seen off before the actual contest. However usually a couple of no hopers still stand just to have a formal contest. That’s what I wondered.
“don Brown offered to train union officials in how to handle the media effectively”
not sure if handling the media was his best quality.
[16] - Not a problem with democracy, as such, but with representative democracy in particular. There are other options - I believe the Greeks made widespread use of the lottery system, and I’ve heard delegated voting championed on here.
59 - “not sure if handling the media was his best quality”
Yeah, but I dont think critical self-analysis is either so he may have been under the impression that he was actually quite media-savvy…
56 - Isn’t it much more comparable to the post Foot realignment though? The need for the Democrats to become a less partisan party would lose some hardline Clintonistas but frankly there’s nothing much for them to get cheesed off at in Obama’s platform. Much less so than the labour left who were marginalised after the 83 loss.
It’s a bluff, based on pique and not policy. The labour shift was ideological, any Obama shift is likely to be much less so, more tactical and presentational in fact.
I didn’t suggest antagonising them in any case, just not pandering to them.
(I voted labour up to 92, a year too young in 83 though).
Education minister admists defeat in Perigueux
Andrea. I see Gianni Versace’s pad at Lake Como has been sold …. apparently the place is stuffed full of young gentleman in a state of undress and a striking likeness of a centenarian Jacobite gentleman on his hols …. art, you understand !!
http://www.lemonlight.org/photos/uncategorized/deckchair2.jpg
61. so is it his fault if unions had a bad reputation and image in the 80s? They had him as a media advisor!
59, 61 - But if I recall correctly (long pause), during the late 1980s/early 90s, particularly when he was Shadow Industry Secretary, Brown was extraordinarily adept with the media, with scoop after scoop based on being (ironically) the willing recipient of juicy Whitehall leaks.
64 - Blimey, I hadn’t realised you were related to Mussolini
64. Jack, I know nothing, I won’t comment
New York Times today:
“While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama’s campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters”.
Paper leans to Clinton, being New York I suppose, interesting they should comment thus.
UMP hold Le Havre
Gauche gain Metz (split opposition) and Saint Etienne
68 Andrea. I was on hols with a certain Hersham gentleman and his ‘friends’ :
http://www.channel4.com/4laughs/media/images/caption/2007/May/C0105_wk18_montypython2_L.jpg
PS gain Strasbourg
70 Andrea. How my old mucker Bayrou doing ??
71 - Hey, don’t knock the canvassing team
. By the way, I’ll be needing my twin-campaign managers’ advice: we have Kelvin Mackenzie, (the Council ate his hamster) on the war-path in deepest Weybridge.
73. Jack, the first estimation gave a too close to call picture
35 - Andrea. The last time I sat on a selection panel which was a good few years ago we had about 20 applicants each for two mid range seats.
UMP hold Vannes
Communists to lose Calais to UMP
It seems Bayrou has lost in Pau
76. Thanks Galloglass
74 John O. I doubt much advice is needed. Just inform the good burghers of leafy Weybridge that the former editor of the ‘Sun’ will send the house prices crashing if elected !
79 . Excellent point - of course, they all read the Daily Mail!!!
77 Andrea. Oh Bugger !!
Marine Le Pen got 29% and lost
Bayrou said he lost by less than 1%
Greens gain Montreuil from the communists
I *think* Marseille is going to stay with UMP but Toulouse may swing to PS
Good day for Obama so far. To my surprise his big drop in the Rasmussen daily tracker has been partly reversed. Also good reports on his openness with the Chicago Press in an interview about his pal Rezko.
Perhaps he is still in the teflon stage, where no matter what happens it does not stick to him. As a new face the reverse process whereby everything is his fault no matter what he has or has not done might be delayed until after the election. If that happens it will be President Obama.
Both Clinton and Obama camps go for it in conference calls to the media :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/16/democratic-primary-hits-i_n_91770.html
62,I voted Labour in 92,aged 21-to this day if I feel low,I remember how gutted,empty I felt on Friday 10th April 1992:it was an idylllic cloudless soring day in Bournemouth and I felt as if a pea-souper fog hung over me-so I use that memory to make me realise whatever life chucks at me on a lousy day,it CANNOT be as bad as that
86 - yes, but had Labour won in 1992, they would have been out within a couple of years, and we may have had Tory rule ever since.
It really was a good one to lose.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7299337.stm
“Lack of thought” into Iraq war
Blair aide admits the bleeding obvious!
86 Clearly ‘things could only get better’ from then Patrick ?
The left won for the first time the Indre-et-Loire conseil général
it looks as Marseille will stay with UMP
@Jack- Pau
PS 39.76
Bayrou 38.81
UMP 21.42
Postings above about Kennedy.
Polls indicate Scotland is dragging the Liberal Democrats overall figure down. Perhaps Kennedy should lead the Scottish Lib Dems?.
He is well liked. Does look as if they need a change of leader in Scotland.
Read “Inside Blair’s brain” by Lord Owen(Sunday Times Review).In his medical opinion,Blair was mentally unstable when the Iraq decisions were being taken -also he lied to the country about his heart condition.Nick Palmer’s comments on the article would be interesting - it certainly deserves much wider coverage than an article in a Sunday supplementary.
This might be the subject of the next attack on Obama. From
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGRiMWFhNWY4MTgzMjI3NjEzNGQwMWFiMTlhYmRhN2Y=
“One of Obama’s Earmark Requests Was for the Hospital That Employs Michelle Obama.
Dan Riehl notes, via Amanda Carpenter, that in the list of earmarks he requested, $1 million was requested for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of Chicago. The request was put in in 2006.
You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital?
Michelle Obama. She’s vice president of community affairs.
As Byron noted, “In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.”
Looks like that raise was worth it.”
No wonder US healthcare is so expensive.
I’m in general sceptical of doctors trying to diagnose people who aren’t their patients, and especially so if they happen to be practicing rival politicians. I’d guess I saw much more of TB in the relevant period than Owen did (if he saw him personally at all) and he was his usual cogent self. It is possible to disagree with Dr Owen without being mad.
re 92 and 94 Lord Owen was often asked to do this sort of thing by MI6 when foreign secretary so he does have form.
And frankly knowing what we do now about the duplicity, lies and scandalously poor planning, if anyone thinks Blair sane when he made these decisions then they ought to go and see their GP themselves.
90 Andrea. Thanks.
87 I don’t subscribe to the view that had the Tories lost in 1992 they would have rebounded to power once Labour crashed out of the ERM. What Labour would have done when faced with the economic crisis is one aspect. Another is the impact the defeat would have on the Tories. Wounds were already sore following the sacking of Thatcher and would have become deeper and more deadly if the defeat was blamed on her treatment. It was difficult in 1997 to blame the defeat on events 7 years before; not so in 1992. Also, without the glue of office the anti Maastricht rebels would have been even bolder and more numerous. Having negotiated the treaty the party leadership could only support the new Labour government. I really think a party split might have been a possibility. 1992 would have been as significant for the Tories as 1979 was for the old Labour party.
91 It is one of the great questions in Scotland as to why the Lib Dems did not get out quicker from their rotten alliance with Labour. As a kid canvassing for my father a Lib Dem candidate/councillor in Aberdeen I remember Labour always as the mortal enemy.
The one thing I noted from the Times poll is how well the Tories are doing across the country (except Scotland) and across all age bands. It may be that this is the first sign of a landslide. I am tempted to start buying Tory seats again.
91
Closer to the distilleries as well.
[98] - Who would have thought that the Tories would have a lead in the North! My superficial look at the detailed figures seemed to suggest that the Tories were as strong as they have been for some time in the South, but advanced massively in the North.
The Tory lead in the North (+11%) was even marginally greater than their lead in the Midlands (+10%), although the Midlands lead is downweighted by including Wales.
Stunning, really.
Are budgets always unpopular:
For the years 1990-2007
I’ve looked at the average of the four polls before the budget and the average of the four polls after the budget. i’ve then looked at the swing as regards the government lead that the budget announcement caused:
1990: -4.5% (that means a 4.5% decrease in the tory lead)
1991: -1.75%
1992: -4.375%
1993 (Lamont): -4.125%
1993 (Clarke): +0.5%
1994: -6.875%
1995: -1.125%
1996:-3%
All except Clarke’s first announcement caused a swing away from the tories.
1997: -4.25%
1998: +4.5%
1999: +5.25%
2000: +2%
2001: 0%
2002: -0.75%
2003:+0.5%
2004: +0.75%
2005: 0%
2006: +0.75%
2007: +2.25%
The vast majority were positive. Boosting the governments support. Perhaps Brown was better at media presentation as chancellor than we give him credit for. Secondly, this does not bode well for the government if the budget used to be a winner.
Also, if Sean Fear is reading, what effect do those swings towards the more pro-tax labour, during the periods in which they would have raised tax have on your theory that tax cuts are generally popular with the electorate?
I think the issue is not the budget itself but what it reflects.
There are a few problems out there in the economy and the governments response is to borrow more and put up taxes a bit.
What I hope another governmemt does when the economy gets on a better footing is tighten up credit a little.
102: But in the later period of Conservative government the economy was recovering and growing.
Secondly, the economy was stronger in 05/06 than it was in 07.
I don’t think the response to the budget necessarily reflects the economic circumstances it was launched in.
Leo Abse used to apply a mishmash of cod psychology to Thatcher in the 1980s. It was regarded as amusing rubbish. Do the same with Owen’s theories. In the Italian classic, ‘The Leopard’, the Prince refuses political office because he lacks the faculty of self-deception, necessary for any successful politician. Blair had the faculty of self-deception in spades: he could really persuade himself something was true and hence this was part of reason he was so convincing. A number of successful men have the same faculty, the most recent I’ve encountered was Al-Fayed.
Evening all
I do think Cameron and Hammond have badly misread the public mood over tax and spending. There’s not a lot of point voting Tory at the next election if Cameron/Osborne are simply going to keep to the Labour spending commitments and do nothing on tax.
Bad though things are, I suspect the state of the public finances in 2010 will not be as bad as they were in 1979 and that didn’t stop Thatcher and Howe moving ahead with pretty radical fiscal measures.
It does seem strange given the media calls and the calls from some Tory activists for deep tax and spending cuts that Cameron is so determined to “play it safe” much as Blair did in 1997.
http://aloadofoldstodge.blogspot.com/2008/03/taxing-problem-for-cameron.html
Interesting programme on bbc4 about political advertising.
105. they’ve previously tried to promise tax cuts, and lost votes because it looked daft. the media calls and calls from the activists are mainly from the old right who thought we didnt have to change anything after the last few election losses. and the tactic of not promising tax cuts has been the same for a while, however the tories still have a poll lead that is slowly increasing.
Rather than Tony Blair’s health problems, has anyone considered Gordon Brown’s problems. Will he go mad in office?
105.
I disagree. They are sticking to the same line, the line that brought these poll leads. They have had alot of advise from traditionalists, who are left with stating we should be 50 points ahead. We will when we can afford it. The public want no more.
They want to know the Tories are keen to cut taxes, but not too keen.
Its alot better attitude than ’so what?’
OT, cricketwise, Vettori just fell for a duck in the second over this morning - NZ 246/7
103. I’m not great student of statistical history. What I do know is what is going on now.
Labour’s reputation for economic competence is falling and if we go into tougher times over the next say year or so, which everyone now sees as likely and they have to tax and borrow more, it may go to the wall. That will not provide enough recovery time before the next election.
The Tories are becoming credible and most of all have a reasonably credible leader. This is not 1992. The opposition do not have a Kinnock who the public ultimately would never buy. They have someone that the public might just go for.
105. Tax cutting would be incredibly irresponsible while there is a government deficit. It would be extremely economically illiterate as well as being a turn off for potential swing voters.
UMP hold Nice and Marseille
PS gain Toulouse
105, stodge,
I’d say that it’s arguable. Cameron and co can sell very minor tax cuts as “all we can afford given that we’ve got to pay off Gordon Brown’s credit card bill”, and then say that they’re heading off Labour tax rises - zero tax change is better than an increase. It also gives scope for a pledge for a second election - could this imply that they’re already looking at a two Parliament strategy? If their initial victory (obviously assuming victory otherwise they’re not exactly in a position to implement anything) is a small majority or even as largest party in a Hung Parliament, trading favours for various votes, then if they’ve got a couple of Budgets under their belts, they’ll have more credibility with the electorate (who should be yet hungrier for tax cuts).
Interesting. And, with your highlighting of the LD tax-cut proposal for the lower rate in your blog, I’d be happy for Cameron and co to agree to that particular LD proposal if it’s a hung Parliament with agreement sought on an issue-by-issue basis
97 - A Labour government would have collapsed over trying to get Maastricht through.
Andrea. How are things looking in Italy there was (for Veltroni) a very rosy view of his chances in today’s UK press. Could he do the impossible after all
112. If it stimulates the economy disproportionately to its cost and increases tax recipts, its perfectly logical.
The difficulty is making tax cuts that would do that.
I believe Dr. Owen was on a delegation to Moscow in 1984, during which he had an audience with Politburo members, including then leader Chernenko.
His verdict on returning? “Advanced emphysema, the chap won’t last the winter…”, which proved correct…
118. Chernenko was probably already dead when Owen met him….
117. the benefits would take time to come through though, whereas the government is in massive debt and getting worse. the tories will have to slim down the debt and the waste before making cuts.
117. That was GWB’s economic policy. Care to take a look at the American budget deficit and he started with a surplus.
I agree with his father, supply side economics is voodoo.
116. Punter, Veltroni has run a good campaign so far (apart for one week because of the bloody radicals and his decision to let them join PD lists). he has gained ground but he’s still behind. I would say he’s around 7% behind now.
The thing to watch is the Senate. Assuming CR hold all its regions won in 2006, I think they will certainly gain Campania (because of the rubbish thing which, I think, it was reported by UK media too). Then the regions to follow are Calabria, Liguria, Abruzzo and Sardinia. They would make the difference between Silvio having a narrow Senate majority and having a nice working majority. IMO they’re the regions to follow on election night
Nick Palmer.Owen says he saw Blair on numerous occasions, at Blair’s request.Are you saying he is lying?That he has written a libellous book?
121. So because Bush did it and it didnt work then its always wrong?
The UK has a budget deficit, how do you explain that then if they didnt do what Bush did?
124. we have a deficit because the government spent a great deal of money trying to speed up improvements in the health service, schools etc in order to stay popular. now its becoming more and more obvious that a great deal of money was wasted on doing this, rather than long term reform and gradual improvements. now we’re stuck with a massive debt and increasing taxes.
124. Bushes deficit is double ours.
But Brown/Blair spent too much. Some of that spending will make the current slowdown easier to deal with, some will make it harder and some was just a waste of money.
Bear Stearns looks to be about to be sold to JP Morgan within hours.
Thats an impressively fast way of dealing with matters if it comes off.
If only NR could have been settled so decisively.
126. Bad grammar. Bush’s deficit.
127. Good. Some good economic news.
126. Double? How big is the US government’s budget compared to ours?
The problem G is much of that spending is non return areas or the wider economy, bearing in mind Public Sector reform should see a shedding of jobs overall that government pays for.
129. Our deficit, £43bn, American Deficit about £80bn, ($162 billion).
128. It will. Apparently JC Flowers, who had to abandon a bid for NR (their NR bid was ruthless and too much to swallow for some but it was also very honest) are also waiting in the wings.
The US Fed are involved in these talks so it should be interesting to see how they facilitate a deal should one be sorted.
127. even more to beat the government with, comparing the handling of the two.
The U.S.’s current account deficit decreased to $178.5 billion in Q3 2007, down from a revised $188.9 billion in Q2 2007, the U.S. Commerce Department announced Monday, as exports of capital goods and motor vehicles increased.
Err, thats one quarter!
130. Compared to the budget size thats possibly not as proportionately bad as the UKs.
133. Are you counting NR?
re 106 yes absolutely fascinating - caught it by accident. Shame the Tories didn’t use the Faustian Blair PPB - it would have caught the man exactly.
132. Two different situations potentially in terms of what each company has to offer to a buyer. Stearns has some interesting solid and steady revenue earners and cash generators I suppose in the same way as elements of NR’s mortgage book was the same but to prospective buyers in ach case their attraction valeu may well be different.
What however is probably most critical is that the situation isnt being allowed to drag before a solution is sought thus not crippling a takeover with the government’s needs for payback.
What really did NR over was that it was subject to assistance for too long, crippling a deal to the point where economically it was incredibly tough to do.
105. I honestly don’t know if there will be money there for tax cuts in 2010. I have a feeling we’re heading for a really bad economic time, quite probably a recession. The coming economic storm may well make it impossible to cut cut tax and I believe Cameron is right to keep his options open.
137. i doubt people will really be interested in the differences, just see how differently it was handled.
Also I would be interested to see if Bear Stearns shareholders get upset at the valuation of the company which is massively below their value as set out by the current share price.
139. True I suppose.
I’m just waiting for Asian market opening so see what happens there and regretting getting out of gold when it was at $900 odd levels.
Apparently RBS is sniffing around Bear Stearns as well.
141.people think the worst of this government now.
Lord Owen Blair piece here.
I’ve always thought that an effective PPB next time round would be for shots of coffin after coffin arriving at Brize Norton - they might be able to give them a second and a half each - and the tag line “Don’t elect liars ever again”
129.
UK budget deficit: $82bn
US budget deficit: $163bn
UK public debt: $1039bn (43.3% of GDP)
US public debt: $4855bn (36.8% of GDP)
144. Although it should be pointed out that the centralised UK political system means there it is far easier to turn that situation around, compared to the US’ federal and separation of powers system.
144. Crapola…if that is reflective of the US being in diffs I’d hate to be in the UK…no wait, I am in the UK.
108 - so tired and boring. I thought idiots had stopped prattling on about that. Brown’s performance gives enough to criticise him on without talking nonsense about his mental health.
146. Debt makes it harder to rescue a country from difficulties. It is neither a symptom or a cause. But those stats are pretty damning of Brown as chancellor, hardly prudent.
O/T I see that England were 1.01 to beat NZ a few minutes ago and now 1.05.
147. Just you send him some of yer home brew, that’ll pep him up.
Actually there’s an idea. Get the politicans absolutely rat arseed before Question Time…………
‘Can I ask the Prime Minister why ..why he supports a crap football team, ya loser..’
‘The Leader of the Opposition don’t know nothing about football so he can shut his face…’
Proper debate that the common man and woman can engage with…..
148. Especially during a decade of boom. We should have been putting money away during that time, so you can borrow during the oncoming recession.
92- I think Blair is one of the most emotionally resilient characters you could find.
David Owen on the other hand strikes me as someone slightly deranged
and England win
138.The problem on tax cuts is that different people mean different things.THe Tories mean the overall level oft axation,the public mean les stax for them.Of course you can have tax cuts with the same kevel of taxation via some the word that dare not mention its name -redistribution.
rogerh
Latest Rasmussen Presidential Poll for New York State :
McCain 38% .. Clinton 50%
McCain 38% .. Obama 51%
Obama polling very well in Hillary’s back yard.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_york/new_york_2008_presidential_election
I presume everyone’s gone to bed! Me too.
I don’t know if this will have any bearing on anything but:
* Bear Stearns to be bought by JP Morgan for $2 a share
* Federal Reserve cuts bank lending rates by 25 basis points
* S&P/ASX 200 (Australia) down 1.88%
* NZSX 50 (New Zealand) down 1.70%
* Nikkei 225 (Japan) down 2.27%
* Dow Jones Futures down 1.30%
There are whispers that prominent African-American preachers are going to speak out criticising Barack Obama for denouncing the words of Jeremiah Wright so harshly. Supposedly some in the Afrocentric churches feel Obama has unfairly sacrificed Wright.
Stodge Didn’t the first Thatcher government have to increase the overall tax burden while beginning a move from tax on income to tax on spending.
The 19979 manifesto is liberally sprinkled with phrases like ‘when resources allow’.
The labour government had left quite a mess.
I wonder if we shall all have deja vu thirty years on in 2009? A Labour government in disarray and collapse, leaving a financial mess for a young, fresh dynamic Tory PM to sort out. Although this time it will be a move from families to environmental taxes, so the mantra goes.
159 With the authority of ‘A’ level Economics,the greatest disaster was to put VAT from 8-15% in on eell swoop in Howes June 1979 budget
Consequences:
(a)C.5% was put on the RPI overnight,as I recall the BoE rate went from 10-14% in a couple of weeks
(b)This co-incided witha huge rise in Brent crude’s global price (sounds familiair :D)-
(c)Public sector workers defended their position,securing large pay rises which had been supported cross-party during ‘the winter of discontent’ -the Clegg report
(d)Private sector workers tried to mainatin their differentials
(e)Upshot? BoE rate was 17% until late 1980,with unemployment going up by c.100K/month.
In early 81,the Thathcer/Howe govt cut spublic spenidn even further,laying cut on cut-it allowed the BoE rate to fall,but not before probbaly 1 MILLION poor bastards had been un-necesarrliy lain on the scrapheap.
Yeah,DC is gunning well in the polls-he may (I empahsise ‘may’) winoverall next time.I do not believe he would attempt anything as lunatic as the first 2 years of Mrs.T-and ordianry people suffered,their families-not just us talikng in cyber-space.
I confess-public spening needs a little trim,the money could be spent wiser.Mrs.T burnt out of my soul (I’m 37) any desire to vote Tory whilst I have breath in my body.IF the Tories win next time,please God can they not f*** up like the last.Amen
Re 94, Nick Palmer “It is possible to disagree with Dr Owen without being mad.”
Whilst that may be the case, I am not sure the reverse is the case
Re 108 Woody 662, “Rather than Tony Blair’s health problems, has anyone considered Gordon Brown’s problems. Will he go mad in office?”
As PM no. As Chancellor? I thought he had
Re 152, Tyson “David Owen on the other hand strikes me as someone slightly deranged”
Slightly? Are you sure?
163,Hi,Benedict,its Patrick from Bournemouth-the Labour leaning poster who never claimed more than a fingertip hold on sanity
I’m going to bed very soon,but does your webpage have links to which maybe I could discuss something 1-2-1-any support would be VERY gratefully received.Cheers for now,night 
164 PS 60 days-a whole 2 months,at 3.00pm,since I quit!
Re 164, Patrick there is an email address on my blog. What did you want to discuss?
BTW, the article by David Owen is interesting.
Extremely interesting take on the Shariah law debate in the New York Times. A Harvard scholar argues that while “shariah” to Westerners means torture and handcutting, to Muslims worldwide it means the idea of a law above the goverment, similar to the German liberals drive for a rechstaat in the 19th Century:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?pagewanted=6&_r=2&ref=magazine
Real Clear Politics article, “Time to buy Hilary Clinton”.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/time_to_buy_hillary_clinton.html
[98] Who is your dad then Jon- sounds like we may have met more than a few times…