Labour private poll: “Boris winning the 2nd prefs war”
February 28th, 2008
The secret survey that shows Ken could be in trouble
When on Tuesday Ken sought to counter the latest YouGov mayoral figures by revealing party private polling data he set off a disclosure process that has, for the first time I believe, allowed us to look at the full numbers from a Labour survey that was supposed to be secret.
And with this election looking very tight a key factor will be how the second preferences split - will they favour Ken as they did four years ago or could they offer something to the Tory challenger, Boris Johnson?
From this poll, at least, it is not looking good for the incumbent. According to his party’s MORI data for every three second preference votes that he’s getting his Tory opponent is picking up four.
Labour’s private poll looked at this in three ways and on each approach the picture was the same - whether for all those naming a choice, the “certains to vote” or from a third question that has so far not been revealed - a forced choice between Boris and Ken
To the question “Thinking specifically about Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate and Ken Livingstone, the Labour candidate, if you were forced to choose between
them, which would you prefer to be Mayor of London?” those certain to vote split Ken 49% to Boris’s 47%. Given that when all candidates were included Ken had a four point lead this underlines the point.
There’s a further factor which should be worrying the Ken camp - turnout. In 2004 this was 36.95%. The “certain to vote” proportion in this Labour Mori poll was 48%. My view is that the smaller the turnout figure the more challenging the election will be for Ken and that it will end up being closer to what happened last time than the polling figure.
It should be noted that the later YouGov poll with Boris 5% ahead was taken after the Lee Jasper suspension, does not include any probing on second preferences and had no turnout element.
In the Mayoral betting Ken has continued to move out. He’s now at 0.79/1. Based on the information we now have Ken is worth laying at anything up to evens.
MessageSpace Advertising
test
There are the people who voted Ken last time who are much less likely to support him this time:
Jews (obvious)
Hindus (hate Qaradawi who calls them ‘pigs and dogs’)
Gays (hate Qaradawi who wants them executed)
Young people (Boris has got more yoof appeal)
Anti-Establishment types (Ken is now seen as quite Establishment)
Anti-corrupt politician types (thanks to Lee Jasper)
Sufi Muslims (hate Qaradawi more than anyone)
And these are the groups who will stand by him.
Orthodox Muslims
Blacks (although they are less likey to vote)
Ideological Left wingers (how many of them are there?)
Add to that the differential turn-out because of the Tory revival, the drip, drip of bad news stories and the professionalism of Lynton Crosby and Mike’s view that Ken is in trouble must be right.
Michael Bloomberg has an article in the New York Times, saying he will not run for presidency. Sorry about the long link, have no idea how to do the short thingy, and I am knackered after a long night shift.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
I think you are being over generous to Ken suggesting laying him only to evens. The polling evidence seems to show that Boris should be the faveourite. At least I think he is and have invested accordingly!
4. “polling evidence seems to show that Boris should be the faveourite. ”
Those would be the polls showing Ken in the lead, then.
In the polling data above, what’s the distinction between ‘Undecided’ and ‘Don’t know’ ?
5. Um yeah, ok. Nevermind the most recent poll showing Boris 5 % ahead, or the fact that the Mori poll (before all the sleaze stories) showed Ken only 2% ahead, or that in 2004 Ken had 20%+ poll leads only to win narrowly.
Well I guess we’ll just have to wait and see..
Will the mayoral election be decided on scandals,blunders,gaffes and the general ‘noise’ or will it be decided in a more normal fashion ?
Boris(who couldn’t find his Paddick in the dark) and Ken are the two most indiscreet and gaffe-prone figures in public life and yet they both must be doing something right or they wouldn’t be where they are today.
I cannot see Livingstone winning after a ‘quiet’ campaign because Labour are not the force they were in London but if it is a very ‘noisy’ one it could be a coinflip.
Currently I have 5-2 Boris to very decent money, with fringe benefits on AOC and Paddick.I will toss a few crumbs out at below EVENS and take it from there.
If pressed I would say that Boris was now favourite and has momentum.Nonetheless,16-5 is a better price than 5-2 !
6 “Well I guess we’ll just have to wait and see..”
That would be boring! Ken has issues clearly, and it must be a concern for his campaign team that he looks quite so vulnerable. I would suggest though that the wider public probably haven’t started to take that much notice as of yet. The campaign proper probably won’t get under way until after Easter, that is when we will begin to see the real situation.
8
“Ken has issues clearly”
Whereas Bonker Boris avoids all the issues! Does he eat McCain crisps I wonder?
Sorry to go O/T so early in the thread.
Seems a good time to “lay” Hillary,in the betting sense of course.
The best indicator of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) distress is the fact that erstwhile supporters, including former Clinton Cabinet members, are badmouthing her as a very poor candidate. Inside the Democratic Party, it is already taken for granted that the queen is dead and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is the king.
Boris’s campaign has gone well since the beginning of the year. Yesterdays Cigar case story only serve to reinforce his reputation. I think Ken will try and turn this campaign very negative.
11. Possibly, but there’s effective negative and there’s ineffective (and probably counterproductive) negative.
Effective negative undermines someone’s credibility. Ken will have a tough job trying to do that to Boris as the biggest problem Tories have been acknowledging for a while with Boris’ campaign is that his political career so far has seemed a bit frivalous and lightweight. However, that’s both changing and was never quite as true as some - including at times Boris himself, it seemed - made it sound.
Ineffective campaigning goes more along the grounds of ‘how can you possibly vote for a toff? He has no experience of living in a deprived part of London’. In other words, class-warrior-style abuse which most people don’t care about and those who do are in Ken’s electoral pocket anyway.
Negative campaigning does nothing to improve a party’s or candidate’s own rating directly; the effect is solely a by-product of reducing the opponent’s. It is easy when campaigning negatively to look nasty and wishing to avoid debate on the candidate’s own record / policies. That’s why if it’s not done well by Ken, simply undertaking it can have an adverse impact on his own ratings.
Livingstone is an experienced politician, but as a rule, the longer they stay in office, the more they become detached from reality and the more they become convinced of their own invulnerability. My guess is that media commentators will be surprised by the lack of effectiveness of Ken’s campaign and by how well Boris’ goes down (which given low initial expectations, is perhaps not that surprising).
10. No - the time to lay Clinton or back Barack was when she was 1/3 around Christmas and he was 8/1.
I think there is still more to come from Boris, whereas Ken simply cannot offer anything new. My original theory that the second voters will decide this election seem to be confirmed by your numbers, as Boris and Ken supporters will push each other all the way.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Looks like the Newt’s appeal is shrinking back to the core ethnic, deprived, and nutter base which it should have always been confined to.
Herbert. You wrote yesterday “Jitters return to the banking sectors amid rumours of an emergency Bank of England meeting with one of the clearing banks in trouble……”
Do you work on the basis that if you keep up this daily ritual one day your prediction must turn out to be accurate?
15. If so he’s just following your lead, Roger.
No one can ever decry Boris’s undoubted intelligence. What he has to do is apply it. To apply it to the problems of running London means working Bl**dy hard. Which something Boris until recently has not been known for.
Ken currently seems to be currently stuck in an early 80’s timewarp.
15.Where is pot, kettle, black.
If Ken starts going negative the best bet would be for Boris to just ignore it and stick to his guns. The public have become more and more disenchanted with politics because it’s become all negative posturing, but if someone comes along who focuses more on positives than negatives they can (if tactically astute) win.
It always astonished me that Livingstone ever won so easily as he and his politics have always been divisive and repugnant.
However, I guess it demonstrates what a truly awful state the Conservatives were in in 97-05.
I also think that Boris’s team should utilise Labours unpopularity more and remind people that McBroon (lying) has been supporting the great newt.
20. JH. In what way ‘repugnant’?
21 - Well giving a platform to a peddlar of bile, hate and poisonous incitement seems pretty repugnant to me.
21. I refer you to 22. but it was the Trotskyist, class warrior, pandering to terroists and dicators(irish and others), special interest rollocks that I was thinking of too.
I think Ken’s biggest problem is running as a Labour man with the spectre of Brown hanging over. Ken is clearly much more popular than the Brown led Labour party, but all the same Brown is the anchor weighing him down, as Labour will find to their cost if they have to run an election campaign with Brown hanging on. Unthinkable.
Ken would be well advised to pick a big time fight with Gordon, and disassociate himself from the daily blunders at number 10 that has become Brown and his team.
Ken is going to lose
After two terms, Ken is looking a little jaded, to say the least. However I wonder if some of those being polled are indulging in a little bravado, ‘I’m gonna vote for Boris I am’ the nearer the day, they might not be so sure!
To me the political news of the day is the Tory pledge to outspend Labour on the NHS, even if this means cutting finance to other departments: defence perhaps? The right’s response will be interesting.
see here.
http://tinyurl.com/ytvhm3
25. Shy Ken voters…hmmm…I think that may be wishful thinking. Given many of the comments on here and elsewhere regarding Boris it is more likely there are shy Boris supporters.
25 - the problem is, the defence budget isn’t really big enough to provide significant funding; if the NHS is to get more money, realistically it’s going to have to come from savings on other areas of the welfare budget. Or, say, abolishing the tendency to spend tens of billions of pounds on IT white elephants.
Some very astute observations and analysis of the Livingstone/Johnson campaign; I would be very interested on others take on Brian Paddick and what shape his campaign will take, does anybody have an inkling?
Or shall we change the topic as Coldstone is so desperate to do?
25
No they may not bother at all!!
How the Daily Mash sees GP’s
http://tinyurl.com/3aw6c8
28
Ooooh if only I had the power.
Still ‘ol Tebbit is stirring the pudding I see.
23 - Ken is the master of slice’n'dice, cut’n’shut politics. Picking off just enough voters in just enough distinct groups to get over the winning line. It is cynical and is actually devastating to politics.
“Ooooh if only I had the power”
Coldstone, ‘You can do it if you really want’
10) Herbert Proper - Lay Hillary now? At this price (1.21 midpoint)?
I get the contrarian aspect but don’t we have strong reason to believe Texas is likely lost and Ohio very close? The mystery to me is why her price has held up so well. I expect her to be trading around 1.1 around 2am GMT on March 5th, with a good chance that she withdraws from the race later that day = 1.01.
Latest stuff
Martin Luther King Civil Rights Peer John Lewis switches Clinton-Obama - (hinted previously)
http://tinyurl.com/2g9z6k
Superdelegates;
MSNBC now make the superdelagate count Clinton 255, Obama 201.
O/T - The Cleggy contortions on the EU Treatystution are getting weirder by the day it seems.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3449054.ece
[20] I think there’s a lot in this. The Mayoralty covers the same area as the old G.L.C., every election for which was lost by the governing party of the day. As, of course, was the Mayoralty in 2000.
I suspect that 2004 will turn out to have been a “once off”. Boris will win this time quite easily, and lose even more heavily in four years’ time - not on his record, but because by then Londoners will want to give the Tory government a kicking.
32
I’d rather not comment!!
33 Yes, PC, and even more of a mystery is why McCain’s price is similarly holding up - at 1.05, that’s free money, imo.
So I see John Lewis has plumped for Obama. Can Debenhams be far behind?
37. 1.05 = heart attack factor.
Er … am I the most right-wing person on here? I couldn’t motivate myself to care very much about any of these issues though …
(P.S. for reference I was initially a Hillary supporter and have moved to McCain now)
Your Results:
82% Rudy Giuliani
72% John McCain
69% Mitt Romney
68% Hillary Clinton
67% Bill Richardson
66% Barack Obama
65% Chris Dodd
62% John Edwards
59% Mike Huckabee
55% Joe Biden
54% Fred Thompson
48% Dennis Kucinich
48% Mike Gravel
44% Ron Paul
41% Tom Tancredo
28 “I would be very interested on others take on Brian Paddick and what shape his campaign will take…”
Pear?
Last time Norris suffered from the Jarvis link
I believe this held back the Tory vote and resulted in a lot of negative publicity
Ken is the one getting the negative publicity this time
Also it is apparent that lib dems are more hostile to Ken than Boris - encouraging voters in soem parts to vote anything but Ken
38 Hmmm…price still seems a bit generous to me, Harry, but then I’m a punter, not a doctor.
Seems Chris Huhne’s assessment of his rival is proving reasonably accurate.
Given that the double referendum (treaty and in/out) amendment has been accepted for debate and vote, why don’t they just vote for that?
34. Is it me or is Clegg handling this incredibly badly?
42. Probably a lot of laying off too - money now rather than August.
34. Corporal Clegg, unlike one of his distinguished predecessors, seems keen to lead his troops away from the sound of gunfire.
We’ve seen enough evidence this week to know that Ken Livingstone is in trouble, as James Burdett has been saying, Boris Johnson should be slight favourite overall now.
re 31 - James your comment does not apply to this election - .”Ken is the master of slice’n’dice, cut’n’shut politics. Picking off just enough voters in just enough distinct groups to get over the winning line. It is cynical and is actually devastating to politics.
The problem with this campaign is that that is not an option. There are no districts to pick off - just one huge electorate of 5 million Londoners which puts a premium on those areas with high turnouts - the outer London Tory/LD boroughs.
Last time a significant proportion split their tickets on the mayoralty and went for Ken. I cannot see that happening this time.
The most striking about the MORI 2nd prefs data is the fall-of in support for Ken compared with last time.
His situation is not yet as bad as Hillary’s - but it could get that way.
48. Bojo going the other way in the markets - 2.28 was avail this morning.
45 Yes. That I can see. I did as much myself a while back.
37) Agreed. May put the Obama bank on McCain for “safe keeping”. I’m not convinced he has a 4ish% chance of dropping out for health reasons - therefore value.
48 - I wasn’t referring to electoral areas but demographic groups. Maybe I should have been more explicit.
Inviting homophobic anti-semitic islamic extremists for talks is one.
34. Clegg is quickly turning a notable embarrassment - the Lib Dem betrayal of their referendum promise - into a very serious debacle.
And all this for… er… uhm… what do the Lib Dems get out of this again? What is it? Can anyone tell me how they benefit from their bizarre volte face?
What do they get? Anyhing? A cabinet seat from Gordon? No. Electoral reform? No. An alliance with Labour? No. Respect from the Tries? No. More votes? No - they lose votes. A united party? Give over. Media support? No, they get media ridicule.
And all this self-destruction is being wrought so they can…. abstain on a vote. On a vote which they promised to support in their manifesto. They are tearing themselves apart and earning the contempt of all sides so they can… abstain on a vote.
And their brilliant solution to their problems is… to promise a referendum on a subject that hasn’t been raised by anyone but them, a referendum everyone knows they would never hold if they came to power.
The Lib Dems are like a bunch of mentally challenged fourth formers. They should be given a special home with lots of soft toys and stimulating plastic bricks.
34. Incredible - has Nick Clegg completely lost it! I just can not understand his reasoning on this issue. The sooner he back peddles from his present utterly irrational EU “in or out” referendum policy the better it will be for the LDs.
54,54. I agree - I’m not a LD fan but why is Clegg hanging his hat on the EU issue - its a non winner for them. He should be carving out a niche - like Cable did on NR.
54. Plastic bricks, bit dangerous? I have to agree with you, the entire lib dem stance is a mess. They’ve managed to create a policy that has no benefits, and plenty of problems. It does look stupid whenever the subject of the treaty comes up that their reply is to make a new question up and try to answer that one. It just looks stupid.
interviewer: do you want a referendum on the lisbon treaty?
lib dem spokesperson: well, we think the issue is in fact membership of the eu and we should have a referendum on that.
interviewer: ok, but thats not actually the question I asked is it.
And thats the main problem, they don’t answer the question.
34 54 55
Nick Clegg proves my dictum “The LibDems have a knack in picking the wrong leader”.
Says it all about how the party thinks. Totally unfit for anything but a minor third party.
Nick Clegg is building on Ming’s work to destroy the LibDems as a credible Opposition Party.
54 “[The LibDems] are tearing themselves apart.”
Agreed. Europe is as toxic for the LibDems now as the issue was for the Tories under Major. With his pathetic staged walk-out, Clegg is completely vacuous - an empty vessel, having dumped his promise for a referendum over the side.
Those MP’s from the SW especially must be wondering what they do. I wonder how many might be considering self-preservation - by defecting to the Tories?
54
I know! juvenile lot, its those bloody Cornish, they keep voting for them!!
Whenever you mention the fact that we’ve already had a referendum on EU membership, Eurosceptics, are quick to remind you, that the referendum wasn’t on the EU, it was on the EEC.
So what’s wrong with having a referendum on the EU? seems a good idea to me.
Be very interesting to see which way certain people jump? you for instance seant: in or out?
Going back to 25, surely the fact that the Conservative Party has pledged to make its priority spending committment the preservation and protection of a socialist institution, (The NHS) marks a momentous moment in British political history.
The Tory Party has now made the full transition to being a Social Denocratic Party, that means at the next GE, we’ve got three to choose from.
Clegg is useless. A mistake. A callow and immature man. Amiable and pleasant, but vain and insubstantial. I think Lib Dems just have to accept they boobed.
On Europe he is especially inept. He is a Europhile to the core, an exMEP, of Dutch and Russian extraction.
There is nothing wrong with that but I suspect it makes him blind to the nuances of the EU debate in the UK - and how destructive the issue can be if handled badly (as the Tories know well).
Clegg is so inept he blurted out, live on TV, that the Lib Dems would actually support the Labour party in nixing a referendum. Now he has desperately rowed back to an abstention, and no doubt he approved the farcical and juvenile Commons walk-out.
Oh dear.
Vince Cable was so obviously the better choice for leader. Cable is the thinking man’s Gordon Brown. Serious without being dour, intelligent without being arrogant, deft without being machiavellian, honest without shoving his moral compass down our throats.
Cable knows that the Lib Dems should have stood by their referendum promise. The LDs must regret not persuading him to be leader.
59. The walk out was hilarious, mainly because Davey was such a whiney teenager about it ‘oh its so unfair, I hate youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu’
re 54. Sean - given that you were never going to vote Lib Dem anyway your views on Clegg are hardly worth considering. Even if the party was fighting for a referendum on the treaty you would find something else to attack.
Virtually nobody cares about the Lisbon treaty apart from a few euro-loons. It’s hardly an issue in the media and is not registering in the polls.
Personally I think that Clegg is wrong - but it’s no big deal electorally.
My Goodness what a load of tory trolls on this morning…
What Michael Lord did is disgraceful, and there will be serious ramifications on his rulings from the Speakers chair. The fact that you all want Clegg to fail does not mean that he is in trouble at all- it just means that the usual crowd of Tory misfits would *like8 it to be true.
Back on thread- tend to think thatKen is in seious trouble, but wil be looking for a couple more pols to see what the breakdown of his core groups is doing. After the Tory foul up in Ealing Southall, I am prety sceptical about this gowing triumphalim, especially as it comes rom the untested theoy that BJ is doing better in the outer boroughs than we think…
Slightly OT, does anyone else think that the hypocritical and cynical move by 1/3 of the Cabinet to campaign against their own policy on Post Offices has the prospects to blow up into a major embarrassment for the Govt? It does show that Brown has no control at all over his Cabinet and “collective responsibility”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/28/npostof128.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7268291.stm
I don’t think the Lib Dems are earning everyone’s opprobrium JUST for proposing an in-or-out referendum, Coldstone. It’s that they’ve suddenly introduced this from nowhere for no readily apparent reason while carefully sweeping the referendum they’d earlier committed to under the carpet, all the while stirring up some strange faux-outrage. It just looks odd.
I don’t think anyone would object if they were proposing an in-or-out referendum as well. Although some people might think it a little tangential.
For the record, I’d vote ‘out’ on that one. But I suspect I’d be on the losing side.
Anatole, I’m pleased to see someone elses answers put them on the Rep side too - my answers put John McCain at the top of my list (but only 73%, so yes, I suspect you are the most right-wing person on here
)
64 - What is disgraceful about applying standing orders? What is disgraceful about sticking to the proposition that the Speaker’s ruling is final?
64. Why is it disgraceful? He ruled that a motion about a subject connected to but much larger than the treaty was unacceptable as there wasn’t really enough time to get into it. There is already not really enough time to debate the lisbon treaty fully anyway, never mind debating whether to leave the EU or not! The speaker decided that the time should be spent fully on the treaty instead, as the much larger debate wouldnt be much use in the time provided. The lib dems dissagreed quite vocally, then stomped off in a pathetic huff.
66
I think to come out would be a disaster, but the only way I can prove that is to come out, so I’d vote out too!!
63 Mike S. Absolutely correct !!
Most of Joe Public doesn’t give a Cornish pasty for the Lisbon treaty or the nuances of Lib Dem policy.
If anything the Lib Dems are finally coming into line with the other major partties…… they are split on Euro policy !!
54.”And their brilliant solution to their problems is… to promise a referendum on a subject that hasn’t been raised by anyone but them, a referendum everyone knows they would never hold if they came to power.”
Clegg has had his bluff called on an In/Out referendum and he has folded leaving his credibility in tatters. Its all the more incredible because of the juvenile attics of a few days ago, the outrage was as fake as the supposed passion to give the voters a real choice and debate on Europe.
54. Mike I’ll respond to your remarks on this issue, when you say something remotely interesting or original - i.e. something other than “no one cares no one cares”.. Because the funny thing is your party seems to care so much about getting the Lisbon Treaty passed it is prepared to humiliate itself and break a solemn promise, to do just that.
If no one cares, why not just fulfill your manifesto promise - rather than lying and jiving, and looking like a bunch of devious and risible twerps? Yet again?
60. Nothing wrong with having a referendum on the EU in toto.
But first, let’s have the referendum that EVERY SINGLE MAJOR PARTY PROMISED.
The referendum on the EU Constitution. That’s all we want. We just want the major parties to stick to their promises, stop lying and weaselling, end this in-or-out drivel, and give us the actual referendum we were promised by every party.
That’s all we want. Just let the people decide. Like you promised.
Are Labour or the Lib Dems actually capable of not dissembling or deceiving for more than, say, an hour? They remind me of the character in Jim Carrey’s “Liar Liar”. All Libs and Labourites do is lie. They can’t go for a minute without lying.
They’d probably have aneurysms if they were prevented from lying for an entire afternoon.
64. I think you should read 63 as the appropriate, self-aware and balanced way to put down the eurosceptic rants rather than accusing everyone who does not agree with you as being a tory troll.
Your assessment of the LD walk out is just as blinkered and ludicrous as SeanT’s pontifications. At least he is aware of how he comes across.
The LD MP’s looked like idiots and Clegg’s policy on the referendum has been poor. You guys are just lucky that voters are not that interested.
72 seanT. It really is a bit rich for you to say that those that have an evidentially based position are not remotely interesting or original.
The current polls are clear. Most punters don’t care. You do. The nation can live with such a deviation.
63
Agreed.
I read all the rantings about lisbon but to the avearge voter it means nowt. It does not register.
And I have to say: any policy or movement that has John Redwood as an avid supporter is deeply suspect as the man has the ability to make anything he supports suspect in the public eye.
People who rant on and on and on about the same issue and appear unable to change their tune may be right .. but are usually deeply unattractive politically. (see Tebbit, and Churchill pre war).
It doesn’t mean much to the public, however it can produce rifts and infighting, something which does bother the public. If the lib dems start fighting each other over the treaty it’ll give the tories (mainly) the chance to take some seats off them.
seanT: You won the argument the other day. Spurting out garbage like “All Libs and Labourites do is lie. They can’t go for a minute without lying. They’d probably have aneurysms if they were prevented from lying for an entire afternoon.” just reminds people what a utter fool you can be and makes them forget that you were on the winning side of the argument.
63 - I’m generalising massively from myself here Mike - but I’m sure there is a significant body of the electorate who WOULD be prepared to vote Lib Dem if only they were slightly less Euro-fanatic. Or even if they were privately Euro-fanatic but prepared to temper this by only plunging us deeper into Europe with the approval of a referendum. For a while it seemed like they were going to adopt this second position, but it turned out to be an empty promise.
On the other hand, I don’t think the LDs stand to lose many votes by tempering their Europhilia slightly.
No specific evidence for this of course, and if you’ve any polling evidence on the subject I’d be interested…
76 - Yes but the whole mess is motivated by fear of the Conservatives.
76. I think you are probably right but I think the Labdemers continued cozying up to an unpopular Labour will cost them more..certainly in Southern and Midlands marginals..
In the case of Churchill, it did not make him wrong.
80. True, infighting coupled with supporting the (unpopular) government may leave with with some severe damage at the next election.
Bit of a Boris love in today. I am a Tory but yet to be convinced for a variety of reasons.
1. I don’t trust regional polls. we have seen in the US Dem Primarries that they are all over the place
2. I am not sure that the voters know what Boris stands for and he hasn’t much time to get that across.
3. Low voter turnout makes it all a bit up in the air
4. I prefer to be pessimistic before elections i care about
“Your assessment of the LD walk out is just as blinkered and ludicrous as SeanT’s pontifications. At least he is aware of how he comes across.”
Bless you.
77. MyBoy. “seanT: You won the argument the other day.”
I won an argument?! Calloo Callay!
JackW, you are an idiot. My rejoinder to Mike Smithson on this issue - voter uninterest - has not changed. No one cared about emancipating the slaves or female suffrage for many many years. Those that did bang on about the issue were regarded as cranks, blowhards and pontificators - like me on the EU.
But were they wrong? William Wilberforce? The suffragettes? Were they wrong to bang on about it, tediously?
I am well aware that I sound cranky. I get cranked up about this. But the thing is I am right. Morally right. And at least I care about the slow debauching of our democracy.
Contrast my cranky attitude with those on the opposite side - like the Lib Dems and Labour europhiles. They are a repulsive bunch of liars whose only defense is… that no one cares they are a repulsive bunch of liars.
Well done chaps. History will clap you on the back I am sure.
83. I agree wholeheartedly with your point 4. I am really trying to keep my expectations for Boris low. The trouble is I can see the entrance to City Hall from my office and everytime I look up I keep having images of Livingstone, his desk and his cronies being carried out screaming and my hopes rise…
A new Civitas primary poll for North Carolina :
Obama 38% .. Clinton 24% .. Undecided 38%
McCain 50% .. Huckabee 23%
McCain beat both Democrats by a double digit lead in this deep red state.
http://www.jwpcivitasinstitute.org/media/poll-results/february-2008-decisionmaker-poll
………………..
A MTSU Presidential poll in Tennessee gives Clinton a clear edge over Obama against McCain, although both lose to the GOP candidate. Tennessee was a strong win for Hillary on Super Tuesday :
McCain 46% .. Clinton 41%
McCain 53% .. Obama 37%
http://www.mtsusurveygroup.org/mtpoll/s2008/MTSUPoll_political%20report_s08%20final.htm
It was supposed to split the Tories, hence all the “Time” to debate the subject.
Failed so far.
87. It hasnt worked mainly because:
a) labour are beginning to show cracks on the subject.
b) the lib dems are a mess over it.
c) the tories remember the 90’s infighting and don’t want to go back to it.
87. Very good point. The Tories are showing exemplary unity on Europe.
It’s Labour who have been obliged to threaten MPs with expulsion. And its those splitters the Lib Dems who look like the inmates from an asylum accidentally taken on a day trip to the Commons.
This is what happens if you find the ethically correct position, and stick to it, as the Tories have done. You can stand firm, united and proud on the moral high ground.
Splits, backbiting, squabbles and embarrassing walk-outs are what happens when you adopt a morally wrong position, then try to justify it with more fibs.
Deep down many Labour MPs and Lib Dems (who aren’t all mendacious slugs, I will confess) know very well that what they are doing on the Constitution is wrong. Their discomfort is emerging in these infights.
Some new updated projections for Texas. McCain still leads by over 20% and Barack Obama still leads by less than 2%.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/obama-leads-by-137-while-mccain-leads-by-2334/
84 seanT. If you really think you can objectively compare the Lisbon treaty to the emancipation of the slaves and universal sufferage, then you really are a few chapters short of a blockbuster.
Mainly Conservative euro sceptics have ranted on this issue for more than forty years and for the most part the issue barely raises a flicker of interest for most voters. What is has done is weaken the Conservtive party and enable their opponents to portray them as a split party more interested in navel gazing euro babble than more important issues such as health, education, crime and the economy. In doing so it has only helped to send the Tories to three catastrophic defeats.
I shall wear your ‘idiot’ tag with pride.
91. Good. Then we are agreed. You are indeed an idiot.
91. Jack, you must remember seanT is a passionate Liberal Democrat who wants every comma and semi-colon of their 3-year-old manifesto implemented, despite its rejection at the last election.
Sorr Jack, but for much of the past forty years it was Labour who were split on Europe, which was the defining issue that caused 27 Labour MPs to wlak out in 1981.
In fact itis an issue taht has poisened all our political parties - a referendum on Lisbon would have lanced the boil, particularly as it would not have needed to be seen as a vote of confidence in the Government. Neither the French or Dutch Governments resigned after rejection of the treaty, nor did the Swedish Government when their people shocked the BBC and voted against the Euro.
It is this constant arrogance and assumption that Brussels knows best” which causes the damage.
93, if you have the power to keep an electoral promise it’s irrelevent whether or not you actually form the next government.
With Lib Dem support for the double-referendum amendment it stands a serious chance of going through.
Of course, that mean sticking to its manifesto and being mean to Labour.
Hey if we have a referendum to come out and we do! Then will seant argue that we should go back in again, if only so he can argue we should………I’m losing the thread: still I’m in good company.
The Spekkie not impressed by Lansley, is this the Tories clause4 moment.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/528196/lansley-splashes-the-cash.thtml
92 seanT. I’m more than happy to play the idiot to your fool!
94 Peter G. It’s certainly true that the issue has damaged Labour at times. However I strongly contend that the European issue has been far more toxic for the Tories than any other party.
I have some Spreadfair money on Boris and on Obama. Currently, Obama’s spread is 15.0 to 16.2, and Boris’s is 15.4 to 16.6. While I find my eyes confused by the similarity when quickly checking movements, I’m also interested that the market is suggesting an equal probability of an Obama presidency and a Boris mayoralty. Should the odds be equal?
93. No, I’d just like the Lib Dems to stop lying. To stop fibbing. To stop… oh what’s the use. Asking europhiles to stop lying is like asking four year olds to stop making amusing farting noises with their underarms.
Perhaps instead the Lib Dems on here, like Mike Smithson and Jack W, would like to explain how they feel about their European leader Andrew Duff: who yearns for the vanquishing of the English, and indeed said, hopefully, of the debate on the EU Constitution: “If the English can be defeated then the opposition in Prague will disappear”.
If the English can be defeated. IF THE ENGLISH CAN BE DEFEATED.
What is it like to be actually led by a self-confessed traitor? Must be weird. Then again, maybe not - for lefties.
Hillary down to 13’s on the Iowa exchanges.
I’d expect some new Ohio and Texas polls later today folowing on from the debate on Tuesday.
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Nomination08_quotes.html
98 Bask
In my ‘book’ it should be 4/5 Obama, 5/4 Boris.
99 In a way, SeanT, I kind of agree with him.
You see, I believe Nations, along with Religions, are a lot of nonsense and superior, highly evolved life forms like myself should rise above those sorts of things.
Naturally, I make allowances for the lower life forms and think down to their level when conversing on sites such as this, for example, but occasionally I’m prepared to reveal the lofty tenor of my thoughts, especially to the more sentient humans beings such as yourself.
103. The concept of nationhood has given rise to a lot of betting ops tho - footie, cricket, Eurovision….
101 PtP. I fear I have to advise you that the AMCB Horse’s withers ….. were indeed eh… withered !! More horses doffers than an aperitif to the main event !!
96 I don’t think it’s a Conservative spending commitment (from reading the article) so much as Lansley’s personal opinion as to how much money would have to spent on the NHS. I would certainly be unhappy with such a spending pledge, which would really tie the hands of an incoming Conservative government.
WRT the Lisbon Treaty, it really doesn’t matter that it doesn’t excite the public. It excites the political class, and does seem to be causing real turmoil in the Parliamentary Lib Dems. And like the fox-hunting issue, it will probably help the Conservatives in a handful of Con/Lib Dem marginals where a few hundred votes could tip things either way.
WRT Boris, barring a major cock-up, I think he’ll do it.
93. Err but didn’t the Lib Dems say after their pathetic walkout that the speaker was stopping them fulfilling their manifesto committment?
You obviously aren’t up to speed with the latest spin lines, though to be fair it’s not surprising you find it hard to keep up as they appear to be changing by the day.
101. Sounds about right.
I’m maxed out on bets at the mo, but if I had some cash the value would appear to be Obama who will likely move heavily odds on when/if he ties up the nomination (on March 5th?). Putting money on Boris is a proper ‘punt’, simply because both the key personalities involved are equally capable of screwing up - no odds truly represent value in the mayoral race.
“However I strongly contend that the European issue has been far more toxic for the Tories than any other party.”
In the past, but not now. Only 3 Conservatives voted for the Lisbon Treaty at the Second Reading.
97. A simplistic and juvenile analysis, as ever.
The European issue was toxic for the Tories not because it was about Europe but because they were totally split on the issue, between idiot europhiles and passionate eurosceptics.
The public as we all know is mildly eurosceptic, hence inclined to agree with the Tories. This - is - why - we - are - not - having - our - promised - referendum (are you keeping up with this, Jack? I’ll go slower if you are confused).
However the voters’ mild euroscepticism was outweighed by their deep dislike of any party in open revolt, any party that appears seriously split. That’s how Europe damaged the Tories. It wasn’t the issue itself.
Now however all the doddery and bumbling old Tory europhiles have died our or defected (I believe there are some left in the Lib Dems) and the party is largely united behind a rigorous, sensible and popular policy of euroscepticism.
Instead it is the Lib Dems and Labour who are starting to tear themselves apart on the EU, as they have both adopted a position which is morally base and politically incoherent.
That’s your politics module for the day Jack. You can go back to your knitting now.
102. By my usual rules, Peter the P, I should really dislike you intensely, and give you the caning I give all other horrid europhiles.
Unfortunately I have met you and know you to be a courteous, humane and very thoughtful bloke, so I have to keep making exceptions just for you.
Grrr!
The tories have been so damaged by europe in the past, it’s become a subject Cameron can pretty much tell them to do whatever he likes on it. Their too worried about it splitting them apart to try and form their own little cliques.
108 Sean. True. However a party can be united and obsessed and fail to catch the mood of the nation.
105
Its called a pledge, seems pretty firm to me.
A Conservative administration would increase health spending by up to an extra £28 billion a year, a leading moderniser has told The Times. Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, gave a long-term commitment that under the Tories health spending will rise to take up an extra 2 per cent of GDP.
“I think we are bound to have rising real-terms health expenditure,” he said. “That means that health expenditure is going to be a rising proportion of total public expenditure.”
It is the most explicit pledge to increase spending on the NHS since David Cameron became Tory leader and take the party into territory beyond current Labour commitments. But Mr Lansley said that funding such increases would require cuts elsewhere in public services if the Conservatives were to meet their tax pledges.
106. I only speak for myself.
I think having 27 electorates second-guessing 27 governments over a treaty negotiated at length and in detail is nonsense.
Governments should negotiate and sign treaties, and if you don’t like the result, kick them out at the next election.
112.”Its called a pledge, seems pretty firm to me.”
I think that Sean is correct about this.
113, so the government can agree anything in the meantime? WHat if Labour signed over the whole country to the EU?
Democracy means more than one vote every 4-5 years. If there’s a fundamental change we deserve a referendum, especially when everybody promised one in their manifestos.
109 Your amusing and amicable rejoinder made me smile, but there’s a serious point there.
Some on this site may wonder why I ever defend, support or tolerate an outrageous, europhobic young reprobate like you. The answer is that for all your demented rantings, your writings are shot through with a humanism that a discerning reader such as myself recognises instantly.
So you are not merely tolerated, despite some of your ridiculous view, you are enjoyed and admired - around this neck of the woods anyway.
Pax vobiscum.
the only useful referendum i can see for the europe issue is a “further in”/”further out” one (possibly with extra status quo option). this way the government of the time has a clear direction and mandate each time a minor EU treaty is discussed.
no point whatsoever having a referendum on a treaty where all the debate is on technicalities. and i’m not sure there is much mileage for any of the parties. in particular, the tories, if successful in their current line, risk drawing attention to their own divisions/gulfs on europe.
109 seanT. When you use your default abuse techniques it’s a sure sign that you should return to casting your mind to book titles and nom de plumes.
117. Thats what labour were hoping for, no divisions have surfaced so far. In fact the only divisions have appeared in the lib dems and some labour MP’s.
112 The Times may call it a pledge, but it doesn’t read to me like one.
111. If anyone is failing to catch the mood of the nation, surely it is Labour and the Lib Dems who are refusing the public the referendum that the public wants.
I wonder if there isn’t a much broader theme for the Tories to exploit here though, encompassing the erosion of democratic government and accountability at a variety of levels.
Not only is parliament’s authority being stealthily transferred to an unelected foreign bureaucracy, but within the UK we have an increasing transfer of power in areas like planning and education away from local government to quangos, regional development agencies and ‘partnerships’ which are usually a front for various corporate interests.
Local government is in danger of becoming as much a flimsy democratic facade concealing government by bureaucracy as national government has become in so many areas due to the expansion of the EU’s competences.
We also have public services like the police becoming increasingly insensitive to local demands, and even becoming politicised.
So let’s see the Tories calling for a democratic revolution at all levels, including loads of referendums - national and local. That might also get the public re-engaged with politics.
re 101 I would make Boris 4/6 now though there will continue to be a lot of value above that.
At the moment we have phases of “loyalty” punters who are betting for their champion out of their sense of allegiance. I’m picking off bets at the appropriate price.
The Mori poll which was supposed to be favourable to Ken is both old and is based on 48% saying they are certain to vote. That’s about a third more than last time.
Almost all the nation voting intention polls are showing the Tories doing particularly well in the capital.
A useful analysis below (scroll down) on how Ohio will carve up its Democrat delegates :
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
120.More on this over at ConHom, Tories DO NOT plan to spend more on health than Labour.
107. I would suggest McCain or a Republican win might be the best value at the moment if you believe recent American polls on McCain head to heads with Obama or Clinton. The US “surge” in Iraq and the policy to support local Sunni militia groups to keep the peace appears to be working. Unfortunately all this might work well for the GOP come next November.
I’ve said before that I believe that the only natural political units are the parish and the planet.
Like (almost) everyone else I’m glad to see Jack W back.
(Oh, and I’m about to e-mail my Lib Dem MP saying that I think the Lib Dems should support a referendum on the Lisbon treaty - although I’m beginning to wonder whether that point of view is tainted by its expression in some posts here.)
113. So on that basis you’d be perfectly happy for the next Tory government to roll back every single European Treaty we have signed, since the first one in 1975, WITHOUT a referendum.
This would of course take us into a situation similar to EFTA, indeed arguably we would be even more outwith the EU than EFTA members.
You’d be cool with that, without a referendum? Yeah? That’s your logic. Indeed by yr logic the Tories could then take us into NAFTA, again without a referendum.
This is just one of the problems lefty europhiles are storing up for themselves by their disgraceful behaviour. They are giving any future government carte blanche to do basically what they like with the nation’s constitution, without a plebiscite.
Every ratchet is reversible.
116. Pax to you too, Peter. I think this actually is one reason why I don’t come to pb parties. It’s much harder to be viciously mean and amusingly nasty (well, I find it amusing)to people you have never met.
Imagine if I went to a pb shindig and met, say, NickP and Roger - and actually liked them! Horror of horrors! This is quite possible, as I like most people I meet.
But then I could never be really horrible to then and my pb joy would be very confined. So I’d best steer clear of the Nat Lib Club.
OK, gotta have my bath now. Dusk is falling over the Sukhumvit condos, and my Bombay Sapphire is beckoning at Suzie Wongs.
Sawadee.
re 121. To see how much the public cares about the EU just check the latest MORI poll where those participating are asked, unprompted, to list the major issues.
Last month it was in 24th position with just 1% saying it was the most important issue facing the country.
I think that many Tory supporters enter into a fantasy land when they talk about the EU.
128. It may not be at the top of voters’ agenda, Mike, but they still want a referendum. And denying it is a clear breach of manifesto committments, a degradation of democracy.
128, and yet 80% want the referendum they were promised.
If you asked people to list the bodyparts they consider most important the appendix and coccyx would end up pretty low, but that wouldn’t mean they’d be happy to lose them.
Even if you consider the Consti-treaty a wonderful and super thing, we were promised a referendum. And if it’s a wonderful document there won’t be any problem persuading people to vote for it, will there?
126 agingjb. Thanks. Although I rubbed Jon C up the wrong way last night and he’s fled the stage …. and I’d only been back a day !!
Hope he changes his mind.
BTW. Forgive me if I don’t reply to all the messages here, emails etc. It’s really great and unexpected to be back in the saddle, heathier than for many years and fighting for the Jacobite cause on PB and making a few quid besides !!
122 Once the political cycle turns, London tends to produce bigger swings than the country as a whole. IMHO, for this reason, I think that seats like Ealing North, Harrow West, Dagenham & Rainham, and Brent North ought to be treated as marginals at the next election, even though they like fairly safe on paper.
Mike,
Your in danger of arguing that we do not need to keep our referendum promise because nobody will notice.
re 24 speaking about Brown - Yesterday in parliament seemed to give PMQs to Cameron yesterday, was scathing about Brown’s questioning of Cameron. Also I thought the speaker’s response to Nick Clegg was risible - rather than quietening the horde he seemed to blame Clegg for the way he phrased his question.
re 37/38 if McCain were an average Englishman - it’s 32/1 that he’d be dead in a year.
133. Which would be a contemptible position for any democrat to hold. But I’m sure what Mike actually means is that there is no point in the Tories making too much of this issue because ‘no-one cares’.
128, I’ve seen this nonsense trotted out many times, the fact that the Referendum is not at the top of peoples list does not mean they don’t want one.
I judge things by very basic set of rules; Opinion groups ‘follow the money’ Dictatorships ‘follow the boats’ and finally Polls, if the question has never been asked, then the Government already knows the answer and doesn’t like it.
130. It’s a bit like the fox-hunting issue. Very few people really cared about it, but when the public were asked, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of a ban.
From what I recall of the early days of pb.c. , though, the usual suspects were NOT screaming for Labour to honour their manifesto promise.
135 That’s a 3% probability, Chris.
Election is in less than a year, so I’m right - the 1.05 on offer on offer on Betfair is value.
136 - Indeed, but then it makes the Lib Dem’s position slightly more farcical because Davey was clearly wrong that this is the debate everyone wants. Rationally the Lib Dems Euro-contortions are simply a factor of them not having resolved their electoral problem in that there is a slight to moderate squeeze in their vote occurring. They seem to be not quite sure how to deal with the issue and in many ways appear to be adopting positions that will only exacerbate their problems.
There are some behaviours described by Eric Berne in his book Games People Play.
The Adult ignores the Naughty Child - and so the Child wins. To prevent the Child from winning the Adult must act like a Child - but the Adult loses. This is how Labour and the likes of Jack W drive people out of politics.
There is a 3rd way. The Adult can take the Role of Adult. This takes some effort and in reality, people simply turn their back on the child.
After losing the discussion, Jack W made false statements. When proved wrong he ignored facts and resorted to insults (and boasting of an intelectual prowess). Roger giggled and drooled with delight, others found it boorish.
Jack W is a argumentative old scot with a lot of time on his hands. I suspect his beligerance has driven away all close to him. Now, he finds himself alone and finds time to spend hovering over a keyboard determined to get the last word, doing unto Net users as he did to colleagues, friends and family.
But it is interesting - because this is a model for British Politics.
Eventually, people tire of the argumentative politicians that lie and insult. They can win the game for period of time. People will turn their backs on the and they shall find themselves alone.
This is what we are finding. For many years, Labour has behaved like a Naughty Child while Conservatives turn their back and refuse to bring themselves down to their level.
Labour won the game - but now the voters are also turning there back. Labour’s loneliness shall be measured in seats.
139 - But you could get that rate (i.e. the 2% or so above the prospect of death) at Northern Rock by the time they pay out! Also, there is a risk that ill health short of death, or a scandal or something like that could put him out. I don’t think 1.05 is value and have taken my profits on McCain (I got him at good odds last year) now.
i very much doubt that 80% of people really want a referendum - after all, nothing like that many people ever vote.
http://www.idontwantareferendum.com doesn’t seem to be up and running yet, so i don’t have a platform.
118 - Whilst it is wonderful to have you back, Jack W, what on earth possessed you to type:
“109 seanT. When you use your default abuse techniques it’s a sure sign that you should return to casting your mind to book titles and nom de plumes.
by Jack W February 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am “?
The plural of ‘nom de plume’ is ‘noms de plume’, not ‘nom de plumes’! Given that I do not know whether you are a serviceman or civilian, I will need to consult several Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General to know whether jury trials or Courts-Martial are more applicable in cases where it is unclear as to which jurisdiction you should be subject. They shall decide where you shall receive your Coup(s) de Grace.
Of course, were you still ‘Peter Jacques’ (a corporate body composed of several persons), perhaps Lettres de cachet would be more applicable.
128. Oh God, Mike, do you just have an F1 button which you can hit, when you want to repeat that entire paragraph, ad nauseam?
I hope so. It would save you retyping it pointlessly and embarrassingly. All it does it make you look even more dishonest “we know we lied on this issue, we know we are deceiving the people, we know we have the morals of a toilet brush, but that’s alright because no one cares”.
Dear oh dear. The fact you keep trotting out this antique defense means it must be the only one you have. It’s a silly little figleaf. I don’t know why you bother.
FWIW even I wouldn’t say Europe is the number 1 issue facing the country. Its just not an immediate pressing issue that springs to mind when you are asked that kind of question - unlike crime or terrorism or immigration or your local hospital.
But consider this - probably no more than a few Scots would ever have said Devolution was “the number 1 issue facing the country”. Yet the Labour party still considered itself morally obliged to deliver a Devolution referendum to the Scots, as it was a manifesto promise.
Unfortunately the English, and indeed the British, aren’t due similar consideration, it seems.
Now can we finally put your sad little canard to bed. And let us hear no more of it.
Thankyou.
Labour has no authority to sign the Lisbon Constitution.
It is an illegal act. When the next government gets in, it can be reversed and legal action can be taken against the conspiritors, including financial recoveries.
re 139 well normally I’d agree, but I believe that McCain has had health problems in the past so might not be considered average by your average government actuary.
141 Correction, for those interested in Berne’s book, “The Adult can take the Role of Parent”
145 - Okay, look to the second column in Mike’s link - the one where people get to name ALL important issues affecting the country. Crime 47%, Immigration 40%, NHS 33%, Economy 20%, Defence 20%…. and on and on and on to Europe at 2%.
O/T At post 47 on this Boxing Day thread:
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/26/was-the-the-1976-fight-even-dirtier-than-huhne-clegg/
I asked the following question:
“If McCain wins the nomination/gets too close to Rudy/Mitt, what odds on somebody bringing up the “he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, so might not be a ‘natural born’ citizen, and therefore might not be eligible for the Presidency - let’s avoid a Constitutional Crisis by voting for one of us” issue? I’m not saying it’s an issue, I’m asking if the other Republicans are dirty enough to try it - I reckon possibly, if pushed. Would the Dems in a GE?”
Feeling fairly prescient, given today’s NY Times article:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/america/28mccain.php
147,
You can be sure it will be a feature of a Democrat attack advert.
I have just been trawling the net for news on John Edwards hoping for the possibility of an Obama endorsement before next Tuesday - nothing found to raise hopes on that score but this amused me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86-or9XrUl0
“I think having 27 electorates second-guessing 27 governments over a treaty negotiated at length and in detail is nonsense.
Governments should negotiate and sign treaties.”
So said Alan J at 113 above, who deserves a prize for saying the only sensible thing on this subject all day.
And while I’m boasting about my psychic powers, this from 21st December 2007:
“Certainly the GOP field is more split, but what is interesting is the number of Superdelegates (normally elected officials or senior party figures - most are uncommitted until the winner is clear). There are only 138 GOP Superdelegates (out of about 2450) whereas the Democrats have a massive 765 Superdelegates out of 4000 (I count 848 total unpledged out of 4356 - everything is in flux, whilst the parties fight the states over reducing delegate count as a penalty for moving primaries forward in time).
It is more than possible that Superdelegates could be called upon to broker a solution … in the Dem race because the Superdelegates comprise almost 19.5% of the delegates, meaning the lead candidate will have to have a substantial lead (more than five-eighths) for the result to be a foregone conclusion prior to Denver.”
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/21/sean-fears-friday-slot-40/ (post 66)
At the time, Hillary was 76.5 on Intrade for the Democratic nomination - now Brunhilda is being called to the stage…
150. The Democrats will struggle to pin a ‘foreign’ tag on McCain at the best of times, but if their candidate is the once-berobed Obama, it would be an insane tactic.
155 - I know, it is unbelievably stupid. Not entirely sure it’s not Hillary raising the issue trying to make it backfire on Obama in the GE out of spite … (I’m joking)
144 Morus
I’m not sure I agree. Noms de plume would certainly be correct if he were writing in French, but he’s adopting a french phrase for use in English, so I think the English plural is OK.
It’s a bit like the Latin plurals argument. If we were wandering around ancient Rome in out togas, curricula would certainly be the correct plural of curriculum, but since we are huddling in front of fires in freezing cold Wanstead, or Mountain Ash, or wherever, what’s wrong with curriculums?
You can see you’ve touched a sensitive point.
153 - yes, how silly of the people to think that they might actually wish to have a say in how they are governed. I am in favour of the constitution, but I am a firm believer in trusting the people. On present form, I can see no reason why the people should trust the Labour party or the Lib Dems on matters to do with the EU, and given that the Tory position on the EU is not to have a coherent position, that’s a very sad state of affairs all round.
Eurosquabbles aside, can I just point out something very important?
Mike Smithson is saying that Boris Johnson is about 4/6 shot…and he’s presently backable at over 5/4. I think it’s fair to say our host knows what he’s talking about when it comes to political betting, so frankly how any of you are finding the time to argue over Europe when we should busy piling mountains of cash on Boris escapes me.
I have also thought that Peter the Punter should be Peter the Pedant.
144 Morus. Guilties as charges on all counts !
‘Peter Jacques’ was AMCB Horse’s and mine love child. ‘Horse’ duped me into a torrid affair after Rik W’s horse laid a careful and cunning plan to lure me into a Reading Jacobite Menage.
Now ‘Horse’ having had his sport casts me aside like a Liberal Democrat Euro Pledge !!
I am bereft, I am disraught, I am fallen, I am 105 !!
149. You people really are ludicrously poor at arguing.
So the salience of an issue in the public mind is what determines Lib Dem attitudes, is it? That’s how it would seem.
OK, let’s look at the figures again.
Oooh, look, only 4% of people - less than 1 in 20 - think pollution/environment is the number 1 issue facing the UK today. I guess that’s why your average Lib Dem doesn’t fuss about climate change and green issues. Because “people just don’t care”.
And a grand total of asterisk - i.e. zero people, or thereabouts - give a toss about nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Hence the Lib Dems relaxed and indifferent attitude to Trident, the expansion of nuclear power stations, ect etc. Hey - no one cares!
And another whacking total of 0% of people - yes, nought - think animal welfare is the major issue of the day, while an enormous 1% think it is an important issue.
That’s why there are so many Lib Dems who are into dogfighting, I guess.
Grow up. It’s boring arguing with people on national curriculum reading stage 2.
I rather think BJ’s problem might be peaking too early. He’s got momentum now - but Ken can still win if his core start to believe that he can really be beaten. Up until now, complacency on the part of Ken’s core has been important to BJ - but that could well be challenged.
There are the people who voted Ken last time who are much less likely to support him this time:
Jews (obvious)
Hindus (hate Qaradawi who calls them ‘pigs and dogs’)
Gays (hate Qaradawi who wants them executed)
Young people (Boris has got more yoof appeal)
Anti-Establishment types (Ken is now seen as quite Establishment)
Anti-corrupt politician types (thanks to Lee Jasper)
Sufi Muslims (hate Qaradawi more than anyone)
The al-Qaradawi visit, I think, is going to be of limited importance. The Hindu vote has been one of Labour’s more solid bulwarks in the post-Iraq years, and I don’t see that changing - I don’t think the visit has had huge ructions among the Hindu community. The Qaradawi issue has probably caused more damage among the left-leaning gay community. I don’t think it’s fatal in itself, but it could well lose Ken a large number of votes in conjunction with other factors - the most important of which is Paddick’s appeal to this group. The Jewish vote has not been that important to him, although he could regret futher losses here.
BJ doesn’t have universal youth appeal, I would have thought. Nevertheless, the young matter less than the elderly here.
153 It’s nothing to do with silliness. We have jury trials so that a representative selection of people can hear all the evidence, weigh it up and reach a considered conclusion. I don’t just wander into the Old Bailey and start finding people Guilty just because of what I happened to read in the Daily Mail that morning. Referendums suck.
163 I seem to recall that Hindus deserted Labour in substantial numbers in Brent East.
159. Well I for one got my cash on Bozza a long while back - convinced by Roger’s confident assertion that he had no chance. That left me plenty of room to argue the toss over Europe and other issues.
:)
160 Yes, there’s definitely a pedantic streak in me, London, which is kind of surprising for a man of my education and hairstyle.
164, then why promise one?
167 PtP. You have a hairstyle ??? It’s news to your syrup maker !!
………………………
McCain continues to assail Obama over Iraq :
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4356093&page=1
166 Yes, he’s been the value option for some while, Harry. He still is, although I think Mike’s overegging it a shade at 4/6.
164 - if you regard a constitution as equivalent to a murder trial, you go ahead and think that’s a good analogy. The current Parliament has no moral authority to vary the terms on which I am governed without a referendum, and there is now a well-established practice that constitutional issues are to be the subject of referenda (viz Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Hartlepool, London, North Eastern Assembly). Your argument seems to be based on administrative convenience. Sometimes democracy is inconvenient, but I have more faith in the wisdom of crowds than in the wisdom of politicians.
Livingstone lost credibility within the Jewish community during his GLC period.
Geoffrey Alderman included a chapteron this in his book about Jews and London politics
Its in the genes. Its one stop away from a compulsive/obsessive disorder.
157 - ‘Curricula’, ‘Syllabi’ and ‘Cappucini’ are just aesthetically better than curriculums, syllabuses, and cappucinos. They are nicer to say - like ‘cellar door’ being better than ‘basement hatch’. We should leave this for another time though - we both know how the Creatures can smell grammatical pedantry like sharks can sense a droplet of blood in an ocean!!
161 - That is a truly spectacular post!
O/T On the Lib Dems - someone said they don’t have to keep manifesto pledges because they did not win power. Your manifesto pledge is with the people who voted for you. If the Green party says it will vote against Trident, and I vote for them, they owe it to me to do as they said. It is irrelevant whether they are the government or not. In fact, I can understand governments breaking manifesto pledges because government is contrained by its responsibilities. Opposition has not excuse ever to break a pledge on how they will vote on a certain issue.
I say that without knowing where I stand on Europe, or the Lisbon Treaty or the EU in general. I just think that you should do what you promise, especially if it makes no difference anyway.
169 Yes, Jack. It’s the Ross Kemp look, still very fashionable around Walthamstow Village.
“This is how Labour and the likes of Jack W drive people out of politics.” [141] A Man Named Bolted Horse
Blimey that’s a bit strong isn’t it. I know Jack caused the earthquake, is responsible for global warming, the great shortage of malt whisky and decent claret and the NHS deficit, BUT blaming him for driving people out of politics is going too far.
A Man Named Bolted Horse @ 141.
Transactional Analysis is a bit old hat these days. But ‘Games People Play’ is good fun ‘pop psychology’. One step up from Marje Proops.
However. Taking your analysis at face value, I find it interesting that you cast Tories in the role of ‘Adult’. In many ways ‘typical’ Tory psychology is very much the ‘Child’, particularly on social issues and international issues, where views are often represented in black and white, good and evil type terms, and sophisticated arguments are written off (I have always assumed, because they are too complicated to understand - but maybe I am being patronising there). Of course, this is often accompanied by a great deal of hypocrisy and self justification - like the best 7 year old.
Now not being Labour either, I look at your piece and think, as my mother used to, that ‘I don’t know who started it, and quite frankly I don’t care, but it’s clear that you both need your heads bashing together’.
So before you get on your high (bolted)horse again, perhaps you should remember that the only thing more irritating to an adult than a naughty child, is the know it all child who tries to take the moral high ground.
Now…I am going to go back and play ‘Little Monsters’ on my X-GamesPeoplePlayStation360.
162 seanT. Others might think it ‘boring’ arguing with someone with the intellectual equivalence on the Euro issue of repetitive nappy rash !
164. OK, let’s explore the Lib Dem position on the most important issue of the day a little further.
Today we seem to be getting the argument that governments should sign treaties and if the voters don’t like it, they should kick them out at the next election. The implication of this would seem to be that the next government would have the absolute right to then tear up any such treaty.
But just a couple of days ago we had the ranting Cicero arguing that once a treaty had been ratified it would be ‘too late’ to do anything about it. And other Europhiles have argued along the same lines, i.e. that no government can resile from a ’solemn international obligation’ (cue pompous music).
So what is the Lib Dem position on this? If the Tories win the next election, will they be entirely within their rights to abrogate Lisbon, or will they have to abide by their ’solemn international obligation’?
If it is the latter, then the case for a referendum is even stronger.
174 Agreed, Morus. We can slug it out on March 4th in quiet moments between the betting.
(Oops, I’m pre-empting a later thread.
)
175/176/177 PtP/Icarus/Paul L.
all round.
The problem with the pro Referendum parties (small p) is that most of them blame the EU on the centralisation of UK political power in Westminster and MPs feeling sidelined and EU law translated into UK law.
But we know that the UK enshrined EU law with gold plating. And the centralisation of power is Westminster is NOT of the EU’s making.
The problem - I would contend - is the incompetence of MPs in reviewing legislation and letting goldplating take place AND
the willingness of both main parties to centralise power in Westminster.
I see no real signs of anything changing: it just gets worse. We effectively have an elected autocracy.
The feeling of powerlessness in the face of faceless officials,and the correct assumption that taxes are rising yet service standards are falling says to me that the State as currently set up is going to have to be dramatically reformed. Power to the people.
The problem with the pro Referendum parties (small p) is that most of them blame the EU on the centralisation of UK political power in Westminster and MPs feeling sidelined and EU law translated into UK law.
But we know that the UK enshrined EU law with gold plating. And the centralisation of power is Westminster is NOT of the EU’s making.
The problem - I would contend - is the incompetence of MPs in reviewing legislation and letting goldplating take place AND
the willingness of both main parties to centralise power in Westminster.
I see no real signs of anything changing: it just gets worse. We effectively have an elected autocracy.
The feeling of powerlessness in the face of faceless officials,and the correct assumption that taxes are rising yet service standards are falling says to me that the State as currently set up is going to have to be dramatically reformed. Power to the people.
163,
“The Qaradawi issue has probably caused more damage among the left-leaning gay community.”
I’m not so sure you are correct, a poll carried out by ‘PinkNews’ reported on the 19th February 2008 that,
“Incumbent Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone won the most first preference votes, but was overtaken by Brian Paddick when valid second preference votes were counted. 316 people who live in the London area took part in the poll.
The first preference votes cast were as follows:
Ken Livingstone (Labour) 119 (37.66%)
Brian Paddick (Lib Dem) 116 (36.71%)
Boris Johnson (Conservative) 42 (13.29%)
Sian Berry (Green) 32 (10.13%)
Err, it’s not my usual ‘newspaper’ of choice.
157 “If we were wandering around ancient Rome in out togas…”
Togae?
121
On tuesday the Lib Dems had a stage managed walk out from the HoC becuase they didn’t get their amendment,on wednesday they got their amendment and on thursday they decide on a three line whip against any of their MP’s voting in favour of the amendment they wanted on tuesday.
Is this still their policy or could it be subject to change?
All this pluralisation pedantry reminds me of one that gets on my nerves which is when people ask you to ‘roll a dice’.
145. I think this point about the EU being irrelevant to most people is Hokum. A smokescreen.
People are simply incapable of understanding or appreciating how it affects their lives.
Indirectly, the EU has a massive effect on those top TWO issues.
(1) Immigration - EU law says that there is freedom of movement for all member states. That is a big reason why immigration became such a potent issue post-2004.
(2) Law & order - EU law dictated numerous Human Rights laws and judicial principles.
It’s just these “issues” aren’t phrased in such a way so that the public can appreciate that many British politicans are now impotent to change them.
Reintroduce the death penalty? Agree, or disagree, we could never legislate on it.
Restrict EU immigration? We could never do it.
Stop the influence of Human Rights law? We can’t. It’s part of our EU body of law.
The debate isn’t framed in this way, because politicans don’t want to admit they are powerless to change it. What leverage would they then have?
And, another HUGE issue, wonder why public disillusionment with politics and politicans is now at an all time high? Why to be “held in contempt” is almost a complement for a politican now? Why people feel politics doesnt change anything?
BECAUSE EU LAW ACCOUNTS FOR THE MAJORITY OF OUR LEGISLATION TODAY OVER WHICH WE HAVE NO POWER
Another reason, is because of dirty, hypocritical little U-turns on the EU constitution referendum that the Lib Dems/Labour have sneakily become party to
186. Thats why I think this policy is more trouble than its worth, Clegg & co have spent more time trying to jump through hoops over this issue than anything else, and what has it benefitted them? Not one tiny little bit, strange seeing as they say it’s not important! All that effort for no reward, apart from some jokes at their expense and the threat of a split.
172 Peter Golds
Geoffrey Alderman? Can you give me a link, Peter? I think this is somebody I knew at School.
Thanks
Many things which are ‘old hat’ have gone out of fashion but in my experience work. I’ll file transactional analysis there (along with ‘management by walking about’). Now, about logotherapy…
184 One would want to compare it with a poll taken of their readers in 2004.
WRT Hindus, I’m pretty sure they’re not solid for Labour (at least in local elections). In 2006, several wards in Brent and Harrow with big Hindu populations returned Conservative councillors with large majorities. The one I was living in at the time, Kenton, has one of the largest Hindu populations anywhere in the country (29% I think in the 2001 census, and probably more now) and is one fo the safest Conservative wards in London.
186. It’s painfully clear that they are simply making it up as they go along. Any feeble excuse to avoid a Lisbon Referendum is being used.
Ptp: “Ptp: “outrageous europhobic”, “demented rantings”, “ridiculous views”
I am disappointed a man of your immense politeness, decency and intellectual calibre has chosen to use such language.
As SeanT has said in the past, this sort of “rebuttal” is typical of Male/Female Europhiles in their 50s and 60s (Ken Clarke/Caroline Jackson) amongst them, who view all eurosceptics as rabid, regressive, r@cist nationalists who were partly responsible (or complicit in) the attitudes which led to all the death and destruction of WWII.
The world has moved on now Peter.
Eurosceptism is a perfectly reasonable and justifible view.
Nobody my age (under 40) ever insults my intelligence by using the sort of language you just have.
I don’t want the return of the British Empire, or a regression to 19th century jingoism complete with r@cial superiority.
I just want national independence and democratic freedom.
174.”I say that without knowing where I stand on Europe, or the Lisbon Treaty or the EU in general. I just think that you should do what you promise, especially if it makes no difference anyway.”
The fact that Europe does not register as a pressing issue in the voters minds when polled does not prevent a political party’s behaviour on the issue damaging their credibility either internally or at the polling booths.
Some articles on the life of William Buckley, the outstanding Conservative commentator of his generation, who died yesterday :
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2M2YWRkNGM5ODhmNjFiNmE5YTNkZTc4NTg0YjkzMTk=
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3448410.ece
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/why-william-f-buckley-was-my-role-model
188. So let me get this right. You are in favour of freedom, but against human rights?
194 Nah, relax Casino, it’s only SeanT.
One of the (many) reasons I enjoy his (often vitriolic) posts is that I know you can have a pop back without him getting all girly about it.
192 To continue, Brent North was 41% non-white (of whom I’d guess about half were Hindus) in 1991, but still gave Rhodes Boyson a huge majority in 1992. I would say that predominantly, Hindus vote for whichever party they consider is likely to be the most competent, rather than having a strong emotional commitment to a party.
197 Humans had rights in this country, long before the passing of the HRA.
The Liberal Democrats position on the in/out referendum is a bit tricky to understand.
First, I think they have to be wary that they could lose it - this would be the opposite of what they want and I think expect.
Second, they seem to be presuming that if the public voted yes to EU membership, that this would somehow solve our problems with the EU. As far as I can see, it would change very little. I am supportive of our membership of the European Union, but I have real concerns about how the EU is run, its impact and relationship with the U.K.
If, hypothetically, I was to vote yes to the staying in the EU because, despite my reservations, I could not vote to see us leave (which I presume the Lib Dems hope enough people would do) then I would not suddenly accept Lisbon or how the EU currently operates.
Overall, the Lib Dem position provides as much of a blunt tool to tackle the issue of the U.K’s role in the EU and how the EU should operate than Labour’s - lets not publically debate Lisbon position. It has no recognition of the nuances of the debate - that some people want to remain part of the EU, but do not like how it looks or works today.
It all seems, just a tad naive.
“I just want national independence and democratic freedom.” Casino Royale.
For Scotland, Cornwall, Jersey….?
re 170. PtP - what do you base your view on?
I realise that I am ahead of the markets but even the Labour MORI poll offers very little comfort to Ken.
Remember turnout is king..Remember turnout is king..Remember turnout is king..Remember turnout is king..
165, 192: I’ll partially go back on my words here. Clearly, the Hindu community’s revolt in Brent East (Livingstone’s old seat, after all) was crucial in Sarah Teather’s success - and communities in Brent and Harrow, who are also relatively affluent compared to other non-white minorities in London, can and do vote Conservative, despite swinging heavily in the late 1990s. But the Hindu vote seems to have recovered for Labour to a greater extent than the Muslim vote, although the Sikh vote has been more loyal than either. I’d think Ken would have a clear advantage here, if a smaller one than in 2004, and not enough to enable him to carry a borough like Harrow.
184 - Yes: but as SeanF says, that should be compared to a pre-2004 poll. I assume Ken would have performed more strongly then, not having a poll to hand.
If people disagree with me about the mayoralty then the £150 that is there on Betfair to lay on Boris at 2.32 is mine.
195 - I was being quoted illustratively, and not rebutted, right?
I’ve always considered myself a strong Europhile in most ways - though a little frustrated at the bureaucracy and the cost, I thought it was worth it.
The last few months have made me more concerned about Europe than ever - not because I disagree with the idea of Ever Closer Union, or digital interation, or common security policy, or the Euro, or even a pan-EU rapid response military unit - simply because I feel that I have no say or control over the matter.
I would prefer a Constitution to a Treaty, because then all citizens could read it and understand it. I’d like a United States of Europe, if that were possible. But I am uncomfortable with any changes that don’t root their legitimacy in a full and open referendum.
No idea who I’ll vote for next time, but just as I hold on to railings when I’m not sober, I am tempted to vote for the status quo with which I am unhappy, rather than lurch into something when I know how little control I really have over my direction.
197 - I can’t speak for him, but for myself: yes - absolutely.
What label will Boris be running under? Clearly the party tribalism is of much less importance in the election for London Mayor than most elections - It seems to have more in common with a parish council election than a parliamentary one.
The turnout will depend on whether people think the Mayor makes a difference, and then given a few TV debates (there are going to be some I suppose) who is more scary Ken or Boris. A couple of quid on the policeman might be in order!
..and on the EU the February Mori monitor is due out this weekend.
Anybody want to bet on the ranking of the EU in the pollster’s unprompted “most important issues facing the country” list?
Come on - it’s been in the news throughout the fieldwork period - how much of it has registered with the public?
Southall and Leicester Hindus, I’m sure, are very loyal to Labour, but they are, on the whole an upwardly mobile group, which suggests they’ll gradually drift towards the Conservatives, like Jews.
203 Naturally I take notice of polls, Mike, but I also take notice of other things - not least what I hear from others and my own common sense.
Ken has a formidable organisation, bags of experience in fighting this kind of election, a reasonable track record (quiet all you Blue Harpies, he has) and an appeal that to some extent cuts across party lines. So I moderate in my own betting estimates what I see in the polls (which in any case are not so reliable this far out from the event.)
Anyway, we’re not that far apart. I wouldn’t discourage anybody from backing him at evens or above, but I still make Newtman slight favorite.
200. So why worry if it is enshrined that our Parliament should not pass laws that contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, that Britain was instrumental in drawing up, and signed well before we were in the EU? I simply do not understand the beef with having an act that says you cannot contravene my human rights.
re 208. Want to bet Icarus? You can get 36 on Paddick with Betfair. I’ll offer you 40.
162 - I was merely directly responding to your criticism of Mike’s post, which suggested that although Europe is not top of people’s “care about” lists it is thereabouts. It isn’t.
I have no strong feelings about European referendums and the Lib Dem position on the matter. Suffice to say that even if you bypass the rather turgid argument over whether the Treaty is the same Constitution as that dropped in 2005, parties are not and never have been bound by manifesto commitments which the electorate rejected particularly (although not only) if the commitment was probably not pivotal in the election of a single MP.
211. a reasonable track record (quiet all you Blue Harpies, he has)
Peter - just because you assert that it is so, doesn’t make it so.
The labour Statist view is that you can only have rights if its enshrined in law. We had rights before the HRA and will have rights if its ever scrapped.
211 - I would say that like most political records it is patchy. No-one is ever as good as his fanatics suggest or as bad as his trenchant critics make out.
210 - I’d agree, over the long term. Fundamentally, the attitude of all ethnic minorities is determined by their socio-economic patterns (for instance, black voters who tend to be upwardly mobile tend to be more unionised and more concentrated in the public sector, which influences voting).
Something which could save Ken would be a major campaign, particularly aimed at non-white voters, against the BNP getting a list seat. It probably wouldn’t stop them getting a seat (although it might prevent them from winning two), but, if it increases his core turnout, it can only be a bonus.
212 - You don’t have any Human Rights - they are a fiction, if you claim them as natural and self-evident. If you are a legal positivist, then ask why you would tie the hands of future lawmakers *in such a bad way*.
Human Rights language is a nonsensical, philosophically-illiterate way of talking about moral and legal obligations, and does tremendous harm to the formulation of any coherent political philosophy, which it turn deprives us of cogent public policy.
I can believe that, generally, you should be free to express your views, whilst completely rejecting the absurd notion that you have a ‘right’ to do so. However, once that artificial ‘right’ is set in stone, we cannot prohibit certain types of expression that we might have good reason wanting/needing to curtail.
This is one of the few things that gets me as angry as SeanT on Europe, and I lack his rhetorical flourish, so I suggest we pick this up at some future pbC social event, over a flagon of ale.
216 - And they would be rights enshrined by law were that to happen. Or would you wish to repeal the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta and reverse the judge-given rights established by common law? In this context, “rights” means rights enshrined by law. If they aren’t enforceable, they aren’t rights but permissions which can be revoked at will.
218 - There was a stop the BNP campaign last time too.
215 Of course not, Harry, but I’m a punter not a polemicist and I do back my opinions with cash.
O/T and apologies if posted before. This on three line whip this morning. Do you remember Yes Minister and the episode about the key? In Yes Minister it was Sir Humphrey who had the problem. The worm has turned….
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip/feb/primeministerclouseau.htm
219 - all man-made rules are a fiction in that sense. All that they do is impose certain costs on those wishing to breach them - they are not laws of physics.
Well I thought it might be of interest.
12,000 Jobs Cut In Work And Pensions
Updated:13:12, Thursday February 28, 2008
Twelve thousand civil servant jobs will be cut at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over the next three years.
Must admit I’m confused over the Lib Dem’s position now. They said in their last Manifesto that they supported the Constitution but it musto be ratified by a referendum of the British people. They claim that the Lisbon Treaty is so significantly different from the Constitution that this pledge no longer applies; arguable and opposed by HoC Committee report, various European worthies and the Conservative Party.
Instead they proposed a referendum not in their manifesto. This was rejected by the Speaker as too far removed from the Lisbon Treaty subject matter to be a proper amendment to the Government motion. All the Liberal Democrat MPs turned up at the HoC so they could walk out in protest. Mr Davey then claimed such a referendum was a manifesto promise (must have been in invisible ink or lemon juice).
The Speaker then accepted an amendment which provided just the referendum question they wanted put and added a second question about the Lisbon Treaty, which would align closely to the LD manifesto commitment. So voters could indicate their support for the EU but reject a change to status quo. This is a step to far for the Liberal Democrats - they don’t want the second question put, though claiming to be liberals and trusting the people. The only basis for their stand is fear of the democratic voice, that people might indeed vote Yes/No. Maybe though its fear that such a result would kill off UKIP and put some of their seats in peril? Lib Dems advantage put before principles?
222. Good for you Peter. But your comment was polemical so I felt quite within my rights to challenge it. Had you produced some polling evidence suggesting the voters saw his record as good, I wouldn’t have.
Thanks Mike - my £2 is available on Betfair at 40.
220 - Exactly - rights are (in limited form) a reasonable legal tool against tyranny, but as the base language for law are unwieldy and fail even the simplest tests of internal coherence.
However, if not instituted by law, what is left? Do we honestly believe in Natural Rights? And self-evident truths?
So you don’t need the HRA then, by your own argument.
Its governments who take rights away not people.
206.”195 - I was being quoted illustratively, and not rebutted, right?” Oops, yes.
219. Hear, Hear. I remember debating this when studying Descartes. We are born free but with no rights inalienable or otherwise existing outside the legal framework of the territory in which we live. The trouble with this of course is that our rights are then governed by the implementpors and draughtsmen of that legal framework and as we have seen since HRA that leads to very odd results.
The magna carter was enshrined into law as the Barons wanted to set limits on the powers of the King. The Bill of rights likewise.
This government has introduced more laws in 10 years than any in the previous 50.
224 - I think we agree! My point was that some mad-made concepts are better than others, and rights are not a particularly good concept, given their function.
Are laws of physics not man-made? Discuss!
And who decides what is a “right”. Rights should be excluded not included (i.e everything is a right unless explicitly stated otherwise).
235 - Argh! No, no, no - unless you’re being satirical?
227 Well, it wasn’t meant to be polemical, Harry, I just didn’t want to get dragged into some tedious argument with people whose interest in the site is light years away from betting.
I’m a born and bred Londoner, Harry. My wife and a number of friends used to work for Ken and various members of his tribe. I reckon I understand the nature of the beast reasonable well. I would be a fool if I did not use that insight in helping me interpret what the polls say and assess the odds accordingly.
Will Hispanics defecting from the GOP ensure a realignment in Texas politics :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/political_tectonics_in_texas_s.html
I am merely trying to point out what a vacuous load of nonsense it is.
Its like trying to define Britishness. We just are.
That sounds like a self-evident truth to me - and not even an irrefutable one…
237. I see, so we are back to the Roger mode of argument ‘My mates down the pub think…’. You surely know better than that. In 2001 I hardly knew a single person who intended to vote Labour, but I wasn’t crazy enough to assume that meant anything.
I am a frequent punter too Peter - and a polemicist. But I try not to mix the two up.
237. That did sound a bit like ‘Richard’ and his instictive ability to judge the mood of the electorate via ‘personal canvassing’ whatever that means.
Drudge reporting an as yet unpublished Rasmussen Texas poll that shows an Obama 4 point lead.
221 - Yes, but I’m talking about a more high-profile approach (if Ken’s really smart, he’ll get the other candidates on board, judging that he’ll gain on increased core turnout anyway).
227: You think Ken’s slight favourite and Sean F seems to think Boris will win. Being a good Catholic boy I would prefer a bit more certainty.
Icarus - can we do this person to person rather than through Betfair?
241 My ‘mates down the pub’ are just one element I factor into my judgment of the odds. Said mates have a wide variety of views and some I give greater attention to than others. It’s silly to ignore any evidence, just as it’s dangerous to draw on one source. If you are a frequent punter, as you say, it shouldn’t need me to point that out.
There are punters who prosper despite being ‘polemical’. Those who mix up the two though tend to stop being punters fairly quickly.
Morus. I am confused by your argument. Are you arguing for or against the HRA? On the one hand you seem to be saying that there is no such thing as a ‘natural human right’ so the HRA gives some sort of basic protection, and on the other you seem to be saying scrap the HRA because we had rights before the HRA. But then you also seem to be saying that the HRA gets in the way of a Government governing as it sees fit, but seem equally concerned that there isn’t ‘tyranny’.
Furthermore, you seem to have set up a straw man for my point by arguing against ‘natural human rights’. Personally, I don’t think I argued that there are or are not ‘natural human rights’.
Sorry if I am being dense, but your point confused me as to your position and what you wanted.
245 - Isn’t gambling a sin? It certainly seems to be tied in to avarice which IIRC is one of the capital vices. So if you want certainty, we are all going to hell!
242 Well if it did, JH, it wasn’t meant to. If you are keen on politics you’ll listen to what people say and if your judgement is sound, it will help you evaluate what you are picking up from other sources.
Of course if your judgement isn’t sound, nothing will help you.
249: Not when any profits go straight to the bread for the poor fund.
Mike for £2 (I assume it was you who took my £2 @ 40), which I hope to Mark Senior like, lay at 25s - I don’t think it is worth it!
Paddick wont win, but my point was that Boris and Ken could both look very unattractive by the time of the election.
248 - Ok - I am against any notion of ‘natural rights’. I don’t like rights language in law at all, but can accept a limited amount (Magna Carta) in a legal positivist sense.
I am therefore against HRA and ECHR, as they try (and fail) to create an extensive list of rights, and use rights language as the dominant way of speaking about justice and law.
Magna Carta protects against tyranny - HRA gets in the way of governing. It’s about how many rights the law grants, and how much scope they are supposed to cover. The right to a trial by your peers is a sensible thing - “all people have the right to an education” is just plain silly. Not the sentiment, but trying to use rights language to enact it.
Boris now 2.34 to lay - punter(s) taking anything below
Or a new coat of paint for my Sistine Chapel?
249 - Gambling may be a vice. It depends on the motivation of the gambler - if it is monetary reward, it could be greed; however, if the money is merely a measure of prowess/God-given talent (or lack thereof) I think it could be included in a virtuous life.
However, the very fact that we use money (not paperclips) to gamble is indicative of our reluctance to lose money, which is perhaps an indication that we are implicitly fond of money, which would be vicious.
250. I understand and I only noticed because in the infancy of my gambling career I listen to you intently (probably only listen to Mike more intently)and this seemed more like a troll comment than a punter. In fact your follow up at 247 contextualised it and made more sense to me.
One thing though that I am beginning to learn from this site is that my life experience and the views of those immediately around me can only be of very, very minor relevance to national outcomes. I wish it wasnt true as from ‘personal canvassing’ of friends, family and work colleagues Davey C will have a 250 seat majority at the next election and McBroon is to be hanged,drawn and quartered in Trafalgar Square on 1 June 2010.
re 257. Yesterday my monthly column on Lib Dem voice was titled “Why I won’t bet on the Lib Dems any more”. I have found to my cost that if you are emotionally involved in an outcome it seriously affects your judgement. I really don’t care whether it’s Ken or Boris, Dave or Gord - they are all the same.
256: I’ll set aside some time for mortification ever time I visit this sinful site in future then.
259 - In fact, I believe Your Eminence should frequent a little more often - should you indulge in Simony, perhaps the rest of us can be spared!
“Man hath no greater financial reward than when he wager his soul for his fellow punters”
Been away and still not had time to read any of the posts, but after a quick scan saw that Jack W was back.
Brilliant. Welcome back Jack. The enjoyment level will rocket (once I get time to start reading again).
One thing though that I am beginning to learn from this site is that my life experience and the views of those immediately around me can only be of very, very minor relevance to national outcomes.
Exactly - and in fact it’s worse than that. One tends to mix with like-minded people, meaning one’s personal experiences are usually wholly unrepresentative even positively dangerous as a guide to betting. Moreover we all have a tendency to filter out those pieces of evidence that conflict with our own settled view, to a lesser or greater extent.
Just look at the delusional comments Roger comes up with, based on his chats with cabbies/waiters/luvvies etc.
But Mike you have just had a bet against Paddick with Icarus - lets hope you lose again!
258. yes…which is why I am seriously considering buying Labour seats and if the Newt slips out further backing him too. That way I win either financially or emotionally….and the sums will be modest enough not to matter either way…
260: Well I may be prepared to grant plenary indulgences to those tipsters who have proved themselves in battle.
O/T but best line I’ve read about the US elections this week
“Normally, when you see a black man or a woman president, an asteroid is about to hit the Statue of Liberty.”
Joan Collins in the Spectator Diary
257 Yes JH (and thanks for the compliment by the way) it would be easy to overstate the weighting given to ‘frinds opinions’, but I can give a relevant example.
My brother-in-law is a conservative London Underground manager who, like me, does not like Ken one bit. Nevertheless, he will be voting for him, for much the same reasons that many on this site have mentioned in the numerous discussions there have been here. Now, obviously that does not get me logging into Betfair to lump on him big time but it does help me to understand an otherwise anomolous situation. Labour is unpopular, Ken is unpopular, London is Tory territory; why is Ken odds on?
So, little conversations like that with my b-i-l get factored in, modestly, intuitivey, with all the other stuff before I make my call by putting my cash down.
It’s no different to what I do at the track. I think Denman will beat Kauto Star in the Gold Cup, but listening to the trainer Paul Nicholls speak, I just get the impression he regards Kauto as the superior horse. So I moderate my bets accordingly.
Fair enough?
And since you were so generous in your comment, I will give you a straight forward tip which I hope you will back. Voy Por Ustedes (ew) for the Queen Mother Champion Chase. It’s 4/1 with William Hill, quarter the odds for a place. That’s effectively a free bet. I just had £100 ew, which is a middling to large bet for me.
Cheers.
267. I think comparing the views of a racehorse trainer on a race with those of an isolated voter in an election is pretty fatuous Peter.
Meanwhile …. Nick Palmer faces investigation about his bathing habits :
http://z.about.com/d/cats/1/0/h/y/2/TornadoWarning600×450.jpg
264. And as you also noted Mike, in my my more honest moments I probably concede that given GB seems to be coming more right wing by the day and DC (given Lansley’s comments) keeps moving to the left, neither outcome will have a huge impact on my life anyway.
No one knows what life would be like under a LD government and I guess we never will.
well my work colleague sitting opposite (a Labour activist) has joined the Get Ken Out group on facebook and laments the fact that there isn’t a real Labour candidate standing in May.
Morus. Surely all the Magna Carta did was to assert the power of an oligarchy? A replacement of a single headed ‘tyranny’ by a slightly broader multi-headed ‘tyranny’.
The logical conclusion of your argument is that any sort of government is to an extent ‘tyranny’, and that the only way of ensuring ‘freedom’ is to reject any sort of power structure. Which is fine by me, if you could guarantee that an anarchist society would be allowed to flourish free from domination by one or other powerful person or persons. However, real life examples, such as 30’s Spain seem to show that, whilst societies like this can temporarily flourish, they are easily destroyed by ‘tyrannical’ people whose intent is to dominate other people.
If, therefore, we have to accept that there are power structures that govern us, and that we cede to institutions some of our choices about what we can and cannot do for the sake of our own general liberty, it is, surely, also a good thing to have the basis of that legal system something which says what can or cannot be contravened by the Government or other powerful bodies or people.
And furthermore, as someone from neither a ‘royal’ or ‘noble’ line, rather as an ordinary citizen, it is in my interests that the statement includes people like me. So whether I do or don’t have ‘natural rights’, it is good for me that there is something that gives me some measure of protection from the potential ‘tyranny’ of my government, and it is a trade off that I am willing to pay, to have other people who may or may not be my friends and allies protected too.
267
Sounds like a truly great system which by your own admission earlier this year left you with zilch winnings,your really are having a laugh.
Maybe you should try and be a little less pompous.
268 Maybe it’s not such a great analogy, Harry, but the point I’m making is that you take everything into account and sift it appropriately.
As it happens though, I’d be wary of what trainers say. They’re often the worst judges!
Obama gets a new endorsement in Smallville Ohio :
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/CSM%20Blog/supermanobama.jpg
273 Pompous? Moi?!
I lost on the horses last year - about £2k. Was about £10k up on politics. I can live with that.
267 - not a free bet, but a value one - 4.9 to lay on betfair’s win market, 1.95 to lay on the place…
Ken’s likely to have a “better the devil you know” rebound at some point. Probably, it’s most effective for his purposes if this happens in late April.
277 Thank you, Aaron. I was speaking figuratively but yes it’s a great value bet.
Note I did not have it with your firm as I do not want them laying off staff on March 12th.
212 Because in general, I prefer law-making to be done by those who are accountable to the voters, rather than by those who aren’t, and both the ECHR and HRA give considerable scope for judges, rather than MPs, to make law.
My specific objections to the HRA are (a) it introduces a great deal of vagueness and confusion into our legal system (b) requires our government to treat UK citizens and foreign nationals equally, and (c) makes it extremely difficult to run a coherent immigration policy.
276 PtP. You pompous !! Rubbish
How could anyone called Peter THE Punter be in any manner full of self regard or indulgent puffery. No Sireee.
Jack the Jacobite.
281 Can it, Jack.
279 - you are too kind, Peter. I would, at the risk of advertising, urge anyone who is thinking of having a punt during Cheltenham to go for one of the firms that offer Best Odds Guaranteed (i.e. you get paid at Starting Price if that is bigger than the price you took).
Hills are currently offering this ante-post for Cheltenham but it’s hardly likely to cost them anything since most horses will be shorter on the day simply by virtue of making the starting post.
12 “The longer they stay in office, the more they become detached from reality.”
Surely good enough to be Herdson’s Law. Joining Smithson’s Law and the Palmer Paradox in the eponymous pb collection.
267. I will have some of that as they say very much appreciated…
Well I do hear you on the b-i-l but I know many London big C conservatives who would now never consider voting for Ken in any scenario and so my instinct would be that Ken will do much worse than last time..however I hear you and others on ‘personal canvassing’ and that just convinces me that polling and media narrative must be the key indicators…personal stuff is just not a wide enough sample.
266 That line was ripped off from John Stewart
283 - And in the interests of informing the community, could you please tell us the name of one such firm…
Meanwhile …. Peter the Punter and Nick Palmer’s insider betting sources meet for a clandestine meeting :
http://www.ikkeweer.net/horses-otherfiles/paardpoes.jpg
283 Seriously, I can commend Bet365 for offering that service.
Free of charge, Aaron.
Sir Ian Blair wants to know why the police weren’t called into investigate Conway.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3452649.ece
288 PMSL!
Isn’t that Black Cat Ketchum?
291 - Surely Two Cool Cats?
In the interests of fairness I should point out that two other mainstream firms offer B.O.G. Since I can’t bet with my own firm I have to use their inferior services
More on the Lansley interview.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/2008/02/andrew-lansley.html
281
Welcome back Jack,knowing how much you like to be the centre of attention when can we expect your next grand exit and re-entry.
You make Richard Branson look shy.
Sir Ian Blair wants throwing in the Thames. Loathsome Labour stooge.
290. Extraordinary. ‘It’s my job to help the Labour government in any way I can, why won’t they let me do it?’
285 JH
Sure. Just to round out the picture, I started out long ago backing Ken whenever his price got above 4/7. Now I would want 10/11 minimum. So clearly, I’ve adjusted my view.
Looks like being an interesting one for us punters. Thought it would be!
290. Odd how he’s never asked the same question over any labour scandal.
296, quite. I still can’t believe the incompetent actually backed Labour party policy pre-2005’s General Election. Disgraceful behaviour.
I’m also surprised his crack team has the time to spare, what with their in-depth investigation of that notorious crimelord, Boris “Fingers” Johnson.
293 That’s a funny page. Apparently “people” now see the Tories, amongst other things, as “a social liberal party”.
It’s political buzzword bingo.
Why don’t we have one social, liberal conservative democratic party and be done with it.
Rename the Tories the SDLCP! Or the all things to all men (and women) party.
288- jack w- just brought a lump in my throat, the smaller one of the two is the spit of my beloved “maximus” that got whacked by a car last September.
By the way I will not believe we have the real Jack W back until we see your ARSE.
301 Yes, get your ARSE out Jack.
Conway “consulting with his lawyers”….
294 simon.
…. I’ve been in and out more times than cuckoo clock on speed !!
301 tyson. With the US election you’ll probably see more of my BUTT.
………………
BTW news reaches me that the Lib Dem European policy has been spotted in Scotland !!
http://heady.co.uk/rm/lib_dems_loch_ness.jpg
304, It seems to be sinking fast.
Sean @ 280. Your first point can be nullified if you were willing to open your mind to opening us to a greater amount of democratic involvement in Europe, rather than committing yourself to less involvement.
Your point a) is merely a argementitive conceit. Legal systems, and the British one is a great example of this, are by their very nature often vague and confused. It is no more vague or confusing, if not less so, to have a benchmark as to what laws can or cannot be legitimately made.
Points b) and c) are more political points than legal points. I obviously have less of a problem with the idea that people from other countries coming here, most of whom I believe to be good people, and no problem that fundamentally they should be protected to the same extent as me whilst here (I equally think it should work the other way around). Personally I do not fear immigration to that extent. You may not think that is logical, Sean but neither do I think that your oft stated desire for more stringent immigration laws is anything fundamentally more than rooted in fear. Neither of us would, therefore, be able to win this argument with each other, as our logic is predicated on differing preconceptions. There was an interesting article in the New Scientist recently which argued that this sort of thing was hard wired into us, and that to try to persuade the ‘other side’ was essentially a waste of time - I found it a little pessimistic - but in this case I am sure it is basically right.
Apparently “people” now see the Tories, amongst other things, as “a social liberal party”. ”
That’ll come as news to most of us.
BTW, did anyone spot Steve Richards comment the other day, that John Bercow wants to become the next Speaker?
304 - Barack’s Unique Tracking Table?
307 - Yes but remember that the final 2 letters of his surname are silent.
307 He’ll need a high chair.
309,310 Richards speculates that this is the reason why he hasn’t defected from the Conservative Party.
310
S**t I was going to say that.
The men in white coats are circling Steve Richards ever closer..
304- jack w- genuinely nice to see you back. I did think at one stage you had joined “maximus” in the place full of mice, and 20 year malts on tap!
311. Maybe he will now then, given that Martin is likely to be gone before the GE.
307. Out of interest, how do you see the conservative party Sean?
Cameron has promised or positioned himself so it appears as though he has promised:
Increased public sector funding, tax cuts, scrapping grammar schools, commited to decreasing third world debt, getting tough on benefits, scrapping ID cards, increasing police stop and search powers, reclaiming public spaces for the youth and not villifying them, green taxes, decreasing red tape and bureacracy, taxing non doms, anti-european integration, increasing “quality of life”, bringing honesty back into politics, decrasing the power of the state, nannys and midwives for young children, contracts between schools and pupils, benefits for married couples as well as being more friendly to the gay community than previous tories.
I’m not criticisng, all that is a fantastic example of politicking, and he shows considerable talent for it. he’s the tories biggest electoral asset. But where does all that place you as a rightwinger?
Secondly, Howard supported ID cards in his parties manifesto, does Cameron still have to support them?
316. So much for the marvellous state education you claim to have received.
314. Never..ever..f**king.. ever will John Bercow be speaker of the H of C..I am joining the non-Doms and fleeing to a tax haven if he does..I am probably doing that anyway if RodC is right and Mcbroon is still PM come 2010.
317. Same university, same course as Cameron.
I’ve more chance of being speaker.
And I’m not a MP.
How about Stewart Jackson, late of these parts.
316 I prefer him to Brown, and the election of a Conservative government would increase the right wing element in the Commons, and decrease the left wing. So, that keeps me on board.
314 tyson. Thanks.
The American affiliate of my ARSE is BUTT - Bespoke Universal Trusty Trackers. They give a dozen dunking donuts with every completed survey!
320 london. Stewart Jackson as Speaker
… best joke of the day !! …. yeah and seanT for President of the EU Commission !!
For heaven’s sake, Blair has had three months to sort out the Abrahams affair and more than a month on Hain’s case.
Both open and shut cases, so why the hell is it taking so long?
The costs of these investigations, including ALL related expenses together with appropriate receipts, should be in the public domain.
Meanwhile, no further cases should be handed to the Met until the backlog has been cleared. The poor dears are obviously overworked.
321
Not much of an endorsment that sean! Still most Labour supporters would probably give the same reason, just change the name and swop left for right.
It amazed me when ‘local’ troubador Billy Bragg tried to unseat Oliver Letwin, (Leftwing) I couldn’t understand why, Letwin is more to the left than most members of Blair/Brown’s cabinet.
316 just as a matter of interest can you quote me the line in the Conservative Manifesto for 2005 that supports ID cards?
Who said I was joking…..
Anyway it could be worse how about D Skinner? Poacher turned game keeper and all that.
Any ideas as who will running as VP in the Ralph Nader campaign?
Could be a “big name” as far I can glean.
The Drudge report I noted earlier is correct. The latest Rasmussen Primary poll for Texas is :
Clinton 44% .. Obama 48%. Last week Clinton lead by 3%.
In Pennsylvania Clinton has been pegged back to a 4 point lead
Clinton 46% .. Obama 42%
……………………
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/texas/texas_democratic_presidential_primary
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary
This isn’t seant is it?
http://tinyurl.com/32bfhn
Cornwall hey! somethings never change!!
ABC look at whether Hillary can patch together a coalition of events and forces to mount a comeback :
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1
327 London. How about Mark Oaten … he make the sh*t hit the fan in the Commons !!
New thread - What will the chart look like on Wednesday?
328 - Paris Hilton?
267 PtP - Thanks for your “free bet” of Voy Por Ustedes(ew) in the Queen Mother Champion Chase at Cheltenham. The 4/1 with Wm Hill has now gone, now 7/2, but Ladbrokes are offering the same odds if anyone is interested.
BTW for some strange reason, you appear to be getting a bit of a bashing today!
Oh No !!
Rock paid £15m for Falcons ground
Northern Rock has confirmed that it bought the grounds of Newcastle Falcons rugby club weeks before having to seek emergency loans.
The £14.75m purchase came in the month before emergency Bank of England funds were granted last September.
But the bank said the process of buying the ground “was agreed months ahead of the onset of the global liquidity problems that affected the company”.
It denied the move was to boost 2007’s results and said the deal made sense.
“The ground presented an opportunity to buy a good quality, commercial asset,” a Northern Rock spokesman said.
272 - You are right in that any appeal to rights as a tool to oppose tyranny taken to its logical conclusion ends up as anarchism/libertarianism.
I think you can be more pragmatic about rights, and say one or two legal constructs of that type are ok (functionally - they do their job well), but don’t try to always counter all petty tyrannies and ‘inconveniences’ with a new ‘right’. There are better ways.
I don’t disagree with the rest of what you wrote - I just think it is a well-argued case for a system of law, not a well-argued case for a systems of rights.
You do not need to have rights to have a system of law - in fact, they are one of the less intelligent ways to think about foundational law. There’s some good legal philosophy stuff out there on ‘rules’ vs ‘rights’.
Not for public consumption though…
Eric Forth(God rest his soul) would have been good.
338.”Eric Forth(God rest his soul) would have been good.”
Parliament would have been a better place, and its government and MP’s would have been more accountable if we had someone like the late Eric Forth as speaker.
Sean Fear: Thanks for an honest and polite answer.
Ted: No, i couldn’t, i was relying on second hand information. I apologise, but my point still stands that Cameron and Clegg are not bound by past manifestoes. Only Gordon is. Which includes a referendum on Proportional Representation.
Do the Tories on here, insist Brown does that? It’s probably supported by a large amount of the population, but even less than think Europe is one of the most important issues would think that electoral reform is. I think it would probably get a yes vote.
340. I insist Brown resigns immediately as an unelected incompetent but its not going to get me anywhere…
I am a wet Tory and a Cameroon so broadly I am very comfortable with where he is going… there are individual things like Grammar schools and public spending levels where I feel uncomforatble but I understand what he is trying to do and give him slack accordingly…
I do feel very uncomforatble about increasing or even matching Labour spending on unreformed public services..I think one of our strongest weapons is the catastrophic waste of money that epitomises 10 years of Labour..the report on GP’s just adds to the narrative here…Labour has undertaken grand larceny on the taxpayer but achieved only tiny or even no positive results. The Country needs to be reminded constantly that Brown is the ‘Great Waster’. We will struggle to get this message across if its all about the amount spent and not about how we would spend it more efficiently
I wouldn’t be surprised if Ken manages to hold on to his job. Don’t get me wrong, I despair at the capitals decision to elect him in the first place, in fact at times, I’ve wondered if I’m the only person who remembers he was one of the lunatics, in the old GLC.
No more Ken… Please!