…and this week’s resignation is…..
December 4th, 2007
-
Will this have a political impact or not?
The big news this lunchtime is that the country’s top anti-terror cop, Andy Hayman has resigned, blaming the pressures of the job and “a series of leaks and unfounded accusations”. This follows criticism of him in the Stockwell tube shooting inquiry as well as a series of leaks about his private life.
In itself this should not damage the government or the Prime Minister. But one resignation after another, set against a background of calls for resignations do up the temperature and create a sense of confusion and chaos.
-
In just over a fortnight we have seen the highly publicised “falling on their swords” of the boss of the Inland Revenue and Customs, the general secretary of the Labour party and now one the country’s most senior and high profile policemen.
All this while Labour’s party leader in Scotland and the the Chancellor are coming under increasing pressure to do the same. There is no linkage yet the juxtaposition of the stories does look bad.
Meanwhile William Hill is offering 5/1 that Wendy Alexander will resign before the end of the year. That looks a good price.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
…and a police chief somewhere.
Would Wendy Alexander going on a “sabatical” count?
New YouGov poll in today’s Daily Telegraph:
“Scots don’t want MPs voting on English affairs”
Just 22 per cent thought the Prime Minister was doing a good job - less than half the 50 per cent who thought the same of the SNP leader.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/04/nfunding504.xml
BBC are reporting it more as a ‘retirement’.
Will Hayman also be found a cushy sinecure until he can claim his full pension?
And why Hayman - why is it not Blair who is resigning? Maybe Blair’s pencilled in for next week (but that slot is looking rather crowded!).
My only take on funding.
Caps on donations are simple. The politicians can’t even keep to those rules.
Caps on spending would be more complex. In the light of current incompetence (to be kind), the chances of them being adhered to are the same as the moon being made of cheese (I am assured by PTP that is 1 in a billion).
The chances of my agreeing to state funding are rather less than the moon’s chnces of ending up on a cheese biscuit.
3 BBC are reporting it more as a ‘retirement’.
You mean as in “retiring to spend more time with his family” or alternatively “retiring to pursue other interests”
Is money changing hands? I think we should be told.
Spending limits are impossible to police during campaigns. How much worse for all expenditure during the year.
No the only thing for it is to close the labour and Conservative parties down completely.
3 - that’s how I read it over lunch so was surprised to see the headline above.
I’d say that given Wendy Alexander is saying ‘the easy thing is to resign, but I will stay to preserve my reputation for honesty and integrity.’ that she is either heading for one of the big political falls, or she knows something more than we do about these headlines. If it wasn’t December already, and I imagine that the investigation (if there is one - unconfirmed so far?) will last into the New Year, so if she is as determined to sit it out as she appears, then even if she goes because of the affair, you’d still lose your money. Tricky…
7. While the Lib Dems - whose major donor was jailed - are allowed to carry on regardless, of course.
Why should a legal donation become illegal if the donor is later convicted of a crime?
And I do worry that, although Labour seem to have tripped over laws that they themselves have enacted, future governments will enact laws more carefully designed to make opposition difficult.
9. He was jailed for a matter unrelated to his donation which was cleared by the Electoral Commission. Unlike Jonathan Aitken, Neil Hamilton, etc etc.
Just to remind you…
“The Electoral Commission has previously made clear its view that it was reasonable for the Liberal Democrats - based on the information available to them at the time - to regard the donations they received from 5th Avenue Partners Ltd in 2005, totalling just over £2.4m, as permissible.
“It remains the Commission’s view that the Liberal Democrats acted in good faith at that time, and the Commission is not re-opening the question of whether the party or its officers failed to carry out sufficient checks into the permissibility of the donations.”
I’m sure ‘whiter than white’ can provide a similar quote for the Tories receipt of anonymous offshore loans…
O/T 2008 US Election Female President - now back at even money. Looks good value to me. Who’s going to beat Hillary…. Obama ? …. Giuliana? ….. I don’t think so.
If donation limits come in the Labour Party will have to go into administration to clear its debts. OK would lose 10 points but otherwise they can start again with a clean sheet!
11 Last word - make that Giuliani - I mean who’s going to vote for someone with a difficult name like that. Americans like nice easy names to pronounce …. Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Bush, Clinton, etc …. think about it.
12. Perhaps they can ask the BoE for an emergency loan.
12. If this happened would the reformed Party be called “New New Labour”?
12 but that would mean relegation from the Premiership to the Championship. Second Division???, yup that’s about where they should be.
Iain Dale had an article oh Hayman’s woes in the last couple of weeks. Iain thinks he is a good guy being pushed out for internal politcal reasons.
Meanwhile Sean Connerry rushed into energency surgery, more here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/12/sean-connery-rushed-into-surgery.html
16. Labour v Harrogate Railway sounds like a great fixture
I can’t see what on earth Mr Hayman’s resignation has to do with the government. As you say, “There is no linkage.” It will be interesting to see what the de Menezes family and friends think about it; they are above all the ones who want to see justice done.
Slightly OT, I wonder if Dougie will have the nerve to go ahead with Question Time this week.
O/T Probably an academic quirk, but Huhne’s price has come in on Betfair from a spiked level of 8.8-1 to a last matched price 5-1. Clegg remains steady at 0.18-1
It’s almost a foregone conclusion, but not quite!
17. 19. Yes, Hayman the fall guy for ‘Sir’ Ian, who of course cannot be allowed to fall from grace for wholly political reasons.
22 You mean he’s a Labour supporter pci?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Cameron is starting to get a bit worried. The righteous indignation being shown by his erstwhile supporters, regardless of the merits of the issues and with little interest in establishing any basic facts beforehand, just because they think they might be spun to portray the Govt in a bad light (see threads on Paul Gray on IainDale and ConHome), must be making him think that the country could be practically ungovernable by their standards by the time he comes to power.
O/T A number of individual seat markets yet to be resolved in Oz GE. This is ridiculous - are they still using carrier pigeons?
It didn’t stay there long, PFP (21). Probably a belated raction to the comment made by Martin Tod on Lib Dem Voice, and taken up sporadically here….
13. Peter. Obama last matched at 7/2 with Betfair for the Democrat candidacy. This one’s not over yet either.
20. I wouldn’t have thought he will turn up with his sister so much part of the current story.
Mike or anyone. I can’t find the 5/1 William Hill are laying about Wendy Alexander resigning this year. Sounds a good price to me. Anyone help me out here?
21. I shall lose money if Chris beats the odds but on the other hand I will be considerably more optimistic about my Party’s future.
21 Peter Kellner from YouGov has replied to Lib Dem bloggers’ concerns about their poll. Even he does not quite rule out a Huhne victory in a very tight contest. Equally a straightforward Clegg win is possible. Therefore the odds you quote look about right.
I shall be both, Goupillon (28). But I shall not be disappointed either, if Nick Clegg is the next Lib Dem leader. Both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne are more than a match for Cameron and Brown.
Re 30, Tressage “Both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne are more than a match for Cameron and Brown.”
Yes, but then so was Ming Campbell was he not?
I do hope Clegg wins! I lose a small amount but do get the joy of the LD’s picking another naff performer!
Free money alert here in two minutes ……..!!
31
Agreed. An unerring ability to pick the wrong man.
I think it’s genetic
Re 33, Madasafish “Agreed. An unerring ability to pick the wrong man.”
Yes quite.
“I think it’s genetic :-)”
And very helpfull
*****FREE MONEY*****FREE MONEY*****FREE MONEY*****
Year of Next General Election
Buy at 3-1 with William Hill
Sell at 2.52 or approx 6-4 on Betfair (approx £250 available)
Go for it!
33.No, not genetic, more than likely contagious. They seem to have got the bug from the Conservatives.
36
lol
35. Peter. I can’t find that one either. Have you knocked William Hill off his betting stool with the size of your bet?
35. Peter. Are you confusing the 3/1 Gordon Brown to leave office of Prime Minister market with the Year of the next General Election market?
35. errr… which year?
38 stjohn - Sorry I should have said 2010 - hurry it won’t last!
Not sure if it has been mentioned in the previous thread, but Gary Titley MEP (Labour MEPs leader) has confirmed he will stand down at next Euro elections…attacking the Strasbourg/Brussells thing as a waste of time and money
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1026933_mep_quits_over_eu_waste
41. This only works if Gordon Brown is not replaced by the Labour Party before 2010.
Does the presence of Brown & Cameron in the Commons suggest they’re leading on the Funding debate?
43. And of course if the Tories win the 2010 election!
43 Good point, Goupillon.
Maybe Sid is on the ball for once.
Of course, thea arb still works.
I suspect you have to phone to place these bets. The 5/1 on Wee Wendy looks tempting, but before I phone, I’d like to know where the information is coming from that Hills actually have a market.
Is it a Graham Sharpe announcement?
Whyy is it the fact the tories have spin doctor who resigned from murdoch. After his newspaper was found bugging the royal family.
Graham Shapps???
They’re sending the good guys to the dogs to protect the likes of Ian Blair.
46. http://www.williamhillmedia.com/index_template.asp?file=9182
PfP - Phoned Hills. They know nothing.
Tressage - The man is Sharpe. Very.
43 Quite right Goupillon - I misread Hill’s market for the out and out Year of the Next GE, which they were running, but now appear to have removed. Sorry for that folks - must remember the old adage “If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.” I shall now slink away, red-faced and highly embarrassed.
47. Interesting point on your blog DES…
“Why is it not a major issue that the Tories employ, on fat fee, a spin doctor whose journalists bugged the royal family. I am not a royalist. But I think that is illegal. He says he had noting to do with it. But the Tory leader says the labour leader should know everything that goes wrong in his party, so why should he not know what goes wrong with his newspaper?”
The fact is, I’m afraid, that Andy Coulson did the decent thing and resigned as editor.
I assume, therefore, that you will be calling for the resignations of Peter Hain, Harriet Harman, Wendy Alexander and Gordon Brown, who are clearly as principled as he is.
Re 47: Are you classifying Cherie as royalty - see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/01/pressandpublishing.cherieblair
Or please explain further.
What are you talking about Goupillon? Andy Coulson was the editor of the News of the World.
Francis Maude? wtf?
56. Seems to have touched a nerve with Labour MP’s.
52 No need to be embarrassed, PfP. Goodness me, you should know about some of my Worst Betting Bloomers.
Anyway, you and Goupillon between you have touched on an interesting point. Punters on The Election Date market will have generally supposed that Brown will be the man calling the election and you can see why a lot of people would therefore be betting on 2010.
But supposing it’s not Brown? Wouldn’t the new man think an earlier election more favorable? Wouldn’t really matter who the new man is. Could even be Blair.
Now there’s a thought.
57 - yep. Probably quite cunning actually. Probably best qualified to fend off interventions on ashcroft etc.
odds on first intervention being a question about Ashcroft?
I rang William Hill. The Wendy Alexander market is suspended until at least tomorrow.
Lol - what an amusing intervention!
61 Who did you speak to, StJohn? I only got as far as a telephone trader, who thought the market never existed.
Where did Labour grab this idiotic backbencher from. Can’t quite work out why Maude doesn’t shut him up by listing the number of Labour “non-domiciled” donors?
61 / 63 - you could ring Graham directly I suppose: http://williamhillmedia.com/index_template.asp?file=9182
Btw, although it’s a non-betting issue, the thread theme interests me.
From what I understand of the inquiries into the Menendez thing, there were two manifest contradictions which remain unresolved, and apparently never will be.
First, Cressida Dick stated that she was given a positive identification from the survaillance team, but nobody came forward from that team to confirm it.
Second, Hayden gave the Press a version of events that was in complete contradiction to what he told Iain Blair and he did not correct Blair when he had the opportunity to do so. Hayden was unable to explain why to the inquiry.
Goodness knows what went on in all the mayhem but it is very difficult to avoid thinking that all sorts of incompetence, malpractice, deceit and mischief making was going on at the time, and little has been done to bring those responsible to book.
It’s a bloody shambles, whatever way you look at it.
Please correct me if I am wrong. I would like to think I am.
65 Does he speak to oiks, Aaron?
Skinner is shouting at Maude…I feared he was going to Maude’s dispatch box and start a fight…
55. Alex - apologies my mind was wandering off on a tangent. I had forgotten about Andrew Coulson’s baggage.
I want a PMQs with Skinner instead of Brown
70 - How bad would Skinner be at PMQs
71. Better than Brown?
Mealy mouth words from swiss tony
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article543692.ece
He apologises on behalf of the MOD and RAF?
He should apologise on behalf of Labour and Labour defence cuts.
72 - Equally bad, but in different ways.
Aaron/StJohn/PfP/Goupillon and other punters.
Spoke to a rather testy Graham Sharpe. He couldn’t explain why the traders wouldn’t take my bet, but confirmed the 5/1 was available and suggested I get back to them and quote him.
I did just that and after a short delay, I got on.
Think I may have got Sid into trouble.
Btw, Sharpe’s number is 0208 918 3731. If you ring, I suggest you don’t mention PB.com.
58 Thanks for the moral support PtP - I suppose when identifying “free money”, it’s rather like proof reading (of which I’ve done plenty), in that one tends to see what one expects to see.
Aaron/Ptp. I rang the williamhillmedia number and spoke to Rupert Adams. He said the price should be available and to ring the normal office number. He gave me his extension to quote to the office if any problems. I rang my tel account and explained all. The chap I spoke to put me on hold and must have spoken to someone who told him that the market had been pulled until 2pm tomorrow.
73) Labour minister apologise for the government we are talking moon and cheese odds here.
I expect that most of us cannot see the debate. Is Gorbals Mick in the Chair? Or someone less biased towards Government Front Benchers?
77 Well I got on, StJohn. Ring them again and refer them to Graham Sharpe’s announcement. That might do the trick.
(Mind you, if Sharpe is offering 5/1, my guess is she’s hanging on.)
75/77 Well there you are, the mighty pulling power of the “Hillman Hunter” by comparison for all to see!
81 I think it’s Sharpe the Traders are scared of,PfP, not me!
(Btw, Billy Bunter is the usual term, but naturally there are no hard and fast rules.
)
80. I think I’ll give it a miss Peter. Thanks anyway.
Sion Simon is a horrible little turd isn’t he.
83 You’re probably wise, StJohn.
Ye Gods, it’s Whispering Death!! Bolt the windows!!
Re 84 woody “Sion Simon is a horrible little turd isn’t he.”
I don’t find him that agreeable. Perhaps you like him more than I?
87. I loathe him more than any other Labour politician. No redeeming features whatsoever.
79. Augustus, no, he’s in the Chair
83. She’s now available at 7/1 online to go by end of year if you’re interested.
http://www.willhill.com/iibs/EN/buildcoupon.asp?couponchoice=PO1917851
Sion Simon. Personally I enjoyed his Cameron spoof - it was so refresihingly unpolitic.
Oh dear, Oh dear, when in a hole the whole Labour party keeps digging. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
89 Oh dear! Is he as bad as usual? Or worse?
90 LOL Caveman! So I took under the odds? Ah well, it’s happened before and it will happen again.
It makes me suspicious that Hills have solid information. May I respectfully suggest small stakes, if any.
87-LOL!
just caught 5 live 25 mins ago i think i heard 5 live saying there are other govt bodies admitting to missing discs, though not massive like the 25 million fiasco. Is this an instruction to get it all out into the open????
90. Cheers caveman. I’ve had a bite at those odds.
94. PtP. Hills don’t seem to know what they’re doing with this market so I think it’s good value myself.
94, 97. Only small stakes for me as well. I guess Gordon is banking on only having to hold out for 2 more weeks until Christmas week before everyone (he hopes) forgets.
I’m more interested in the bigger picture, as I have had a few punts on first minister to go. I think that with a lot of journalists sniffing round looking for their Bob Woodward style big break, there could be plenty more revalations.
I’ve also seen cryptic references in various places to Douglas Alexander taking a very low profile at the moment. Does any one know anything?
Debate more a dialogue of the deaf than usual.
90, 94, etc.: Just put a fiver (last of the big spenders!) on Ms Alexander to go at those odds - which seem more than fair. I agree with stjohn: not convinced WH know what’s going on with this market.
Briefly, and apologies if this is already well known or irrelevant: Peter the Punter was quoting 6/4 as generous odds for a hung parliament yesterday. Would that mean that the 7/4 available at Coral on No Overall Majority at the next GE is even more generous?
100 Sure is, HG, although with a traditional bookmaker you lock up your funds: with an Exchange, you can generally trade off.
O/T I liked the gag in the white Times today that the First Lord of the Treasury is now referred to as “The Scottish Prime Minister”, in the same way that actors refer to “The Scottish Play”. It’s because it’s bad luck to mention his name out loud.
102 You mean, MacBeth? Oh, sh*t.
This David Heath guy is quite good.
Seems to be getting to the heart of the matter.
90
5/1 online now.
Justa couple of quick replies on political donations to the last thread.
28 Madasafish I am not quite sure what the law would prescribe in the case of internal (inside a party) campaign donations. When it is a public election, the Agent will do a return. OK, the candidate will sign off a return also, and clearly they ought to make sure they are in agreement with the agent before they are both returned to the proper authority, but it is not just the candidate’s responsibility, and it is clear from the way Benn, Harman, and Hain have spoken of their dep leadership campaigns, that a Manager etc was in there doing most of the legwork, so I imagine they are responsible under PPERA, and would equally have to pay any penalty for wrong acceptance or failing to declare.
£) Alex - you make the precise point I was trying to, ie that because the media are trying to catch out the big fish here, you will not hear about the small fry, who are often in some sort of difficulty with this! Keep an eye on your local papers after elections - you may well pick up on some of the more local problems. Many issues are to do with local constituency donations, so do not directly involve elected politicians.
66. Peter,
“First, Cressida Dick stated that she was given a positive identification from the survaillance team, but nobody came forward from that team to confirm it.”
She was definitely given positive ID on De Menezes. As far as I am aware this has not been denied.
“Second, Hayden gave the Press a version of events that was in complete contradiction to what he told Iain Blair and he did not correct Blair when he had the opportunity to do so. Hayden was unable to explain why to the inquiry.”
Kind of correct. He told Blair nothing as he didn’t view it as any of his business. Blair got his info from TV (which was incorrect) and then stated that in public. He wasn’t then told it was incorrect.
“It’s a bloody shambles, whatever way you look at it.”
Yep.
For those interested, the US Presidential tracker to watch:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history
Only 6% between first and fifth in this field - which rather suggests no-one has the charisma to break out from their own narrow zone of support. Although note that for his 18%, Rudi has spent $31.0 m - but for his 18%, Huckabee has only spent $1.7m - his team certainly knows how to get “bang for buck” value.
Yes, good speech by David Heath - agree with a lot of what he says.
Meanwhile, the all-party Justice Select Committee has been hearing the Information Commissioner on the HMRC case and identity cards. Tory members in attendance: zero. A couple of weeks ago we had a session on devolution, an English Parliament and the West Lothian question. Tory attendance: zero. Without making the obvious sarcastic comments, isn’t this genuinely a little odd?
Re: if Gordon did go early, I present Alan Johnson, who is quietly navigating Health of all things whilst Labour seems lurching from one crap week to another.
108. Rudi is slowly in danger of being undermined..by the US media who seem to be digging up little indiscretion after little indiscretion. If I was a Guiliani supporter I’d be worried that the edges may start to break off idf they are not careful. Just as I said right at the start that McCain looked a fragile favourite so now does Guiliani. It’ll be interesting to see his position coming up to Christmas.
On the Democrat side, the Clinton wobble has either started or is actually at its near peak. Depending on how you view it, its going to affect where you put your money down.
110 - Giuliani and possibly McCain are the only Reps. who could win the presidency. The choice is pretty much down to a) compromise and possibly win or b) be pure and lose.
109. theyve probably realised its a waste of time. gordon does what gordon wants to do. the justice select commitee can say what it likes, wont change his direction.
108. National polls mean nothing. Results in Iowa and New Hampshire could potentially mean 20%+ swings elsewhere.
108. Thanks MM, just to recap the race now looks like:
Rudy Giuliani 18%
Mike Huckabee 18%
John McCain 14%
Fred Thompson 13%
Mitt Romney 12%
Ron Paul 7%
For anyone who hasn’t backed Huckabee at long odds yet, you can still get him at 40/1 for president with http://www.partybets.com. I’d never used them before but they also have a £25 free bet offer as well.
As discussed before, Huckabee’s still a long shot for the presidency, even if he is able win the nomination but there are plenty of laying opportunities available at this kind of price.
111. Or mix the two with a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket.
111. Absolutely. The problem is the base voting in the primaries can miss the point somewhat.
The problem for Guiliani is that I’m not sure he’s on solid ground right now. At the front of the field yes but he needs to shore up his campaign foundations, not necessarily simply in policy but approach and tone. There’s just something a bit easy to break there that I cant put into words. Secondly I could see him losing his rag at some point.
McCain’s comeback is noticeable but the problem is he needs to win an early state or be really firm in there. McCain is getting backing from some interesting quarters but needs something extra all round and my own fear is it isnt going to quite happen but there’s time yet and it wouldn’t surprise me. Some of the GOP rightwing are looking again at him and asking what exactly it was that so bothered them about McCain.
111 The tricky bit is though, UKPaul, that they don’t know for sure who they are facing. If Obama, or Edwards, they know they will lose - so no harm in keeping their purity.
Against Hillary, they have a squeak, so a compromise becomes more attractive.
The choice is made harder by the gradual tightening of the Democrat race (post 108 refers).
111. Also, expect Romney to move very centrist if he gets the ticket. Part of the reason he is struggling is because he’s choosing his words very carefully so they can’t come back to haunt him. This isn’t enthusing the base.
Huckabee not electable
People should remember that in a country where 89% of people believe in the virgin birth, a religious leader isn’t as offputting as they would be here.
114/115.
I’ve said it at the weekend, there is talk of a McCain Huckabee ticket which McCain has publicly stated is viable.
At this time it seems that many Conservative commentators still rule Huckabee out on money and have been saying that the GOP voters need to consider this. BUT, momentum can change that in weeks. I personally don’t think he’ll get the nomination and Iowa is not the state to draw too much from but I can see exactly why he’s doing well. Warm, comfortable, bit of wit, calm. In short he has a touch of that interesting quality that still plays in the USA, folksy.
119. Should have been “Huckabee not electable?”
PtP, Yokel et al. Why do PBers here frequently express the view that Huckabee can’t win the Presidency. Is it the creationist belief? Anyone think he could go all the way?
116 Thanks Yokel. You back in the UK yet, or u still working under cover in the US for PB.com ?
McCain is a very good choice for GOP if the Democrats choose Clinton. Otherwise, he’s a poor choice.
119. You over rate the religious factor. If that was all there is to it, Clinton would be dead as well.
117 - Actually, the head to heads show Clinton as being slightly the more difficult of the three to beat (Edwards being the easiest).
They also show that even Edwards would thrash Thompson & Romney (and Huckabee probably similarly).
With Giuliani or McCain it’s game on, everything else is game over.
Can somebody explain to me how union funding of the Labour Party works? People keep talking about individuals “opting out/opting in” from affiliating (?) to the Labour Party, but does this have any practical effect?
Do union members get to pay a lower membership fee if they opt out? Or is the fee the same whatever? And if the latter what is the practical effect ie. if a union decides to give £1m to the Labour party, why does it make any difference whether half of their members have opted out?
119 - Hadn’t seen that latest poll, Huckabee is the one they haven’t attacked yet though, the only way is down.
122 - I suppose we can’t believe they’d make the same mistake again, then again people said that about Brown and labour….
107 Thanks Cerrig. (I thought that post had been forgotten.)
It’s impossible to know but I guess we see it the same way. Ms Dick was probably telling the truth and somebody in the surveillance team lied, possibly with the complicity of others in that team.
Hayden could have got his boss off the hook, but for reasons he never disclosed, he chose not to.
Yes?
126 - Ignore that post. I see they have a (sort of) ringfenced political fund.
What other activities does the political fund get used for? Because i can imagine someone might have interest in contributing to “political” activities, but not specific donations to the Labour Party.
120 Yes, Yokel, I know exactly what you mean about Huckabee. I always find I warm to him, until I consider his policies.
It’s not inconceivable he could win the Nomination, or even the Presidency, but he would have to broaden his appeal, particularly for the latter.
122. He has no money to support him, which counts for a hell of a lot in the US. He’s setting himself up for a VP choice of whoever wins I think.
124. No, you misinterpret me. The religious vote is a minority in both the national electorate and the Republican party. Social conservatives probably have a slight majority in the electorate and a huge majority in the GOP. The anti-religious vote, however, is nonexistent, which is the point I was making.
People in Europe who think that the highly religious turn off everyone outside their group are projecting a European attitude onto the US.
125. There’s still an awful lot of people who don’t really know any of the candidates (other than Hillary and perhaps Giuliani). When people make the judgement that Hillary is beatable its based on her utter lack of charisma and her inconsistent voting record. Both things will be very important during the main election. PtP overrates Edwards ability in my opinion though. He can be easily portrayed a pretty boy joke and his working class progressivism might not play so well in New England or among the middle classes.
re 122. Well I’ve got £50 at 0.6 on Huckabee on Spreadfair’s 10-25 market. He gets 10 points if he gets the nomination and 25 if he wins.
I’ve also sold Hillary at 13.8 on the same market. So if she doesn’t get the nomination I win 13.8 times £75. If she gets it then I still win if she fails to take the White House - but I will have traded out of the bet well before then.
To my mind this is a far more satisfying market to play than Betfair.
125 Yes I know, UKPaul, but what the polls do not reveal is the galvanising effect Clinton would have on the GOP.
Republicans would get four square behind Osama if he were standing against Hillary.
130. He has plenty he could use. His immigration record may find support among Hispanics (who are also socially Conservative) and his environmentalism and international aid beliefs could work well on the left.
re 132…. also, I should add, it’s dead easy to get a credit account so you don’t have lock up any money now.
I like taking money out of bookie accounts - not paying in - and since I opened my Spreadfair account in March all I have done is withdraw profits on bets I’ve closed down where the outcome is not known yet.
re 73 Surely you only apologize if you’ve done something wrong? If you’ve done something wrong and people have died then you’re lucky not to go to prison, and of course you resign from your job(s). Oops silly me this is New Labour I’m talking about.
128. Peter. Am reluctant to go into too much detail here (for Mike’s sake really). However;
Ms Dick was given a positive ID on De Menezes by the surveillance team. However her actions on the day may have caused the teams on the ground not to have too much time for her in the aftermath.
She was supposed to give a codeword that signified that lethal force could be used. Initially she did not give this codeword – she just said you have permission to use lethal force or words to that affect. The armed team refused to respond to this and demanded that she use the codeword – which in the end she did. But in a time pressured situation more time was lost. It was thought by many involved that her actions were unfair, and as a result not too many people on the operation that day were subsequently prepared to help her.
As far as I am aware the argument about the identification of De Menezes was more to do with the form of words used, rather than whether he had been positively (and incorrectly) ID’d.
All symptomatic of an organisation in a terrible mess.
122. See 120. I have warmed to Huckabee as a character and am really referencing what the conservative commentators are saying, and they keep coming back to cash a lot of the time as the big factor.
People need to get a hold on this whole religious thing in the US. For start Bush was not elected by what we see as the religious right. If this were so he would have lost, because there isnt enough of them. Bush won, twice no less on a coalition including those of the centre. Whether that centre is consdiered as somewhat right of our own doesnt really matter, its still a centre.
The right breaks down in the US in a number of forms, the free market right, the isolationist right, the socially conservative right and so on. They can and do overlap of course. The socially conservative right is not exactly the same as the religious right that everyone harps on about. A churchgoer with conservative (and/or christian as they are not necessarily one and the same) values is not necessarily a member of the defined right. Also social conservativism has degrees.
The religious right certainly were organised for Bush and are look less organised as a bloc this time but no one should suggest they are the total arbiters. In fact they look remakably unenthused this time round.
Huckabee’s surge in Iowa should bring home the point that its not all god and guns, because it isn’t. For a start, Huckabee’s views on immigration, a real hot potato in Iowa are not exactly harsh and he and Romney squared up on it. Yet Huckabee is widely consdietred to be the man with the momentum who came otu well from that debate, before and since.
Logically he should be taking a stuffing from Romney over illegal immigration and maybe will do in the days and weeks to come (its reckoned Romney will go for Huckabee with everything he’s got on this) but the Huckabee camp have simply said they are standing their ground on their position and ‘it is what it is’. Given that many commentators feel this could be an achilles heel for Huckabee in Iowa either they are right and He’ll wilt or else they are wrong and huckabee is hitting the right notes with his ‘yes we don’t like illegal immigration (who does) but we shouldnt punish their children and we are a bigger nation than do do that kind of thing’. Its very christian at its core when you look at it.
Secondly Huckabee, a preacher no less, took the whole literal interpretation of the bible issue head on and in short said it wasnt THAT literal, yet there he is doing well in Iowa of all places.
Might be worth anyone taking a deep interest to read James Webbs book, ‘Born Fighting’ where he focuses on the Ulster Scots origins section of the populous (or Scotch Irish as the yanks say) as a key key group in the Republican targeting. Webb (now US sebator for Virginia) has gone as far as suggesting they were the real backbone behind Bush making it for a second term.
Whether that is true or not, Webb’s has some merit in pointing out that yes, there is the faith in god thing but its the rugged independence, strong law & order, freedom from the state interfering too much, ‘my home is my castle and so is my pickup’, kind of attitude that also defines what he sees as a large and important slice of the US electorate.
If we think such people are anathema to us sophisticates in the UK, forget it. Go to an average housing estate or lower middle class suburb and you find plenty of them. The church going god thing may not be visible but the social conservatism is.
123. Yep I’m back, unfortunately.
138. The social conservatism may well be there in the UK but the anti-government vibe just isn’t the same. I think its a mixture of the US evolving from a frontier culture and the federal government being so geographically distant that causes it. Plus the various layers and separation of powers in governments generally makes for unjoined up thinking and more inefficient govt action, heightening libertarian feeling.
Channel 4 news leading with the Hayman resignation - they suggest he made 400 calls to a female member of the Independent Police Complaints Commission - whilst the Menezes investigation was ongoing. Looks bad for the integrity of the IPCC report.
He is slso being linked to the anti-terror police raids in Birmingham, where “the media came too”.
So again - what did Blair know and when did he know it? Are we supposed to believe this is another example of Blair not knowing what his underlings were doing?
No-one available to talk to Channel 4 from the Met or the Home Office. Of course.
Yet more pressure on Blair to go?
131. The rating of Edwrads is a difficult one, espcially since he was my pick to do better than everyone else thought. If The democrats wobble over Clinton, be it a big wobble or some doubts thyen they have two choices.. Obama or Edwards.
Edwards is considered safe by the Demiocrat base, if a unexciting. He is on the left for sure and he’s played it that way for 4 years but he’s also been talking about tax cuts for the middle classes (pretty much most fo America, the way they see themselves) and so on. On that count, if Clinton has a wobble some will move to Edwards as well as Obama and in my betting slips it doesnt take much Clinton slippage to him to make him a decent winner.
As it is, Clinton needs to tank much more and I have no idea if she will or not. This could be the bump or it could be the beginning. What I have noticed is that some Democrats are now coalescing and publicly at that around the idea that Hilary could split the country badly, even to the point of defeat for the Democrats. I’m wondering is that talk is getting through and nibbling at the edges of Clinton’s campaign.
One other thing on Clinton and it goes back to folksy. The southern Democrats are still a decent block of the party and may provide a pillar for any Stop Hilary effort. Obama does do folksy but so does Edwards. The problem for those who dont want Hilary within the party, ie a part of Edwards & Obama’s support which is just plain opposed to her even if their men drop out is who do they go for if it came to the crunch to stop Hilary? Edwards or Obama?
What I’d love to see is second preference style analysis, alomost in a PR kind of way, who would get your second preference if you could give one. This would show the depth of support Hilary can get from Edwards or Obama’s people of either faded and what she couldnt. On the GOP side that would be one hell of an analysis because they will have serious drop outs to come, whilst the big 3 amongst Democrat field could carry on for some time.
130. He certainly may be a bit too much for many in the UK once you read into him but he can be attacked by others within the GOP camp as being soft, particularly on immigration, but he’s showing that either it isnt all policy or he’s actually got some that strike more chords than the experts think.
Yet again, I mentioned it months and months again and for about the 50th time today..folksy helps and its helping him.
135. Mike, I wish you were an investment fund
141 Very briefly, Marquee, I would have thought Hayden’s resignation makes it less likely Blair would go, but as Cerrig’s excellent posts indicate, we may be seeing only a fragmented and distorted part of the whole picture.
143 He might be soon.
Lot of good posts tonite. Can’t keep up.
We need some Creatures, so I can log off in disgust.
PtP, the issue comes back to what the head of the Met knew about the activities of his top cop fighting terrorism. Either outcome - “something or nothing” - is toxic to Blair.
140. True, they are built on indivdualism and entepreneurialism (or less generously, sink or swim) whilst we have the glorious, ‘its the governments fault we don’t like them..give us more benefit money’ to contend with.
The point is, though, that social conservatism over there is broadly based and not purely led by the bible (or Koran for that matter)group.
146 BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!
Guido’s site is temporarily unavailable, so perhaps some creatures might migrate…
C4 short clips with Wendy Alexander making a statement but no questions asked about her behvaiour. Nothing as yet on Hain, Abrahmans, or Duggie Alexander (is he ill or holed up in the same hotel as the HMRC youth?).
137 Know what you mean, Cerrig. It won’t surprise you to know that one or two of my spies operate inside the force and without compromising them, I do try to build up a picture from them. To the extent they can talk, they do give an account that squares with yours. It is far removed from the kind of tabloid image of goodies and baddies, but portays rather complex relationships, human frailties, muddle, confusion and infighting. Black and white it definitely ain’t.
Thanks for your contribution. It was a f*ck up, right and proper, that’s for sure, but wouldn’t it be nice if instead of looking for victims and scapegoats, we just had a calm reassessment of what the Met needs to do to up its game?
149. Humbug ?
149 Thanks Ave It.
At last a post I can ignore.
151 Btw Cerrig, I wonder if you can help me with a puzzle few have commented upon?
This guy who apparently went for a pee (or a pony and trap?) just as Menendez left the building. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
He had no cover? He hadn’t thought about it before taking post? He couldn’t have peed in the corner, or out of the window? If it wasn’t so tragic it would be funny, but honestly, does it stack up to you? Are we quite sure he wasn’t just caught napping and came up with this hoary old excuse?
Any thoughts? Any info?
145. You two boys should team up - you’d take on the world!!
Count me in for a grand or two…
Whats killing the Met is the ham fisted covering of arses..
142. I’ve read your folksy theory before, and I think its very apt. But Americans also like a down-to-Earthness, which Edwards lacks. He just seems to be the sort of pretty boy with good hair which Americans love to hate. His attacks this year on Clinton have also branded him with a bit of a negative vibe, which I think will haunt him. I could see him coming second or even first in Iowa though, due to second preferences - if Clinton comes third the race is wide open.
148. The Christian religion is very widespread in underlying mythology though. People expect you to be Christian and anyone declaring himself as an atheist would get accusatory looks. Even among people that don’t go to Church any more, there’s still a feeling that they “should”. There’s a Tom Petty song which very much sums up what the ideal of a moral person is in America: “She’s a good girl, loves here Mama, loves Jesus… and America too.” This belief is almost hegemonical here, outside intellectual professors (part of the reason they are distrusted so much). Even the sort of partisan liberal-lefties that would be strongly antireligious in Europe are willing to take a middle ground on this issue - they may stress that religion shouldn’t be involved in politics as much, or the Bible wasn’t supposed to be taken literally, but very few will come out and say its simply untrue.
But maybe it’s because I’m in the Midwest. Which part of the US have you been most based in?
146. You’re a c0ck, you’re a c0ck…. you’re a c0ck!!!!!
151. Agree completely.
It is a high stakes game (to use a betting analogy) and mistakes can cost lives. As a result there can be a lot of “@rse covering” by those involved. Add that to a few highly ambitious people jockeying for position, human error, and a head of the organisation operating in near isolation. You have a recipe for disaster.
Yoel @ 156.
157. Of course the bible and chritianity underpins a lot of thwe values but then again it underpins a lot of values here too. Its simply the issue of the visbility of the link.
Edwards has canvassed for 4 years Iowa, either he gets a damn good result or he has to hope for the Clinton wobble.
159. Can anyone confirm all those involved in the op on the day was actually all Met people and from the same Met unit?
160. Yeah theres a whiff of innuendo there….it wasnt meant..honest….but maybe they misused their fists in this case and shafted themselves.
157. Is that anything to do with the fact that all of our religious nutters were booted out of the UK in the 17th and 18th centuries? Something which encouraged the nutters in the rest of Europe to head the same way??
Often looks like our “emigeres” formed the basis of the US religious “hardcore”.
Don’t get this in Canada/Oz/Kiwiland anywhere near as much..
157. When Ive spent any time in the US its usually in the big cities or the tourist spots apart from a bit of time in the ‘Southern state’ part of Florida and also some time in parts of Virginia.
Yokel @ 162.
Well, I’m not buying a York ham this Christmas, No way !
O/T- Sorry if someone posted, but as you are talking about the American election:
“AP-Pew Poll: GOP presidential candidates in early voting states struggle for supremacy”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TAQE080
“Clinton, Giuliani leads shrink in poll”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/clinton_giulian.html
PtP if you are still around, still confident on Hatton?
163
Well the Pilgrim fathers were Quakers.. but the US biblebelt is often Lutheran/ Calvinist /Baptist .. A lot of US immigrants were persecuted or felt persecuted at home and as the Ulster Protestants prove, that’s a strong force for religious social and political cohesion.
See a history here..
http://atheism.about.com/od/baptistssouthernbaptists/a/baptisthistory.htm
163. Quite possibly, but I also think there are other factors. One is that a far greater section of the country lives in self-sustained (in terms of inhabitants not having to travel to a city) and isolated small towns. This encourages conformism and distrust of outside influences. Secondly, Australia and New Zealand were settled later, after religion was already declining in Europe. Thirdly, the US was a frontier culture for longer, due to the much greater supply of uninhabited, high quality farmland. New Zealand is small and mountainous. Australia is mainly desert. Canada is too mainly icy tundra. etc
154. No it doesn’t stack up. The general view is that it was a lazy excuse for looking the other way at the wrong moment.
155 We don’t come that cheap, Casino.
168. The Pilgrims were puritans, not quakers. Less fleeing religious persecution, they were mostly concerned with losing their own identity. Upon setting up camp in Cape Cod they were extremely intolerant to dissenters themselves.
168: I thought they were seperatist Puritans.
167 Yes, I am Yokel. The guy has the force with him.
And with any luck, he’ll whop that schmeckle Hamilton next day in the silly SPOTY competition.
174. Just reading through, all kinds of issues reported from Mayweather’s camp. These things as ever are hard to confirm but given your explanation of Hatton’s punching power I’ve had a bit on him for a while.
170 Thanks Cerrig. That would have been my guess. Perfectly human, but symptomatic of a lack of professionalism.
129: alex - will try to summarise factually.
Essentially if you are a union member and don’t opt out of the political fund, you are authorising the union executive to use it as they think fit. They might use it to campaign for something close to the union’s heart (e.g. higher pay for public employees or a change in health and safety laws to give more protection on building sites), they might give it to the Labour Party or some other party, but you are delegating the choice to them. The reason you might want to do that is that by accumulating a chunk of such contributions you give them more clout to act on your behalf, in the same way as you might if very environmentally-inclined send a contribution to Greenpeace without being quite sure how they’d use it, but confident that it’d be something you’d like. Unlike Greenpeace, though, you get to choose the union leadership through elections, so if you don’t like how the executive uses the political fund you can vote them out.
The union may choose to affiliate to the Labour Party, in which case it pays a small fee for every political levy-paying member that it chooses to count: one of the quirks that the Hayden Phillips package addresses is that a union can affilitate fewer people than actually signed up to the levy, and it’s proposed that the number affiliated should be the exact number who signed up (which is what most unions do anyway).
Most unions do brief new members on all this, allowing them to opt out and therefore pay less, but once you’ve agreed it’s routinely deducted until you explicitly change your mind. Every 10 years, the union has to ballot all members to see if they’re still happy to have a political fund - this has always been carried by large majorities.
The Hayden Phillips proposals (I think) would (1) require unions to brief members more explicitly and often on what’s happening (2) require exact numbers to be affiliated as per the number signed up and (3) limit donations other than the membership fees to £50,000.
The Conservatives would like to go further, requiring unions to make members explicitly opt into the political levy: as with pension contributions, it’s generally thought that a lot of people just go with the flow and will neither opt in nor opt out, so Labour regards this as primarily intended to reduce our income by restricting the levy to people who actively ask to pay it.
175 He hits with frightening power Yokel. Only question is whether he can catch the bloke.
Rumours of trouble at camp Mayweather? I’ll have a few more quid on.
178. Basically Mayweather is claiming old injuries are re occuring. Is it it crap psychology or real?
“so Labour regards this as primarily intended to reduce our income by restricting the levy to people who actively ask to pay it. ”
Conservatives regard it as primarily intended to featherbed the Labour party coffers whilst severely restricting the equivalent income of the Conservative Party by capping donations which businesses, business groups and other organisations can make to us.
Can’t have it both ways Nick. Even your sister party in Canada (NDP) has realised this.
Your lot really are a load of arrogant, cheeky b*st*rds (to put it mildly)
177. Surely the purpose of limiting donations to £50,000 is to stop a few people having a disproportionate influence on politics. If the choice with what to do with the political fund lies entirely with the leadership, then that should be subject to the same limits as donations from Greenpeace, the Countryside Alliance etc.
“Labour regards this as primarily intended to reduce our income by restricting the levy to people who actively ask to pay it.” Yes, its reducing your income, but thats only because it would be removing a source which unfairly raises your income by having unions be a special case. Labour just wants to continue a state of affairs where people give to the party by “going with the flow”. Clearly this isn’t fair.
Hatton is the ultimate no-crap guy. He’ll just wade in, whatever. Won’t be fazed by talk.
I think he’ll do it.
Gosh, tomorrow’s Wednesday…and that means…it’s PMQT.
Counting down already
169 “One is that a far greater section of the country lives in self-sustained (in terms of inhabitants not having to travel to a city) and isolated small towns. This encourages conformism and distrust of outside influences.”
That’s always been my own pet theory, Socrates. It’s based largely on my own experience of driving across America, long ago, before they made Easy Rider.
132/135 Wow, Mike, Hucks looks terrific value at your 0.6 on Spreadfair’s 0-10-25 index, his current price is 2.0.
Have you covered this index in your book, which I know applies to a number of sports markets also and is operated by all the spread betting firms?
177: ‘Labour regards this as primarily intended to reduce our income by restricting the levy to people who actively ask to pay it’
Only if you can’t persuade union members to agree to the levy. If Labour can’t do that you don’t deserve the money.
re 185. The specific market was not covered but the general principles were. I recount a similar market on the Tory leadership in 2005 when I made a nice profit going in and out of Ken Clarke whose price surged as soon as the French EU referendum result came though at the end of May of that year. I then got out, at a nice profit, after reading passionate anti-KC posts on the site by people like Sean Fear.
QUOTE
Northern Rock staff to get Christmas bonus
By Angela Monaghan
Last Updated: 1:29pm GMT 04/12/2007
Staff at Northern Rock are in line for a Christmas bonus and above-inflation pay rise, despite its financial woes.
The lender confirmed that the majority of its 6,000 staff will receive a £200 Christmas bonus and a one-off payment of 2pc of their salary in their December pay packet.
On top of that the company has agreed a deal with the union Unite to give staff a 4pc pay rise effective from the company’s January pay day.
A spokesman defended the bank’s decision to financially reward its staff despite the fact it still owed about £24bn of public money that it borrowed from the Bank of England.
He said: “Northern Rock and Unite feel that it is fair and recognises the efforts of staff in the company’s current position.
“The situation should not deter from annual reviews for staff who have continued to show both loyalty and commitment.”
The spokesman emphasised that the financial reward will not be paid out to Northern Rock’s top management.
He added that some people would be better off from the bonus and pay package compared with last year, and that others would receive less.
187 Yes, it’s used extensively in sports, where a draw is possible, especially soccer and cricket. What I’m trying to get my head round is how to quantify the odds in conventional terms the two elements of this bet, i.e. on the separate 10 and 25 points basis - I suppose it’s a kind of each way bet.
177
How much have the Unions contributed to the Labour party over the past 3 years with their political fund and how much over the same period have they received in payments from the government under the ‘Union modernisation fund’?
186. I have never gone through the process of union membership and paying the political levy. How is the process managed? Is it an opt in process or an opt out? Are you able to just tick or untick a box, or is a seperate form needed to exclude?
These things are all very important, as most people will follow the way of least resistance. ie. if its all filled in, and all they have to do is sign it, then that is all they will do….
191: I believe that you pay the levy unless you opt out. No other party have organisations collecting money from their members for a political party yet Labour moan about how unfair expecting people to have to consent to giving them money is.
132/185. I don’t like to disagree with you Mike, but for the US election markets at least, Betfair and especially Intrade are much more liquid markets, meaning you get better prices and can make bigger bets, and in the case of Intrade, like Spreadfair you can also bank profits.
e.g. You’ve bought Huckabee at 0.6 on Spreadfair. If he wins the GOP nomination his price should move to about 15, as the GOP have a 1 in 3 chance of winning the presidency currently. Hence you’ve bought him at an implied price of approx 24/1 (14.4/0.6) for the nomination, and can currently sell at 1.6 (8/1).
Over on Intrade Huckabee’s price for the nomination has been under 4 (at or above 24/1) right up until the end of Oct, whilst you can currently sell contracts at 16.9 (just under 5/1). There’s obviously been some big moves to him tonight!
Just my opinion of course, and I definitely don’t dispute the value of spread betting for markets like commons seats and weeks in office.
181/191: Socrates - yes, as I understand it the proposal is indeed to limit unions to £50,000 donations. However, this wouldn’t include membership fees paid by people who join Labour via the political levy.
191: see 177. In the case of Amicus, when I joined I was given a form with a box that I could tick if I wanted to opt out - it would have been extremely easy, but nevertheless did require me to do something (namely tick the box). As you say, many people who aren’t much interested either way won’t bother, and the argument on this revolves around whether such people should be counted in (on the basis that they’ve joined a Labour-supporting union so can be assumed to be at least acquiescent if they’ve not bothered to opt out) or counted out (on the basis that it should require a positive statement and they’ve not bothered to opt in). Labour was founded on the basis of collective affiliation, so there is a deep attachment to the concept.
I won’t argue it in more detail, but maybe the facts here are helpful for people to decide for themselves. Back to work…
191 unless you join the union at the same time as a ballot is being held (every ten years) you join the union and somewhere in the small print is a box asking you to exempt yourself from the political fund.
After this you have to ask for a special application form and then send it off. The system works through inertia. I don’t blame Nick for his wonderfully crafted and yet entirely biased post - without the unions Labour would be bust. Without the Union Modernisation Fund many unions would struggle.
Unions should break away from this mendacious bunch of chancers and do the job they were designed for - improve the lot of the working man. Nick’s spin is not something I would criticise him for - he’s a Labour MP; trade unions have for many years confused the Labour movement and the Labour Party. The two things should have gone their separate ways years ago.
195 - The problem is that the Trade Unions are now so enormous in many instances that they almost have an agenda of their own which is often divergent from the interests of the members.
194 you are a fine sophist Nick and I applaud your selective use of facts.
I think a way forward could be found by requiring an opt in with a choice of party, including a write in for any registered UK party if the choice is not for one of the three major parties (i.e. the three parties with the highest % of the vote at the last GE).
I think Labour should be more confident about attracting these small donations. The unions would be an excellent clearing house and would be performing an important social function.
Wendy Alexander on the news saying “It would be easy for me to resign but I’m not going to because it would be the wrong thing to do” had a screwed-up face and looked like Jade Goody.
194. That was my point. If the fees paid to the political fund by people are controlled by a few individuals, that too should be included within the £50,000 limit.
“on the basis that they’ve joined a Labour-supporting union so can be assumed to be at least acquiescent if they’ve not bothered to opt out.”
Hardly. If people’s reason for joining the union was to support the Labour party they would have instead joined the Labour party.
198 She obviously missed the 5/1 with Hills then, JohnLoony.
198 - It is clearly not easy because if it was that simple surely she would have done it?
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
Watford back from 2-0 down to win 3-2!
Done the LD constituency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WBA = LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ave it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“E-mails will prove that I questioned donations, says Wendy Alexander”
“According to sources close to the Prime Minister, he told her: “Of course I want you to stay but you must do what is best for your family.”
O/T-Nothing to do with the subject but Sue Cameron has a good piece in the FT…
203-I forgot the link(again!)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3001096.ece
From above link 204:
Mr Maude said: “I can confirm unequivocally that any donations made by Lord Ashcroft or any companies associated with him are entirely permissible,” an answer that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, described later as “carefully framed”.
i.e ‘legal’ but hey, that never got in the way of a good smear job.
203. Do you think he was refering to her brother!
206-Wee?He’s part of her family, so yes!!!!!!(not trying to compare or anything, not even trying to connect, but everytime I say family, I remember the “The Godfather”!)
205-”hey, that never got in the way of a good smear job”
LOL!
“Tories have yet to find knockout blow”
“Comparisons with the long death of the Major Government are largely wrong
(…)one following the other in rapid succession and their cumulative impact. They have created an impression of incompetence and drift.
(…)All this is good news for David Cameron after his midsummer setbacks but it is still mainly a big fall in confidence in Labour rather than a ringing endorsement for the Tories. For instance, two recent polls still put Mr Brown just ahead of Mr Cameron as the better Prime Minister.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article3001368.ece
Two weeks - it only took two weeks - it only took two weeks etc:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/seatsindoubt.htm
Australia = LOL
190. Last year it was 8.6m donated by the unions to Labour and about 10m donated to the unions by the taxpayer through the UMF. Funny, that.
199: Socrates, I think you’ve misunderstood. People who join the party through the levy are effectively getting a very cheap form of associate membership - they can top it up to become full members and attend branch meetings (thrill, thrill) if they want to, but otherwise it’s a halfway house - you’re effectively saying “I want to be in union X and while I’m at it I don’t mind if they include as part of Labour too”. Because this has both an element of individual choice and an element of collective action, it’s harder to classify than if Unite simply gives £X to Labour.
There always has, of course, been the underlying problem that parties who are perceived as being helpful to the interest of higher-income people will tend to get biogger individual donations than the opposite. That’s why left-wing papers tend to fold - the Daily Herald had over twice the circulation of The Times when it was taken over, but very little ad revenue as the readers weren’t well off. The Conservative position that everyone should simply contribute what they can afford has an inherent bias, though less than it used to as all parties’ have become less class-based.
Hmm Brazilian corruption scandal involving shadowy dealings with third parties and the leading figure has resigned, eventually!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7128052.stm
212-Nick, I know that you have a “personal” interest about Lord Ashcroft, and I have one doubt. I know that I already asked twice, but no one knows exactly. So I will ask again!
““A silly question:
When Cameron says that Ashcroft was responsible for only 4% of Conservatives donations, does he means his companies too? And does he include this:
“that is true, then perhaps Lord Ashcroft would like to explain why, of the £565,374 donated to the Conservative Party by Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd over the last two years (Q2 2005- Q2 2007) - BCS is known to be Ashcroft’s main vehicle for padding Tory coffers - only £212,163.50 is actually recorded by the Electoral Commission as having gone to Conservative Central Office?
The balance of these funds - £353,210.50 - is recorded by the Electoral Commission as having found its way in Tory coffers by way of a total of 56 individual donations given directly to Conservative Associations (including one case of a donation to a Federated body, Milton Keynes, covering two constituencies).”
( http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2007/10/18/show_me_the_money/ )”
213-Don’t get used to this. They only resign when they are going to be “fired” or when some embarrassing news will appear in the papers!
209. Good old Mr Riddell, spinning his nonsense as ever. Must be required reading in Number 10. I simply dont see how the Prime Minster ratings have any relevance. Mr Brown is PM and has been effective deputy PM for 10 years, of course people are going to see him as more of an authorative figure.
David Cameron never has been PM and has not been on the scene long. Given these facts surely Brown must be desperate that he is neck and neck with the young pretender. His experience and authority were all Brown really had left.
The disasters of the last 2 months are just sinking in with the public and it is likely to get a lot worse for Mr Bean and his mendacious chums. While the details may fade, if any Labour supporter thinks that some form of lasting damage has not been done they are seriously deluding themselves. The only questions that remains is how bad it really is going to get for him and whether Cameron can overcome his electoral disadvantages.
215 - I was just drawing the parallels and have done so on my blog too.
212. If Labour wishes to have a form of semi-membership for a discounted price they are quite welcome to offer that. You could even have a small sidebox on union application forms offering that.
But what isn’t fair is to cajole people into the party sneakily through membership of another organisation. Besides, it’s not even individual choice - under the current situation you don’t choose to have this semi-mebership, you have to choose NOT to have it. In your own words you have admitted people are donating to the Labour party simply because they are going along with the flow.
I would agree there is an issue with donations being more affordable by rich people and I would actually prefer a lower limit - maybe £10,000. But you don’t make up for an unfairness on one side by giving an unfairness on the other side. That’s how politics has come to work in the US and it erodes democracy: everyone simply avoids criticism by pointing to something equally bad the other side is doing.
Me @ 214
You have asked the same question many times today, sigh, if it was illegal ‘Nick P’ would have gladly provided the answer; as it is, he has not and nor for that matter has anyone else here.
Perhaps you can do some independent research, away from PBC and report back when you find something untoward.
Meanwhile the rest of the group will continue to report or expose, ‘real’ wrongdoing within the Labour party and not the ‘manufactured’ type you seem so obsessed with.
216-”Must be required reading in Number 10.”
I’m sure it is, they get a morale boost with this!!!
I agree with everything you say but:
“Cameron can overcome his electoral disadvantages.”
Brown may overcome his too!
219-I only asked twice!(and I didn’t get an answer).I’m not saying it is illegal, my question is not related to his tax-status or with the legality of his donations. As for independent research, I don’t even know where to start, and as I said I’m really bad in maths, so I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t get to this result.
“the rest of the group will continue to report or expose”
You can do what you like, and I’m not obsessed with this, if you follow my posts closely, you will see that Lord Paul and Mr Mittal
are also in them!
212: As a Labour MP do you like the fact that you have ‘members’ who give the party money because they forgot to tick the right box?
217-Nice post!(in your blog)
218 Socrates “I would agree there is an issue with donations being more affordable by rich people . . .”
Very true. Such people seem to be Labour supporters these days, though! (E.g. Roger)
We have a Cicero who posts to PB.com (who has a very interesting blog of his own), and of course your good self, Socrates.
All we need now is someone called Plato. No doubt he will be an anti-monarchist arguing for a Republic.
Anyone considering a sale of London/UK Wide house prices on Spreadfair, now that there finally appears to be a discernible downward trend which is gathering credence in the market place, might care to bear in mind that the Halifax monthly indices for November 2007 on which these markets are based, will be published I believe at 12.01am that’s in just 40 minutes’ time.
For my money, it’s difficult to see how one can lose money over a 6-12 month perspective. Famous last words I know and hey why would anyone listen listen to me - I’m the one would gave you a totally bum steer on a so-called free money bet this afternoon - once again, apologies for that!
221. I am very much a Conservative supporter but like many others I am not sure why the Conservatives dont come clean on Ashcroft, and I dont blame ME and others trying to get some mileage out of it as a result. David should take the sting out of the Ashcroft attacks not least to deny the Labour spinners the opportunity to deflect from their actually illegal activities.
I cannot believe that Cameron would have said what he did at the press conference yesterday if it was not true. This belief does not come from any great sense of trust in Dave but in the sheer stupidity he would be demonstrating in the current climate.
However that then brings it back to why there is any secrecy at all..it is puzzling but if there was any real dirt you would have to think Nick P and his fellow Labour backbenchers would fall over themselves in the rush to get it out in public.
Now what would be very amusing and quite clever would be if the Conservatives know its all fine and are just amusing themsleves with Nick P and the rest getting themselves in a lather only to make all the pursuers look very silly at an appropriately embarrassing moment.
As an alternative maybe they are delaying while Ashcroft desperately tries to get his tax affairs in order and to become UK resident. I know which one I hope it is but we shall see…
Anyone care to speculate on Dave’s first question at PMQs tomorrow? My guess would have to be Northern Rock and the mushrooming exposure to the Treasury, i.e. you and me, of £30,000,000,000 and counting.
226-” I am not sure why the Conservatives dont come clean on Ashcroft”
Neither do I, for what I see it’s legal.And it’s not even close to what the Labour party has done, which the prime minister already admitted being “unlawful”…
BTW If you lined up, end to end, £30,000,000,000 in £50 notes, how far would they stretch - for those impoverished ones on here, the equivalent distance in tenners will suffice instead. Good pub quiz question!
227-Paul Gray’s new job!
219 The difficulty for the Tories with Mr Ashcroft is that his time overlaps with the period to 1997, a period often seen as sleazy. As we know certain aspects of his background are not clear, and no-one, not even Cameron, is prepared to ask questions or put Ashcroft on the spot.
As a Lib Dem, the idea of Trade Unions funding Labour does not come as somehow wrong - I can accept that the Labour Party grew out of the Trade Union movement and the two together have historically been known as the Labour movement. However, we know that there are many Trade Union members who are not labour, and many who are members of other parties (I myself have belonged to 2 TUs in my working life), and that TUs’ functions are not necessarily linked to the Labour Party. Our discussions here about Opting in / Opting out have been pretty civilised compared with riots, strikes, lock-outs etc which took place a century ago over just the same topic! And there has been swing between the 2 systems over the century in between. I cannot agree with the Tories that we need to return to full opt-in. As long as all members are reminded regularly that they have the option of withdrawing their fee to Labour, that should suffice. Personally, I think more TUs could disaffiliate from Labour, and perhaps affiliate with Lib Dems or other parties.
I must say, my major grouse is with the Cooperative movement remaining an intrinsic part of the Labour Party. I was very annoyed as a Lib Dem candidate fighting a Lab - Coop candidate, when I felt that both currently I was as committed to the Coop movement, and historically the Liberals were heavily involved in the origins and development of the Coop.
227
Why were the safety recommendations in 2004 for Nimrod ignored by the government?
226 Well frankly it’s been going on for so long, the idea of stringing along political opponents is a bit far-fetched. You write, JH, as if you think this is a relatively new issue.
Re 198, Johny Loony “Wendy Alexander on the news saying “It would be easy for me to resign but I’m not going to because it would be the wrong thing to do” had a screwed-up face and looked like Jade Goody.”
I saw that as well.
I wont resign because it is the wrong thing to do .. for my bank balance…
Re 227
He could also ask how come a company bailed out by the government can give it’s employees a 4% pay rise and a substantial Christmas bonus whilst the government is restricting public sector pay to a 2% rise or less.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/04/northernrock.creditcrunch1
229. London-New York?
229.A tenner is 14cm long so £30bn in tenners in a line is 4.2 million kilometres or about 2.6 million miles. You could encircle the earth about a 100 times with that number of tenners!
235 Yes, a truly excellent question, Old Codger. Such action hardly makes the company more saleable either, does it?
236, London to New york, not necessarily wrong, but you did miss out a few loops…!
237 Well done Goupillon, that’s exactly what I made it - remarkable eh?
235. Because the loans NR has received are secured on their assets and they are solvent and they are trading.
225 Well, I’m off to the appropriate Halifax House Price Index website now - exciting or what! For me, this is just like the final furlong at Sandown Park.
227. And counting…..
I havent seen a market for this but I did post a while back to watch JC Flowers as a suitor. I did also post that theres a political imperative that sides to the lovely friendly Mr Branson and thus may help lever his bid in but Branson is having issues with his at the silent backer end which need sorting quick.
241. Loans without interest?
What an irony…bank suffers from credit crunch as easy credit dries up..gets bailed out by…easy credit….
243
According to reports yesterday the two banks Branson has approached are getting cold feet over the scale of the funding required and the feasibilty of the business plan.
243 Did anyone see Branson’s full page advertisements in last week’s papers strutting his stuff about how he was going to tranform NR for everyone’s benfit (doubtless, primarily his own)?
Like he already owned the businss - the sheer unadulterated cheek of the man. Branson is a bit like Marmite isn’t he - you either love him or loathe him!
No news from the Halifax BTW, I can only imagine that the man entrusted with the 12.01am press release has gone to sleep on the job.
241. No they are not. *some* of the loans are secured, but as Vince Cable found out, getting an admission of the amount from Darling was like getting blood out of a stone.
Are you willing to wager that the entire amount loaned, plus *all* theinterest will *not* be returned to Government?
The difficulty i suppose will be working out a timeframe..
247 - Northern Rock will, like many debtors, probably agree to pay back at £10 a month for the next few billion years.
245. The only way NR is going to end up sold:
i) The business itself is sold for a fraction of its market value (which is in itself a fraction of its value pre requesting assistance from the BofE), this deal is already on the table
ii) The Government are willing to compromise on either the total amount borrowed, the interest or both.
Without both these pre req being met, i find it unlikely a sale will happen.
226. While Labour is embroiled in an unresolved matter of illegal donations the pressure is off as regards Ashcroft.
But you are right, the problem hasn’t gone away, and Rachel Sylvester’s Telegraph article today describes the dilemma that Dave faces.
Apparently “Blofeld”’s website declares:
“If home is where the heart is, then Belize is my home”.
And, extraordinarily, he even joined Gordon Brown at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit, as a guest of the Government of Belize.
“As David Abrahams has discovered, donors to political parties have to be absolutely transparent about their activities. There is no room for grey areas. If Lord Ashcroft is indeed resident in this country, then he should say so openly. I do not know many people who are ashamed to say they live here. There really is no good reason for bashfulness.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/04/do0401.xm
246. Wasnt in the country but you got to love it. I can guarantee you that he’s No.10s fave. I have no problem with the man personally but have no doubt there is a potential skew towards him in this case.
The problem is, is it the best bid for the business.
Watch if he changes his payback to the BoE offer up a bit.
239. I didn’t notice the “end to end.” I was thinking “stacked on its end.”
250. Bogeyman………..
252 Hmm… have you ever considered a career in politics, RodCrosby?
And just as I’m pontificating on NR I have found this.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bec3f0d2-a2a2-11dc-81c4-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
254. Yes, but I don’t think my manifesto would be successfull, but there again…
“The last person to enter Parliament with good intentions was Guy Fawkes. Elect me, to carry on his excellent work…”
Election address: Lieut.-Col. A.D. Wintle, MC; Liberal, Norwood, 1945
Nick Palmer “the proposal is indeed to limit unions to £50,000 donations. However, this wouldn’t include membership fees paid by people who join Labour via the political levy.”
That is spin. Those paying the political levy are not joinig the Labour party but failing to opt out of a contribution to their union’s political fund (it carries different names sometimes but it is always the same thing: a Labour party support fund).
If what you say were to be accepted then the 50k limit will not stop the current system continuing in practice and there will be no limit on money funneled from the unions to Labour as the political levy will continue in the same way as it does now, the money will just not sit temporarily in a union’s political fund.
214: well, it’s easy to check, I guess, Me - if Cameron’s statement is correct and going by your figures, then they must have had donations worth £12.5 million (making £500,000 4% of the total) over the last two years. Have they?
Witan: if so, then to what do you attribute the fact that the Shadow Leader of the House welcomed the Hayden Phillips proposals when they were first made last spring?
Nick Palmer I see that you do not deny what I say, that your proposal will allow the Labour party to continue the union funding game almost without change in practice.
259. And Howard accepted ID cards. Still a stupid idea.
Re 260
A member of a union like any one else is free to donate to any political party if they choose to do so. I can see nothing wrong with an Union asking a member if they wish to donate to a party by paying an additional set sum on top of their membership contribution. Any such donations would be seperate from the capped donation and would have to have a clear audit trail. With today’s technology it should create few problems.
262 A member of a union like any one else is free to donate to any political party if they choose to do so.
The key words from the above post are, of couse, “any political party”. Presumably, the employee should have the option of nominating the particular political party to which he or she wished to contribute directly through the payroll.
re 241, Goulipon “235. Because the loans NR has received are secured on their assets and they are solvent and they are trading.”
*cough*
There assets are, according to the FSA about to take a nose dive, they are trading, but only just, and thanks to tax payer backed funds, and are insufficiently solvent to raise their own cash in the free market.
Go on, have another go.
262. Yes, there would be nothing wrong with them asking if they wish to donate to a party. But what Nick is arguing for is that you have to be asked to NOT donate, as donating to the Labour party is a matter of course unless the member does otherwise.
259) Repeating what was said in the house doesn’t make it correct, In fact what Thersa May said was as follows
We welcome the publication of Sir Hayden Phillips’ report. We accept his main recommendations. We want to have cleaner and cheaper politics, and we want to work with the other parties to achieve that goal. However, if cleaner and cheaper politics is the goal, we start a long way from that point. The cash for peerages scandal has pushed the public’s estimation of politicians to a new low. This issue is not just about our vanity, nor is it just a joke that can be easily written off. Public cynicism about our political process is deeply damaging to our democracy, so will the Leader of the House agree to hold cross-party talks on Sir Hayden’s recommendations as soon as possible?
There is much to welcome in Sir Hayden’s report. We support the moves towards a long-term cap on donations to political parties and a reduction in the general election campaigning cap, and we are happy to discuss spending caps on all year round non-election campaigning and proposals for tighter controls on third-party expenditure, greater transparency on donations, such as those by unincorporated associations, and new powers for the Electoral Commission. Does the Leader of the House share our support for those proposals?
Sir Hayden suggests that it might be desirable to control local campaign spending outside election times, but he rightly notes the difficulties in putting that into practice, such as the variance of constituency boundaries according to the type of election, the practice of targeting marginal constituencies which is inevitable in our electoral system, and the fact that local party officers tend to be volunteers. Despite our scepticism about the need for local limits, in order to secure agreement we are prepared to consider them, but subject to one condition: that any caps imposed at local level do not entrench incumbency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree to that?
It has long been the position of the Conservative party that in order to restore public trust we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions. I am glad that Sir Hayden has reached the same conclusion. Does the Leader of the House agree with Sir Hayden’s proposal that caps on donations should apply across the board—to individuals, businesses and trade unions?
Sir Hayden’s report suggests that, despite the cap on donations, trade union affiliation fees could count as individual donations on the condition that
“it is possible to trace payments back to identifiable individuals”.
Does the Leader of the House agree that any such system must be free from abuse? Does he agree that if affiliation fees are to count as individual donations it is imperative that individual trade union members are able each year to opt in to political funds, rather than being left to opt out, as is currently the case? Given that more than half of all union members who pay affiliation fees do not vote Labour, should not members who opt in to political funds be able to choose annually to which party their fees should go?
These are very important questions because it is, of course, Labour’s financial links to the trade unions that have prevented reform until now. [Interruption.] The party’s national executive committee recently pledged to “vigorously oppose plans” for an across-the-board cap on donations, saying that
“the Labour Party cannot accept a statutory uniform donation cap…It would also undermine the Labour Party federal structure and seek to amend a system of Trade Union contributions”.
However, as Sir Hayden says,
“a limit on donations need not…challenge the Party’s constitutional relationship with the trade unions”.
See here for more details.
Typical Labour spin!