Aug 6th 2007: the day Gordomania hit its peak
August 6th, 2008-
Would PM Miliband get the same fawning treatment?
Exactly a year ago today the Guardian asked breathlessly whether any previous incoming prime minister had had such a first month in office having to deal with one “crisis” after another.
To recap there had been some storms, a failed terrorist attack in Glasgow and some animals had got ill. Out of the ordinary? To a limited degree but nothing on the scale that several other incoming prime ministers had had to grapple with. Yet the mood of the time led many in the media to suspend their critical faculties - none more so than the people behind the Guardian piece above.
To compare dealing with a few storms and a failed terrorist attack with, say, Churchill’s first month in May 1940 beggared belief. And what about the first period of Harold Wilson’s incoming government in March 1974 government as he sought to deal with the miners’ strike, the oil crisis and the events that led to the overthrow of the power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland?
And, of course, John Major took over in November 1990 just as the build up to the first Iraq war was taking place.
But as we contemplate the possibility of a third Labour prime minister in less than eighteen months could the new man or woman expect the same fawning media treatment - or will what happened with Gordon make them more sceptical?
Would, also, the opposition parties be so blanked out of the news agenda again as they were in the July-September 2007 period which I regard as the single most important factor behind the Brown polling bounce?
My guess is not. While there will be relief that Gordon is gone and praise for those who had the guts to put their heads above the parapet I don’t see coverage on anything like the same scale or with the same tone as last year.
Changing your leader too often leads to diminishing returns when its comes to media coverage - just ask the Lib Dems.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I still put the August 07 ‘bounce’ down to Tories being on holiday and Cameron having a difficult summer. The overwhelming reaction of most people from whom I canvassed an opinion last summer was bemusement that Blair had been forced out by his Party and replaced by a Dour Scot that nobody particularly liked and for whom nobody had actually voted.
Wow. First post at last. I’ve only been contributing here for about 2 years…
Repost from last thread…
Talking of opinion polls and betting…
Currently, SpreadFair has Tories on a mid-price of 345 and Labour at 235, implying a Tory majority of 40.
Yet, the opinion polls are projecting - according to our UNS calculators - a Tory majority well above 100. Therefore, it seems the gamblers out there are already factoring in a recovery by Labour, or believe the opinion polls are overestimating the Tory lead.
So what happens if Labour recover, under a new leader or simply because this summer is the nadir of their fortunes? Will the markets move back towards a small Tory majority or even NOC, despite them retaining a strong lead in the polls?
I think this caution by gamblers is because…
1. This really could be the Brown bottom, so the only way is up.
2. Opinion polls are amplifiers and exaggerate the weakness of Labour and the strength of the Tories.
3. Gamblers are inherently conservative and can’t bring themselves to back a landslide.
I’m currently still a Labour seller.
by Baskerville August 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
If it were to happen and we had a new Labour PM, I don’t think the media would make the same mistake again. Basically, they swallowed the ‘not flash, just Gordon’ line uncritically, apparently only because it was repeated so often by Brown and his mates.
One of the reasons why the media have now turned so viciously against Brown personally is that they are embarrassed by their previous fawning.
4 - I actually think the Tories should use “Not flash, just Gordon” as an effective campaign slogan…
5 - Yes, it turned out to be true. But not quite in the way that was intended.
5
Or “Not Gordon, not Labour”, what more could a voter want
One also has to remember that the shine hadnt really come off Brown - people still said “abolished boom and bust” without laughing. His claim to leadership was economic competence and without it, he was just Mr Bean with delusions of grandeur. Any new leader would be relatively unknown, with a fractious party, and everyone knowing that Labour were useless. No media honeymoon, but at least a small bounce for not being Gordon, now revealed and reviled as the useless cretin that he really is.
Mike, I agree that Comment would be modest in comparison with a year ago, should a new labour leader be elected or proclaimed.
But I beleive now that our dear Great Leader with the CLUNKING FIST, will stay on ’till the bitter end.
1. we will put out the flags..
3. There’s at least two other reasons: non-UNS effects and the balance of risk.
On the first one, it’s possible that a sizable Conservative lead could produce a lot of 15000+ majorities, but could fail to eat a long way into the safer Labour, Lib Dem and other seats. Obviously, that’s not by any means certain, but the possibility needs to be kept in mind.
Also, and probably more importantly, if the spreads were midpointing (apologies for that word) around 345, there’s an equal risk (to different people) of the Conservatives finishing on 375 or 315, of which both results are possible - even 315 is over a hundred gains. By contrast, were the midpoint around 380 - as the polls suggest - the buyer is accepting a big risk if Cameron slips, whereas the seller is unlikely to have to pay out too much if there’s an even stronger Tory performance. After all, what’s the absolute maximum the Conservatives could get? 400 seems close to being out of reach in any plausible scenario. By contrast, 270 or less is not unreasonable if Brown is replaced, the economy picks up and things go wrong at CCHQ.
153 (l t) — PtP
I’m now laying McCain for about 5000$ (backer’s stake) on betfair.
I expected as you do now to lay him @ 2.88-2.9.
However, due to the McCain surge we are witnessing in both polls and media coverage, I’m now laying him @ 2.82.
**
BTW, I’ve become a fan of … Paris Hilton.
Don’t know if it will last, but you guys have to admit that her ‘ad’ was pretty good on the money, right? — showing how stoopid it was for the Mac Campaign to put the super-chick into politics…
12 - Phillipe, that is a bold but excellent move.
Are you laying Obama, waiting to bet on him if he regains his lead?
3. Baskerville. I am glad you reposted that as I wanted to respond. Good and interesting analysis.
I had a stab at this question yesterday but messed it up. I miscalculated a Tory GE spread seats position of 345 = 20 seats majority and not, as Mike corrected me, 40 seats. (345-325)x2 = 40 being the simple calculation.
But my point remains the same. The spread markets are settled at a Tory 40 seat majority. The Election predictors and the views of most pundits are that it will be more than that. I think the major reason for the difference is not that Labour and Brown have reached thier nadir but that the spread market is already factoring in the real possibility that Brown will be replaced and that this will improve Labour’s fortunes.
I think the current spread prices almost fully factor in this and that if Brown is not replaced, or his replacement is not popular, then Labour GE seats spread price will fall further. If he is replaced by Miliband then they will improve initially and then stabilise a bit higher than where they are now or drop back to the current position. If he is replaced by Harman or Cruddas I would expect Labour seats to fall, though with Harman it’s a difficult call. If replaced by Straw or Johnson then I would expect a reduced Miliband effect.
William Hill rate it 5/6 each of two as to whether Brown goes before the next election. I think that’s about right. So in summary, I agree with you the value currently appears to be in selling Labour GE seats.
163 [lt] Thanks Philippe. Yes that’s about what my calls would be - though not quite to those amounts!
Correct call on Ms Hilton, too. Any celeb who can take the pi*s out herself like that has got to be admired.
And of course 3 days later Northern Rock happened. If ever there was an event which should have nailed the myth that Gordon was a brilliant Chancellor it was this. The regulatory system set up as one of his first acts failed at its first test.
Yet we still hear the nonsense that Gordon’s best placed (or the indeed the only person) to see us throught the economic difficulties which he has helped bring about.
Looking at the headline. While Brown handled the public side of the job very well last summer. I wonder if the events carried a cost. A few quiet summer months might have enabled the govt get established more firmly. Just a thought.
Afternoon again all
Not sure I entirely attack with Mike’s analysis here. Changing a Prime Minister especially after the predecessor had been in office for so long is a major newsworthy event. I well remember the easy ride given to John Major in his first two or three months.
“Crisis” always works well for a new PM. It snuffes out the opposition and unifies the Party. Brown was in many ways fortunate - he couldn’t be blamed for the floods personally and his response looked good next to Cameron’s. The terrorist attack was a failure and was therefore a victory for the forces of security.
The principal opposition party, when it changes its leader, gets some publicity. When the curcumstances are tragic (Gaitskell, John Smith), the response to the new leader (Wilson, Blair) is predicated on a need for respect. Changing leader through internal upheaval doesn’t warrant the same soft touch.
Miliband is not arriving by popular demand. He is being parachuted into place to preserve the Lisbon Treaty, with the aid of the Brussels-backed BBC and other media. All other possible contenders for the crown are being squeezed out of the picture, exactly as they were prior to Gordon’s coronation.
We are witnessing not democracy, but its carefully planned and executed destruction.
Brussels chooses who rules. They don’t give a fig about popularity or elections which will be rigged accordingly, as the GE was in 2005 with postal voting fraud on the large scale. The only inevitability is the gradual finishing off of any possible resistance to Lisbon and the EU by the powerful propaganda at the EU’s disposal.
Watch the endless playing of films of rats and maggots on the media today, and wonder what this is all about - getting Miliband into place.
It’s powerful undisguised targeted propaganda, designed to quickly kill off Gordon Brown, the BBC his willing executioner, just as they were his most willing proponent and supporter as in the propaganda above not long ago. He’s done his bit in putting the EU into power over Britain. Now they want Miliband to protect their established position, while they stitch up Ireland.
For the record. I’ve just had £11 with Paddy Power on Tony Blair being the next permanent Labour leader at 250/1! Difficult to see how this might come about but, well, the odds tempted me in!
19. Is Gordon against Lisbon ??
OT It was amusing to watch Ivan Lewis MP being skewered just now by Dermot Murnaghan on Sky news on vermin infestation in hospitals, but what I can’t understand is how could several thousand people in Bury vote for such an odious, bumptious, aggressive nomark like this? He’s like a cross between Tony McNulty and Gerald Kaufman but ten times worse. I’m sure he’ll be out at the next election.
14 Yes, that’s about right, StJohn.
Time is another factor, of course. If the polls remain static, you would expect the Labour Seats pice to drop over time as the opportunity for recovery diminishes.
Our resident spreads expert, Aaron, would also I think emphasise the length of the ‘tail’ on a Labour sell. You have touched on this but it’s worth emphasing the risk to such sellers. As SeanT would say, they need plenty of cullions.
And as you know, I am currently such a seller. My cullions are looking fine, thank you.
19 I guess the Tories are in on this enormous Machiavellian conspiracy, it was their story that kicked it all off.
11. I agree with your analysis, David, only insofar as it shows how conservative punters are at the moment; they are simply refusing to believe the opinion polls are right. Whether their caution is justified is the question other gamblers must judge.
20 stjohn. £11 ?!?!? did you find the extra quid down the sofa ??
22. Let me guess, he kept going on about their massive investment in hospitals, got very annoyed when questioned about the matter at hand and just kept saying he ws being very clear when he wasn’t.
18 “Brown was in many ways fortunate - he couldn’t be blamed for the floods personally”
He’s getting his share of the blame here in gloucestershire as the tw@t who cut the flood defence budget leaving many towns and villages at the mercy of the Severn and the Avon. Go ask the people of Tewkesbury and Gloucester what they think of Brown.
27, he reckoned it was trying to mask the good news stories.
26
Seriously, I think it’s because it was PP’s max and they work in euros, Jack.
24 - Please, don’t feed the sweet old thing. Or we’ll send Mandy and the Bilderburgi to get you…
30 PtP. Indeed. I don’t bother with PP on-line !!
27 Spot on. He also kept shouting about a government survey which shows that 99.99% of patients are totally satisfied with their “hospital experience”. Enver Hoxha would have been proud.
…and blamed the Tories for ‘running down the NHS’ and ‘hiding the good news’.
19. Gordon’s weakness has put the whole Lisbon project at risk.
24. The BBC are running with this as if they were Nazis after the Jews. They don’t normally run with Conservative output except where it suits their needs. Lisbon has to be protected. Brown must be sunk quickly, and safely replaced before the left wing of the Labour Party get any steam up to take over. Cameron’s irrelevant to this piece of politicalplay, as if Labour EUrophiles last until 2010, Lisbon’s done and dusted.
Even more pathetic than last year’s failed terrorist attacks are the people who’d have us believe that such attacks are going to succeed in destroying Western civilisation where Hitler, Hirohito and Stalin failed.
35 - Nurse, (or failing that JackW)….hurry
By the way, as you all know, I’m not Gordon’s biggest fan, but am I the only one who never found Cable’s ‘Mr Bean’ gag that funny at all?
I can almost hear the EU mandarins fuming as we speak — “And we’d have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for that pesky Gordon Brown!”
Hmmm…Gordon Brown as Scooby, Milliband as Scrappy; I quite like that analogy!
38 — yes.
What a surprise, why answer the question when you can come across as an aggressive arse. This is why their in such dire straits at the mo, every time the public see a minister all they want to do is punch them.
41 Is this because John Prescott has left the govt? No fear of reprisals.
36 “Even more pathetic than last year’s failed terrorist attacks are the people who’d have us believe that such attacks are going to succeed in destroying Western civilisation where Hitler, Hirohito and Stalin failed.”
I’d estimate the probability of a dirty nuclear bomb attack on a big city over the next ten years to be nearly unity. The technology is crude and easily mastered, the availability of nuclear material all too easy, and there are too many people nursing political grievances.
In fact, the big city that is most vulnerable is pretty obvious.
Such an attack won’t succeed in destroying Western civilization, but it will change the West irrevocably.
43, what a cheery thought.
Btw, do you mean a dirty nuclear bomb, or just a dirty bomb?
I would’ve thought if you’ve got a nuke to play with there’s no need to make it dirty.
Don’t worry, Gwynfa — Labour’s going to make sure it doesn’t happen by wasting billions on ID cards instead of more police and spooks.
No ID card, no Plutonium-239 for you; that’ll learn ‘em.
43. Would change the middle east irrevocably too. Downtown Tehran would be warm-ish.
Sorry Tapestry, I’m as eurosceptic as the next man, but your 19 does rather substantiate Cameron’s famous “UKIP = fruitcakes” remark…
25. That the polls are wrong, or that ‘events’ will shift them - they ask how people would vote if there was an election tomorrow, not in 2010.
19. You are a deeply embedded Brussels plant whose job it is to undermine the Eurosceptic case by producing fantastic conspiricy theories that no-one will believe, and I claim my €10.
45, apparently ID cards will make people immune to nuclear weaponry, in addition to fighting terrorism, stopping illegal immigration, making the sun shine and preventing herpes. They really are indispensable.
41 Labour ministers are being increasingly found out and they don’t like it, particularly having had such a relatively easy ride from much of the media for so long. The official state broadcaster’s still generally onside though.
47. So you think the BBC isn’t trying to remove Brown in favour of Miliband?
Or you don’t think the EU is trying to save the Lisbon Treaty?
Or you don’t think the BBC bats for the EU?
Don’t be sorry, Bob. Tell us what it is that you don’t see.
Fruitcake? Just ate a piece of it! Mother’s best.
47 So that must mean you’re in on the conspiracy too, Bob!
I have failed to be impressed by anything Brown has done in the last year. I could not understand the press and media fawning over Brown at the time. Nick Robinson seemed to change from being a silver tongues reporter into a Brown tongued Labour stooge overnight.
The Daily Mail were positive about Brown because they hated Blair and were judging Brown as his record as PM rather than C of E. I think they were also trying to push the Tories into some particular policy policies such as IHT reform.
43 Well thanks for that little note of optimism!
Much more rational to fear crossing the road than dirty bombs.
Obama’s new ad calls into question McCain’s image as a maverick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHN9bLCgF7k
51 - The BBC isn’t trying to remove Brown in favour of Miliband. They’re trying to make some news out of not a lot, but they are no more united on whether Brown going is a good thing (helping Labour keep out the license-fee-cutting Tories) than Labour voters at large.
The EU is trying to save the Lisbon Treaty by putting pressure on Ireland, and making sure there is no Cameron government in the next year. Undermining Brown would give a second unelected leader, seriously risking an election earlier than 2010. If you just want a Labour government, and don’t care how unpopular it is, you support Brown sitting tight.
The BBC bats for the EU - yeah probably.
Your conspiracy is completely barking mad. Hanlon’s Razor would help.
56. Is that really Morus?
19. Paranoid, Europhobic nonsense! You don’t really believe what you write do you?
Is the safest bet for Lisbon-ites not to shore up Brown until 2010 ?
30 PtP. I was asked some time back why I was still backing Obama at somewhat thin odds. Effectively Obama starts the race with a huge electoral base with little to defend :
Firstly add Iowa and New Mexico to Kerry states and we start with Obama 264 and McCain 274. 270 to win.
The only two Kerry states that look remotely in play are Michigan and New Hampshire and none has seen a recent poll with McCain ahead.
Effectively this means that McCain has to win every larger swing state to avoid defeat :
Nevada (5 EV’s) .. Colorado (9) .. Missouri (11) .. Indiana (11) .. Ohio (20) .. Virginia (13) .. North Carolina (15) .. Florida (27) .. Georgia (15).
And win two of the following three smaller swing states :
Alaska (3) .. Montana (3) .. North Dakota (3).
Not impossible for McCain, but a big big ask.
55. This is exactly what the Democrats need to do. Go after McCain on the maverick thing, because its the sole thing keeping him up, and its really not that true any more.
56. you seem to agree with most of it…only that the media is not hunting Brown, and backing Miliband. Pardon me for not believing what we are told to believe, and seeking my own interpretation of events. I see the media quietly building Miliband, and undermining Brown. Howl……..
@38:
Gordon as Mr Bean a joke?
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_01/brownbean0308_468×314.jpg
If only.
60. If Obama wins Iowa+New Mexico+Kerry states and Nevada, it’s a draw, what happens then?
47 - Yes, a decent conspiracy theory has to have a germ of logic to it, so that if you accept the basic premise then the loony consequences follow logically or at least vaguely plausibly if you fail to do a reality check on them. This one doesn’t even pass the first hurdle of why the little green men in Brussels would want to remove Brown, especially since the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified.
I’m sure we can do better. Let’s see, something like a plot by the CIA in league with disaffected LibDems to discredit Labour so that, in the turmoil, Charles Kennedy can return as leader, win the ensuing election, restore Iraq as a major political issue, and thus shaft Obama?
@62:
THERE IS NO SEKRIT CONSPIRACY.
You can trust me. I fnord know.
64 G. A tie is a win for Obama as the Presidency is decided by the House of Representatives and the maths works to Obama’s favour.
51 - the EU is certainly trying to save the EU Treaty. No quibbles about that. It was in the rest of it that your conspiracy theory started to fall down. I don’t think the Beeb is any more pro-EU than other broadcasters, perhaps inherently pro-Labour but that’s not the same thing. And clearly it is not alone amongst the media in trying to “get rid of Brown and replace him with Miliband”.
52 - hm, now you mention it I did have an official EU-produced ‘euro-regions’* wallmap pinned up in my bedroom when I was in my teens…
(* - the one that had no mention of that ancient European region known popularly as “England”)
56 Morus. This from Wells gave me pause on Newport. Perhaps you as well.
“richard j (not registered)
The seat of Newport East in the Assembly Elections was won by Labour with a Majority of just 875 over the Lib Dems who were on 27.7 of the Vote. The Lbour Party were on 32.1% of the vote.
That gap has now been reduced in the Local elections to just 20 votes a clear sign that Labour are in real trouble here.’
57 - Yes, but I’m feeling whimsical today, and am slowly but surely losing my marbles. I decided to meet the tin foil hat brigade half way…
@64:
Twelfth amendment comes into play.
No limit Teksas Huld’em, winner takes the Oval Office.
70 Morus. You’ll do very nicely then as Obama’s Veep !!
65. Do you really believe what they tell you in the media, Richard? If not, you have no choice but to build your own explanations. Your example is amateurish, - but a start.
67. And the incoming House too, which will be even more strongly Democrat.
65. It’s a Murdoch conspiracy… he wants a PM with big tits.
60 Thank Jack. That’s very helpful. You really can be most lucid when Matron admisters the right medication.
72. Sounds like he’d fit better with a McCain ticket…
I’m looking in now and then here in Pennsylvania but not posting much as the time difference means it’s usually at the tail-end of a thread at 3am UK time. I’ll repost some comments from a few days ago on US impressions which may interest some who missed it. Sorry that makes this post long.
On the repeated topic, especially yesterday’s thread: because of the Lib-Tory dominance on the site, I think many of the posters, and even Mike, don’t have a strong feeling for how Labour actually works. The idea of a union coup removing Brown at the conference is a fantasy for both political and technical reasons:
- The unions have just signalled (through the amity at the NPF) that they are not disposed to undermine the leadership at all, let alone overthrow it. They’ll pursue their members’ interests with their customary vigour (e.g. the strikes) but they’re not in insurgency mood. If they were, they couldn’t simply dream up a resolution overnight - they all have their procedures for it, which they take seriously, and any leader who suddenly fished a resolution out of his back pcket would be sharply called to hell by his executive, even if they agreed with the content. It’s far too late for people to start organising conference resolutions.
- As Rod and others pointed out, the rulebook - if you read the whole text rather than individual paragraphs - makes it clear that the sine qua non is a nomination of a rival by MPs before the conference. That isn’t happening.
Many people here are in the same position over Brown being replaced that I and others were over Hillary’s campaign when Obama built up a delegate lead that was almost impossible to overturn. We felt it ought to happen, we could construct scenarios that would make it happen, we though tDemocrats were mistaken not to make it happen, so we thought it quit possible for some time after it stopped being a realistic possibility. If you bet on these things, I’d really recommend laying a leadership change in 2008, even if you’re convinced it ought to happen.
Insert from a few days ago:
If you’re really interested in politics, you can get it in much more undiluted form than in Britain. On PBS (the austere non-commercial channel, which also shows BBC World news and pointy-headed BBC drama), I watched 45 minutes of a McCain ‘town gathering’ meeting in Wisconsin which seemed to be simply a straight recording with no reporter or commentary whatsoever, hooray! In Britain, you’ll be lucky to get more than 30 seconds of Brown or Cameron before you get Nick Robinson telling you what to make of it. Even the mainstream networks give more unmediated footage.
- Obama has proposed seating the FL and MI delegations in their entirety, another token of goodwill to the Clinton camp (and confirmation if it were needed that he doesn’t expect any last-minute hitches in the nomination). Choosing Evan Bayh, very much a Clinton man, would among other advantages help further heal past wounds.
- McCain was very interesting to watch. He’s not fluent, often stumbling for words or rephrasing things, in a way that reminded me of his age (I don’t mean he seemed senile, just a bit old). I also felt he was slightly out of his depth at times - at one point he appeared to promise every American a $5000 grant towards a low-carbon automobile, which I estimate would cost roughly $500 billion. The audience was naturally pleased, but wtf? On the other hand, he was often gritty and courageous in refusing to say crowd-pleasing things. A Christian questioner asked if he agreed that the Bible was an absolute prediction of the future. He said politely that he was a keen Christian, but he thought that humans had their destiny in their own hands. Another asked for more help for Christians wanting to pick their own schools. He said he was in favour of choice, but not only for Christians but for people of any persuasion. What about global warming? Yes, he thought it was caused by carbon emissions, and America needed to be embracing renewables and nuclear energy as part of the solution, and he disagreed with conservatives who thought otherwise. I think he would be unpredictable as President and I’m not sure of his intellectual grasp (whereas Obama is quite clearly up to the job), but I can see why people like him, in rather a similar way that they liked Reagan: he seemed quite obviously a good guy in a non-political and very American sense. [Added: saw one of his campaign ads this morning - it portrays him as the ultimate maverick, who fights special interests of every kind]
- Also saw a long interview with Nancy Pelosi. Again, a leading politician much less fluent than the average British MP - lots of awkward pauses - but also more enthusiasm, more of a sense of wanting to do something exciting rather than the hey-it’s-my-job sense you can get in British interviews.
- Haven’t seen Obama at any length yet, nor any campaign ads at this early stage.
Er…called to heel! (Freudian slip!)
Interesting take on Politics from Roy Greenslade in the Standard.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23527425-details/Watershed+moment+for+Dave+as+the+papers+turn+against+Gordon/article.do
76 PtP. “Matron Admisters” ???? …. are these your medical tranny friends ??
68. Beeb not more pro-EU than other broadcasters?
Are you sure?
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3257748.ece
69 - That does give pause for thought - I thought the Tories would win both Newport seats. Lib Dem gain in Newport would make that bookies prediction much more plausible.
72 - Damn straight - it’s the Veep who looks after Elvis at the Naval Observatory, and keeps the keys to Area 51.
64 - House of Representatives votes *by State* (so if a state had 5 Congressmen - 3 Dems, 2 GOP - they would vote as a delegation who to cast their vote for: the Dems win 3-2, so that State Delegatio casts one vote for the Democratic Candidate). A candidate needs 26 States or more to win, remembering that states with an evenly divided number of congressmen between the parties (eg 2 Dems, 2 GOP) must abstain.
The NEW Congress votes for President (the House) by state, and the Senate chooses a VP. If they cannot choose a President, the VP becomes acting President, if they cannot choose either, the new Speaker becomes acting President, if they cannot choose a Speaker, the Senate Pro Tem takes over as acting President.
83 Morus. I think it was Nate @ 538.com who ran a series of variables for the projected new House that indicated a pretty comfortable win for Obama and a near impossible route for McCain to reach 26.
81 LOL! Another Freudian slip.
68 - I remember getting mildly annoyed in the late 1980s when the Kent Messenger kept on producing a supplement in French.
@83:
God knows why the drafters of the 12th amendment didn’t just go down the ’simple plurality’ route for the Electoral College.
Not obscure enough?
84 - I’ve done the same Jack, and Obama would win even on this House of Representatives (26-21). If they increase in tally in some key states with even delegations then it could be easy.
If this had happened in 2000, the House Delegations were split 25-24 to the Republicans, but interestingly, the Texas delegation in the House was 17 Democrats v 16 Republicans. How would they have voted, given that if they went Republican, that would have given it to Bush. By State allegiance, by Party allegiance, by how their district voted, by how their state voted?
83 It fits my understanding that things are deteriorating more rapidly than expected for Labour in Newport. They’re still shellshocked by May and just not used to really active campaigning. I’ll be bold and say unless Labour recover to at least 32% I would be more surprised if the Tories don’t gain Newport West than if they do now. With Newport East all the Lib Dem Councillors are there so they will focus the lot on that. The Tories number 1 priority is to take down Flynn before they worry about Morden.
It’s a pattern elsewhere. I think the suggested strength of Labour no major challenger throughout like the SNP in Scotland is a weakness in fact. Who do they attack Tories? Lib Dems? Plaid? Whereas they have to be everywhere their opponents can just concentrate their resources. Look at 3 seats in close proximity. In a small area Labour have to fight Plaid (Llanelli), the Liberal Democrats (Swansea West)and the Conservatives (Gower). Sums it up I reckon.
re 33 of course, I don’t imagine the dead ones got much of say in the matter!
afternoon all and Maggie Thatcher fan askes me to say hi as he is somewhere on the A9 this afternoon.
In the Summer 2007 Gordon had still folled most of the media and electorate into thinking that he was the most super duper Chancellor since we appointed someone to operate the Monarch’s abacus.
In the past 12 months most of the media and almost all the electorate have come to realise Gordon was a total fraud and couldn’t balance his way out of a public toilet let alone a set of abbreviated accounts for a micro business.
that realisation has been similar to the scales falling from Saul’s eyes on the road to Damascus on his way to writing stories of biblical epic proportions. So if Millipede, Harperson or any of the other would be PMs dislodge Gordon and ascend the greasy pole, at best I would think Labour might recover to around 32% but in the marginals where frankly the only votes count, the increasing rate of repossessions, redundancies and all the other tragic consequences of a plummeting economy will ensure Labour go down and down badly whenever they have the guts to call an election.
78 Thanks Nick.
As it happens, I had another £200 at 8/13 with William Hill this morning on GB NOT being deposed this year. I felt good about it at the time and feel even better now.
Those odds are still available incidentally and represent the best way of making the ‘lay’ bet that you suggest.
Trust you are very well and enjoying your stay. Is there much talk in the MSM there of Morus’s impending visit?
re 43 Gwynfa fancy a bet on that?
It will only change the west irrevocably if our sheep like politicians are panicked into doing the terrorists work for them. I imagine knowing this shower that they will.
@92:
No. The EU is paying the American MSM to maintain a total news blackout on Morus’s visit.
94 Thank you, Martin.
That’s a far more plausible theory than some I have read here of late.
Barack Obama’s birthday was yesterday. He was asked what he wanted as a present.
“Colorado, Virginia and Indiana” was his answer.
He’ll get a bike.
And like it.
88 Morus. BTW have you had to open the contents of your pippy bank for Veep vetting …. and we better not discuss in too much detail those surveillance pictures of you with Madame Patricia the Punter !! …. such dexterity with a snake and jeroboam bottle !!
If Labour elects a new leader (a genuine PM for the long term contender and not a caretaker), how long would he or she need to consolidate his/her position and put forth a distinctive manifesto before going for elections.
In other words, given that May 2010 is the latest date for the elections, what is the latest date when Gordon Brown can be pushed out, with a realistic time interval for the new PM to mount a realistic challenge?
98 “pippy bank”
97 G.
98 - “pippy bank” shome mishtake shurely?
96. Thinking about it, that signals that Indiana is on his target list, a hint it could be Bayh.
96. meaning if he wins, he will be the fifth youngest president in US history, after Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton and Grant…
98 - Listen, Thomas Eagleton got away with being a drunkard, a psychotic, and a hospitalised subject of electrolysis. Spiro Agnew had more skeltons in his closet than a necrophiliac who can’t afford a cleaner, and Aaron Burr killed a man.
By comparison, my dalliances with women of ill-repute and the odd-bottle-of–vintage-port-too-many don’t really stack up to very much, do they?! And the money was just *resting* in my account…
re 67 but Jack W the Democrats hold in such a case wouldn’t be as secure as that. In the current Congress if everyone voted according to their party affiliation then Obama would win 27/20 which is only 1 more than required constitutionally. Several states have fairly close delegations as well. In such a deadlock the Vice President would assume office and that’s almost certain to be a Democrat.
97 - Very good!
80. ‘Papers turn against Gordon’….what was it we were saying earlier?
106 - 27 state delegations in the House is historically quite high (at least in the last decade or two). The key variable is the number of states with an even number of Congressmen. When this happens, it makes it much harder to win 26, as the constituencies are gerrymandered to make safe seats, so even-numbered delegations are very often split, so have to abstain.
At the moment, the number of even-numbered delegations in the House is very low, so one candidate or other should get the 26 or more needed. It would be almost impossible for the GOP to win this way in either this House, or the next.
Interestingly, you could win the 26 states with only 55 of the 435 Congressmen, I think.
106 Any thoughts on 89.
+that is 109+
80. Papers also seem to be promoting Miliband on the qt in same article.
93 ChrisA, not sure I want to bet on such a macabre topic, but I think it is important [if hardly cheery] to estimate how likely such a scenario is.
Latest Rasmussen Tracker :
McCain 46% .. Obama 47%
Note - Reverse of yesterday. McCain’s lead lasted two days.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Brown was taken at face value because he brought with him the myth that he was a great Chancellor. If you thought his bubble would burst, you were a ‘fanatical Tory’. Even those who questioned his competence were frightened of his luck, which seemed like it would never run out.
Well, it did.
Miliband has been a great ????? nonentity?
As both Porillo and Short pointed out over the weekend, his rise has been through patronage - not outstanding work or popular acclaim.
He is where he is because Tony put him there.
Brown has never had a contest head on? DM hasn’t even had to do the backroom manoeuvering.
Unlike Cameron, who had to get his hands on a seat when competition was tight and fight and win a leadership contest from nowhere, Miliband was handed his seat and his support by Blair.
A numbers of articles have suggested Miliband has not so much been challenging as ‘offering himself up’. Its all he has ever had to do in the past.
Having been ‘taken up’ and given golden opportunities, what has this guy who has clearly been harbouring leadership ambitions done with them, when we are still questioning his recognition factor in the polls?
There is nothing in his rise to suggest political nouse.
There is nothing in his Commons or QT performances to suggest any threat to Cameron.
On top of that, he is just alittle bit weird. Labour can’t do weird again. They will get a reputation.
An intelligent youngster with a slightly strange appearance and an odd verbal style, grabbed at in a moment of desperation, long before he is ready….Labour have gone into William Hague mode before they have lost.
But Mike, seriously, Churchill KNEW about the ongoing fighting in Norway, the Nazi blitzkrieg sweeping France, the need for a massive BEF evacuation, the need to fight off the U-boats, and an impending attempt to conquer England. But Brown had no way to know so many animals would get sick!
115 - “As both Porillo and Short pointed out over the weekend, his rise has been through patronage - not outstanding work or popular acclaim.”
Like Major.
Tapestry - your theory breaks down very simply. There is a much greater chance of Lisbon being ratified if Gordon is still in power.
From your assumption that the press moves as a pack, and is interesting in “bigging up” Milliband, I can only assume you’ve never had anything to do with the media. Presumably in Tapestryland Murdoch takes his orders direct from Brussels:
“Rupert, keep pretending to be a Eurosceptic and get rid of that Brown. Bwaaaahhhaaa bwahhhaaaaa haaaa.”
@117:
Major won a leadership election and a general election.
Gordon? Not so much.
re 113 that’s a shame because I would estimate the probability as practically zero. Prof Lord Rees of Ludlow, President of the FRS has made a similar bet with Wired magazine that that within 20 years one instance of bio error or bio terror would lead to a million fatalities. Can’t remember how much it was for, but it was fairly substantial.
13 — Morus.
On betfair, I’ve backed Obama @ 1.99 (average odds) for $8,820.15.
And laid him for 8820.15 @ 1.43 (average odds). Keeping a potential profit of 4939.28$.
With my capital on betfair, I don’t feel at all like backing Obama now. I preferred in the last few weeks to buy McCain, again and again, in order to lay him when crossing a certain threshold. But here, I don’t intend to keep any profit on him, as I did with Obama. To be @ zero, in order to maximize my profits with an Obama Victory.
However, this might change. For I don’t feel now all confident as I did before that Obama will win this Elections. I really don’t. In fact, I feel nothing now in this regard.
Can he trow an effective punch or two at McCain? I donno if he can.
121: I’m fairly confident (55-60%) of an Obama victory, but I’m heavily long McCain.
If the Obama price drifts beyond 1.9, I’ll be buying him (or selling McCain), otherwise I’ll be staying on McCain.
119 - I know. I was actually comparing Major to Milliband.
Both seem to have get to a high level rather on patronage rather than any general popularity in the party or country. Both are dull, but quite endearingly sweet.
I suspect taht Milliband is academically far brighter than Major, but certainly no cannier a politician. Forget Gordon - he’s toast -Labour have to think who in the long term will perform best against Blair Mk2 (otherwise known as David Cameron).
The long term solution is Milliband, probably therefore. But not yet. Straw is the best choice for Labour now - damage limitation at the next GE, stay around to do a bit of washing up…
What will Gordon do then? Could he stay on the backbenches and attempt to break Ted Heath’s record for the world’s longest sulk?
119 - Major won 2 leadership elections! Beat that Gordo.
115 & 119 Both points are true. Many politicians have those who talent spot and promote them but then up to them what they make when in charge. Major promoted by Thatcher, Cameron by Howard and Miliband? by Blair. Cameron is successful, Major was intially and Miliband who knows. It’s a long road when Tony is no longer there to hold his hand in public. He may be a success though you never know.
121- The immortal words of John Paul Jones could apply to Obama: “I have not yet begun to fight.” Maybe your closeness to the action makes you understandably more nervous, but I don’t think you should really be so concerned. Think of this as McCain’s Battle of the Bulge, where he scores a momentary advance before the overwhelming forces arrayed against him inevitably turn the tables.
I feel that Brown was still benefiting from a general feeling that the economy was still doing well when he came into office this helped to build his reputation.
Brown dealt fairly ineffectivley with what our fairly minor events ( apologies to flood victims) His inteventions were generally not helpful. The heading in the gaurdian headline was clearly written by someone with little knowledge of History. Winston Churchill came into office just as the blitzkrieg was ploughing through the low countries.
Any sucessor will be dealt with a deterioating economy and a different media dialouge , the isuue for Labour is that the sentiment for change is perhaps to great whoever is at the helm, most of the non politicos i know have simply stopped listening to labour spokespeople.
123 - Sorry, this whole “academically bright” thing is starting get on my nerves.
Miliband got three Bs and a D at A level, and got into Oxford on a ‘disadvantaged family background’ basis. He’s not some uber-brainy geek, he just looks like one.
128 - To be fair, he did get a First. That does suggest a modicum of brains.
128 - do you know that? Or did he take the entrance exam, get a two-E offer, and then relax for the last two terms of his Upper Sixth?
129- so, in fact, Oxford made the right decision, rather than getting someone with 4 As from a better school…
129 - So did Cameron, but you don’t see many people maintaining that *he’s* an academic powerhouse.
132 - Well I maintain exactly that.
92 - I have also taken this bet (many thanks for drawing it to my attention); Nick Palmer’s words about his thoughts on Obama v Hillary have struck home with me.
126. If you look at Obama’s past campaigns, he has a habit of waiting and then doing a mad dash at the end. It gives you that come-from-behind insurgent vibe. Also, I imagine the campaign is aware that Obamamania couldn’t last from the primary season through to the general, so they want to let it dull before the convention.
128. Really? That’s incredible considering his reputation. I guess it shows how mediocre our present bunch of politicians are.
@129:
Not in a real subject.
126 — S&S — Yeah, you’re probably right.
My fear is that McCain and its Generals can actualize something like an Operation Fortitude — able to destroy “Fortress Obama” against all odds, with the sheer psycho-affective power of deception techniques and spectacular propaganda…
http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/german_blunder_an_allied_victory
128. He did get a First in a joint honours degree at Oxford though, so I reckon that counts as academically bright.
131 Instead they got someone whose dad moved in academic circles.
136. What the heck counts as a real subject? Politics, Philosophy and Economics are all proper, traditional subjects.
128 - that was presumably back in the days when Oxford set an entrance exam. I don’t think everbody got straight A’s back in those days.
O/T - All this congratulation to Ramprakash the other day - well Graham Hick, now 42, has just scored a century better than a run a ball. First class century number 136. Also has 40 one-day centuries and 2 in the 20/20. Including one day runs, I understand he is now way ahead of Jack Hobbs in total runs ever scored.
Shame that he like Ramps was no mediocre in Tests.
128 …. ‘disadvantaged family background’ basis.
Can this be right? I seem to remember reading that Old Father Milliband had to make use of inheritance tax loopholes ?
141 - should say “so mediocre”
Perhaps Hick and Ramprakash are just flat track bullies who can’t cut it at the highest level. Like Gordon Brown?
I am getting a bit bored of the Labour leadership debate! All talk and no action!
Come on Miliband denounce Brown and thrust your dagger!
Interested to see Nick Palmer’s post! Good luck in retaining the World title! I hope for a British Victory! (Indeed an English one!
)
Interesting point about Nick Robinson and his his summarising of points; I am not really sure it is necessary. Mind you that is probably what he gets his telephone salary for! I always remember seeing Robinson at PMQ’s when i watched in the chamber about 5 years ago! He had just landed the job and he looked pretty pleased with himself and the obvious fame that came with it! He made a pretty rapid rise from run of the mill reporter to ‘top notch’ commentator overnight so it would seem.
78. “Lib-Tory dominance on the site”. Sounds good Nick! But you need to remember that partisans of these two ancient parties spend most of our time having a go at each other. And Stuart Dickson ensures that the SNP pulls its weight, so what it really boils down to is the fact that when you’re away there is scarcely a Labour viewpoint worth listening to.
128. I was intrigued by Miliband’s mediocre A level results too. Just a couple of thoughts:
(1) Miliband’s school was an academic disadvantage, but his family background? Did the tutors take pity on him because he was the son of a pair of raving socialists, and had to put up with Tony Benn pontificating over the dinner table - and therefore let him into Corpus so that he could learn the rudiments of market economics?
(2) Miliband got a first at Oxford IIRC, so it’s possible that his A level grades reflected his schooling more than his ability.
@142:
Ralph Miliband was a radical Marxist. Surely using tax loopholes would be deeply unprincipled?
144 - Isn’t he in Spain ‘on holiday’? I wonder if he is anywhere near Toledo?
Who got the best GCSE’s. Perhaps it matters more what they did after their education? I suspect Milliband’s rep came from his advisor role. A bit like George Osbourne. Cameron clearly didn’t have that rep when he was off at Carlton…
“Jeff Randall, writing in The Daily Telegraph where he is a senior executive, said he would not trust Mr Cameron “with my daughter’s pocket money”.
“To describe Cameron’s approach to corporate PR as unhelpful and evasive overstates by a widish margin the clarity and plain-speaking that he brought to the job of being Michael Green’s mouthpiece,” wrote the ex-BBC business editor.
“In my experience, Cameron never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative, which probably makes him perfectly suited for the role he now seeks: the next Tony Blair,” Mr Randall wrote.
Sun business editor Ian King, recalling the same era, described Mr Cameron as a “poisonous, slippery individual”.
Vernon bogdanor loved him though, “one of the ablest” students he has taught. No surprise there though!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4502656.stm
146. I’ve studied Ralph Miliband’s writings. I was most amused at the fact his saved his most scathing criticism for social democrats, who he considered to sell out Marxism and act as a bulwart to protect and legitimise the capitalist state. And now his son could be a Blairite PM!
146 - I thought Marxist principles were for everyone except those who propound them?
141. Yes, the Grade inflation has devalued the A-level. I got pretty miserable A-level grades because i was very unhappy as a 6th former and wanted to leave school and work full time. My mum made me go to university because she could not afford to keep me at home to repeat A -levels plus it was just after the last recession and jobs were difficult to come about. Ironically i would have been better off not going to university missing years of full time paid work and having my qualifications seen as a bar to the sh*t jobs i have done in the past. Employers baffle me; you are over-qualified for jobs that are fairly well paid and end up having to take even worse ones as a consequence on lower pay. It beggars belief!
And by the time I posted that, half a dozen of you had already commented on Miliband’s first.
As regards the comparison with Cameron - I think being considered “clever” may still be an asset among sections of the left, whereas Tories are still suspicious of politicians who wear their brain on their sleeve. And of course, Etonians learn early in life how to avoid being typecast as intellectuals.
135 — Socrates : “If you look at Obama’s past campaigns, he has a habit of waiting and then doing a mad dash at the end.”
Herrrr… Obama got away with a non-offensive approach in the primaries against Clinton because Clinton was the huge favorite, entering the race. Also, Obama stayed a goo guy by not playing really offensive against a woman.
But he did promise to go manly after McCain or any other Republican opponent, right?
And he is yet to do so…
I short: Obama is failing to play offensive — thus giving Mac the opportunity to define Obama as a phony inexperienced unpatriotic flip-flopping egomaniac.
The people does not seem to buy that a vote for Mac is a vote for a third W Bush term…. (apart UKpaul, I mean).