Who is the Cleggie who owes me 500 pounds?
December 19th, 2007
Why is a “senior member of the party” reluctant to pay?
Followers of the Lib Dem leadership threads over the past couple of months will have become familiar with contributions by “The Observer” who has been a passionate, and at times aggressive, backer of Nick Clegg. He is also, apparently a “senior member of the party”.
In a post on November 5th at 8.38pm he asserted that Huhne’s vote share would not be as big as 2006 and issued a wager challenge in these:“…I would expect Chris to poll less than he did last time vs Ming - and if anyone would like to wager on that - I’ll accept a bet.”
I posted that I would be happy to bet on the proposition and at 8.54pm The Observer responded “…Mike @ 95. I’m referring to the 42.14% counting second prefs when the contest became a 2 horse affair - are we on the same page? I have £500 @ evens.”
This I agreed to and I asked him for some contact details. At 9.01pm The Observer wrote: “Mike! Will do!! Will I get posted up the agreed wagers section and everything?! Exciting!”
It should be emphasised that it was “The Observer” who was making the challenge; it was “The Observer” who was suggesting the £500 and it was “The Observer” who defined the terms of the wager.
He did not contact me and nearly a month later, after he began taking part in the discussion on December 1st I posted reminding him that he had still to send me the information. At that time the YouGov Lib Dem members poll was just out and this showed that Huhne was going to achieve a share that was somewhat better than 42.14% and my bet looked like a winner.
The Observer then wrote, at 6.41pm “Mike, after some consideration, and owing to my position in the party I’m unable to provide you with my real name and address. Could we ask Betfair to put up a % market and we’ll match on there?”
Others on the thread suggested that to get round his predicament that he might like to use an honest broker such as Peter the Punter.
Since then “The Observer” has continued to participate in discussions and at 1am yesterday morning this “senior member of the party” sought to influence my future coverage of the Lib Dems. He wrote: - ” When the new leader is announced, I hope that you Mike, a fellow Lib Dem can be the Big Man and think of the party over your own quite clear personal preferences. ..”.
I hope that you “The Observer” understand the seriousness of welching on bets. I entered into this arrangement in good faith and would have paid if Huhne had not achieved the required share of the vote. I expect “The Observer”, however senior he is in the party, to do the same. I look forward to hearing from him.
Arrangements for recorded wagers: Peter the Punter has agreed to operate and keep up to date this section of the site. New arrangements will be put in place in the New Year.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
Recorded wagers, of course, only work if both parties are willing to actually keep their promises. Good on you, Mike, for following up on this one; and shame on The Observer for letting you down. I advise no one to enter into any bets with him in future!
Northern Ireland, perhaps for the first time since its foundation in 1920, is entirely united behind a piece of economic policy. But it cannot implement the policy, because Gordon Brown is terrified of the Scottish National Party.
As First Minister Ian Paisley puts it:
Back in November last year Gordon Brown slapped down his minion, then First Minister Jack McConnell, for having the temerity to consider standing up for his country:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/Treasury-mandarin-grabs-the-corporation.3602666.jp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7150780.stm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20061118/ai_n16855880
Renaging on bets is the act of a small and mean person. If that person is indeed a senior member of the Lib Dems, then it brings into question the honesty of every member of that party’s leadership team. Perhaps whoever it is should consider that point when making comments about ‘thinking about the bigger picture for the party’s sake’, which is in any case nonsense because as far as I’m concerned, there’s no need for the name to be made public - merely for them to pay up and for Mike to say that he or she has done so.
It really isn’t very sensible engaging in bets with unknown, let alone unnamed individuals, unless done through third parties like Betfair, where the money is put down in advance.
Keep your sense of outrage, but not your common sense.
Just to bring everything back to earth a rather er… vicious piece in the Times.
Ann Treneman “It is not healthy to be in an enclosed space with so many Liberal Democrats, not least because, as a party, they tend to suffer from body odour.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3071125.ece
Happy Xmas to all.
4 - “then it brings into question the honesty of every member of that party’s leadership team.”
Is it really reasonable to damn an entire party because an alleged senior member is wriggling on a bet? Get some perspective, David! I hope you don’t actually believe everything you write.
5. Yes, I’d agree that entering into bets with unknown individuals on the assumption that they’ll pay up later is a risky enterprise. That’s a risk Mike has taken, as was his own 500 pounds. Whether the individual would have shown such reticence had they won is open to doubt.
Perhaps I could make a suggestion that in future, recorded bets only become active when the contracting parties have provided adequate information on their personal details to allow payouts later.
7. If this had been another party, I might have been a bit more cautious in that comment, but given that Mike himself is a Lib Dem, I can’t believe he would have put the comment up had he not had at least some grounds for believing Observer to hold some senior position with the party. Wriggling on a bet is refusing to pay a debt; it’s dishonest.
To answer your point about the party, no, it’s not reasonable to damn an entire party - and I don’t. I do make the distinction between individuals and the organisation, and we’re only talking about one person here, but it could be any “senior member of the party” (reference to the leadership team probably was not a valid conclusion to draw on my part and I should have quoted more accurately), and a question mark will hang in the air until this has been resolved.
I hope Observer does the decent thing and coughs up. Not difficult. The postal order method seems an obvious and sensible suggestion. Or what about paying through a third party, such as one’s builder, in order to preserve anonymity?
If Roger looks in, are you still offering the bet for an ICM poll to show a Tory lead of less than 6 per cent before the end of January 2008? If you are I am ready to do business. 25 pounds says you are wrong.
O/T.
Edwards campaign could be about to implode, the US tabloids are running a story that he has had an affair with a former staffer (all this while his wife is seriously ill with cancer). Could all be baseless titley-tattle but even so it has the potential to really harm him.
http://www.politics1.com/
Also, Clinton slipped into third in a recent Iowa poll (Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Clinton 24%), but its effectivley a three way tie
Observer = Lower than a snakes belly in a tyre rut……..
Mike, please don’t forget my two bets with Roger that still aren’t recorded.
I have Boris to beat Livingstone and
Boris’ to top Norris’ ‘04 % of the vote (1st & 2nd prefs combined).
£100 each, potentially cross cancelling (in which case nothing is payable) payable to a charity of the winners choice.
Cheuqe Payable to the Royal British legion please Rog ! (Winky thing)
Merry Christmas to all
TB
I think we can assume that Nick Clegg was flattered by Observer’s confidence in his likely performance. So all Observer has to do is give Nick Clegg £500, and he can pass it on. Or Observer could ask another friendly MP to do it. Or he could get a bankers’ draft, and post it to Mike. It really isn’t difficult! Pay up!
10. Roger may be misguided politically, but he’s not financially stupid
11 - that stupid rumour is from the National Enquirer of early October. It’s like the Daily Sport but with less credibility. So far, no corroboration of any sort, from anyone.
re 8 . David - I saw Peter the Punter in London on Monday and he is going to manage the whole process of recorded wagers - one of the conditions being that the parties provide him with their private details.
re 12. when PtP does take over there’ll be a big trawl so we can record those bets that were agreed on threads but have not been posted on the page.
Meanwhile….. (as Jack W posted)
Be very afraid Lib Dems - Simon Heffer supports Clegg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/19/do1901.xml
and Clarke finally attacks Gordon
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2229601,00.html
15 - Normally I’d agree, but this seems to have more tracktion that a simple wilde rumour (it’s was the tabloids which broke the Clinton affairs).
11 - Another poll out from IA which has the race as; Obama:33% Clinton:29% Edwards:20% , which moves to Obama:37% Clinton:31% Edwards:26% when the second preferences of the candidates polling, so no real change.
Morning everybody.
It is well known but always worth repeating that bets are not enforceable as the law stands. You should therefore not enter into them unless confident of the honesty of the counterparty.
Observer would have been absolutely sure of Mike’s probity. He has a little while yet, I think, to demonstrate his own.
Mike has alluded to a new Wager Service I will be running on behalf of the Site. It is hoped this will help to eliminate little difficulties like this one.
We should not be too quick to judge Observer. As a ‘Senior Liberal’, he is likely to have been very busy of late and maybe hasn’t had time to get his cheque book out. Once he thinks about it and the implications of failing to honor the bet, he may well decide the better option is to settle promptly.
I mentioned that bets are not legally enforceable but of course there non-legal means with which, as an habitue of the track, I am perfectly familiar. Mike is far too much of a gentleman to even contemplate these, even assuming he could identify and track down Mr Observer, but I can assure the latter that if he knew the kind of penalty commonly imposed for infractions of the kind in question, he would be writing that cheque out right now, just in case.
Toodle pip!
All this is interesting because it shows that the Clegg team, and the Lib Dem hierarchy in general, were thinking that Clegg was a shoe-in from the beginning. As someone mentioned yesterday, from the day he announced his candidature, the race was Clegg’s to lose -and he almost did it!
I genuinely think this does not bode well for the Lib Dems - he is not the ‘natural champion’ that Cameron became through Tory process. If anything his stature has actually been weakened by the race and not strengthened by it. Of course the Lib Dems now have to settle in and hope for the best, that Clegg can turn a new leaf. I actually don’t think there will be much in the way of recrimination, as the party can’t afford it. However I think any concept of immediate political momentum has been significantly hindered by this.
17. Sorry someone has got to say it - “the observer” is “Prince Monalulu” and I claim my £500!
Press very poor for Clegg
22 - given the effective tie in the contest, shouldn’t the LDs accept that the party is split right down the middle and adopt a dual leader approach, like the Owen-Steel partnership that was such a success for them in the 1980s?
I mean it’s not like the two of them aren’t best buddies…
BTW, was this a straight simple majority contest? Wouldn’t they have done better if members could have expressed first and second preferences?
12 Tory Boy
Mike will be doing a proper announcement shortly. One of the things it will do is make it clear that bets aren’t registered unless both parties have emailed me to confirm the details. Meanwhile, anybody who thinks they have a bet which they would like officially recorded can email me now so that I can start tidying up all the open and outstanding business. The address is arklebar@talktalk.net
Please note that it is not, and will not be sufficient simply to post your bet here on Site. Emails will be mandatory to count as an Official Wager.
This won’t necessarily eliminate Observer-type cases, but should help.
I actually don’t think Mike should have made this post unless it was quite clear Observer was not going to pay. Saying he cannot give you a real name and address is not the same thing as reneging. There are other ways to pay and a few days is not much to wait and see if he really intends to disavow a debt.
Instead we have this post openly asking members to speculate on his identity less than one full day after the bet became due. Which is why presumably many senior people are very cautious about posting online.
Betting’s a pretty seedy business all around, I think, and people should think five or six times before getting into it. Not that I don’t think you are decent, PtP, obviously you are, but your post above refers to the seediness of betting and the consequences - addiction, poverty, criminality, embarassment.
23 Bob Sykes “BTW, was this a straight simple majority contest?
I think Simon Hughes said it was a Straight Choice. and as the impartial President he put out statements reminding the members to vote for Clegg.
Groupillon - Yes you have found him! I had quite forgotten about His Highness!
25. How pompous - thinking of restarting the Temperence Society, are we?
Why don’t you open a book on the identity of “Observer”?
Michael Moore 1/7
Jo Swinson 2/5
Malcolm Bruce 1/2
Danny Alexander 1/2
Willie Rennie 3/5
Alan Reid 4/5
Robert Smith evens
John Thurso 3/2
John Barrett 3/1
Menzies Campbell 5/1
Charles Kennedy 7/1
Alistair Carmichael 11/1
That is my guesstimate of their chances of holding on to their seats in GE 2009 by the way, but I wonder if one of those could be the “Observer”?
24 PtP.
This is just a post to officially record that I fully intend to honour the bet made by my previous incarnation “Gladstone” with Mark Senior over whether Lynne Featherstone will retain her seat in Hornsey & Wood Green at the next election.
It is necessary that I do this, because I am coming round to the view that Mark is right, and she will hold the seat, thus obliging me to pay up!
25. Test. This site is called politicalbetting.com
You sound like a vegetarian addressing the annual dinner of the Butchers Guild.
29 why not open a book on the identity of Michael Moore?
He is rumoured to be the LD spokesman for Foreign Affairs.
O/T
In America, I remain of the opinion (espoused and generally rejected here last week) that Fred Thompson and John Edwards could still be two of the biggest winners from Iowa. When the main Iowa newspaper is printing articles like the below, their cause is helped:
http://tinyurl.com/2oqbqk
Of course, yesterday’s undignified Obama-Edwards spat will have been music to Hillary’s ears but I suspect it might be because the Obama camp has realised quite how difficult it will be to beat Edwards in Iowa. I think they should still be working to finish ahead of Clinton becuase Obama can win the nomination from second place in Iowa. So can Clinton. But it’s a more difficult route from third place - especially if that has a knock-on effect on New Hampshire later in the week.
The Telegraph really is naughty with this intro for its comment piece by the Hefferlump aka ‘Gladstonian liberal Simon Heffer’
23 “Given the effective tie in the contest, shouldn’t the LDs accept that the party is split right down the middle…?”
Bob Sykes - You are not the first poster to make this point and I’m damned if I can see the logic in it. Can you be the first to explain?
It’s a non-sequitur, isn’t it? I mean, a tie might be an indication of a split, or not. It may, for example, be an indication that the candidates were closely matched and ideologically similar, and that members were reasonably happy with either outcome.
On the evidence of postings by LD’s here, I should say the latter explanation fits the facts better but if you don’t agree, I’d be interested in your reasoning.
30 Noted with thanks, Disraeli, although in future I shall be insisting on emails!
(I think we can safely take it you are not Observer!)
31 yes but despite the name of the site, it’s 95% politics, 5 betting - if that. Luckily
33 - Disagree about Thompson - his candidacy is pretty much dead, and his crabby showings in the debates havent helped, the real surprise for the GOP race could be McCain re-emerging in New Hampshire following a Huckabee victory in Iowa, all this while Romney is struggling and Gulianni is in real trouble.
But I’d agree on Edwards, his operation in Iowa is very strong (with lots of Union endorsments helping him to boot), he’ll still be doing well to win - but it’s by no means impossible. Beyond Iowa though i cant see Edwards (unlike Obama or Clinton) riding the momentum to the nomination, instead I think things could pan out more like the ‘88 cycle when Gephardt won in Iowa but simply couldnt translate that into any further traction. If Edwards wins in Iowa then either Obama or Clinton can probably survive comming second but I;d agree that it would be very hard to come back from a third place in Iowa.
38 the scandal will kill the Breck Girl if there is anything at all to it. Cheating on a cancer stricken wife whom you’ve used in your campaign = toast
39 “Cheating on a cancer stricken wife whom you’ve used in your campaign = toast”
Not if you are a Tory in Wiltshire.
No comment (Reagan rule)
How are the LibDems in that seat, out of interest?
Ben @ 38
Thompson has REALLY improved in the last month and his final debate performance was considerably stronger - commentators said he won that debate. So I really don’t think he’s dead.
McCain certainly pushing hard in NH. He has to win there. It’s the only way his campaign stays alive.
Of course, on the Democrat side, the National Enquirer story cited earlier has the potential to end Edwards’ chances before Iowa. In any case, I suspect you’re right to compare Edwards to Gephardt - both have the particularly anti-poverty, pro-labor blend that appeals especially to Iowans and some southern states. The Obama/Clinton appeal is far broader.
Mike, “…the seriousness of welching on bets …”
Good to see the time-honoured practice of racial stereotyping is alive and well in the Lib Dems.
40:LoL
Turnout is an indicator of the level of engagement that people have.
64% the turnout of LD members in this contest. (72% in 2006)
53% the turnout of Labour members who voted in their Deputy contest.
77% the turnout of Conservative members voted in their Leadership contest in 2005.
39 - Agree, but it remains to be seen if there really is any truth to it, but as i said it seems to have more traction than somthing like the druge report’s coverage of Kerry’s “affair”. We’ll see…
42 - Still cant see it, he’s polling at just 10% in Iowa and less in NH (iirc - so could be wrong), if Romney collapses (and so far all the GOP “front runners” have eventually collapsed - McCain, Gulianni, Romney… I get the sense that Huckabee will win in IA by dint of timming and having become the “front runner” at just the right time more than anything) then Thompson might be able to expliot it - but i just dont see that he’s got the time to do it.
25 Test
‘All of life’s a gamble - and mostly the odds are 5/4 against.’
I’m sure you recognise the quote and I’m happy to live by it. You can’t avoid gambling, any more than you can avoid life. Why not enjoy both?
Betting is not, in my experience, a seedy business. On the contrary, I find racing people and punters generally a gregarious, lively, entertaining bunch - and on the whole extremely trustworthy. By way of example, I can tell you that I don’t always bother to take a ticket when placing my bets. A glance at the bookie is usually sufficient. He knows who I am and we both know what the agreement is. Disputes are very rare and have always, in my experience, been settled amicably. I really wish I could say I had found the same levels of honesty in the City, where I have spent much of my working life, as I do at the track.
Sure, betting has its sleazy side, but nobody has to go there, any more than drinking has to be a lonely, depressing and addictive activity. If you can’t trust yourself, don’t imbibe. Same with betting. I wouldn’t criticise those who abstain. No need for you to criticise those of us who partake.
Anyone read Jonathan Freedland’s column in the Guardian? For a left-winger, it cuts everyone!
Some choice extracts:
“Clegg’s start was less auspicious than Blair’s 13 years ago and Cameron’s in 2005. They won thumping victories; Clegg squeaked in by a Florida margin of 511 votes. More alarming, turnout of Lib Dems was down by about 10,000 votes since they chose Ming Campbell in 2006. With a third of Lib Dem members not bothering to vote, one unsympathetic observer noted: “If you can’t excite your own party, then how can you hope to excite the country?”
That hurts the Lib Dems, especially because many had high hopes for this campaign. It wasn’t just about selecting a replacement for Ming. Some imagined that the process itself would be invigorating, much as the 2005 leadership contest energised the Conservatives. But that did not happen. With serial disasters torpedoing the government, there was little airtime left for the battle of Clegg v Chris Huhne.
What’s more, while Cameron and Blair could both claim a mandate for a new direction, Clegg can hardly do the same. It’s not just the anaemic size of his victory: it’s also his failure to set out a clear programme in the course of the campaign, preferring to play safe lest he erode his lead. As a result, that most vital sentence for a new leader forcing through difficult changes - “You elected me because …” - is not really available to him.”
and
“Of course, much of Clegg’s fate will not lie in his own hands. Instead, he will navigate his way around a landscape shaped by Labour and the Conservatives. Previous Lib Dem success has come when the second party is ailing: Labour in the 1980s and the Tories from the mid-1990s until 2005. With Cameron surging and confident, that is clearly not the position now.
Most depends on the government. As the year ends, most Labourites shake their heads at how rapidly their fortunes have reversed since the summer. They ask each other one question: how deep a hole are we in? The Blairite ultras believe the situation is recoverable, but that it will not, nevertheless, be recovered. They believe that Brown does not have the political agility to do what needs to be done - they agree with Cameron that he is “simply not cut out for the job”. They trade rumours that the PM is digging himself ever deeper, retreating into the bunker, starting work at 4am, shouting at secretaries. With alarm, they report that Tony’s fruitbowl in the Downing Street den has been replaced by Gordon’s stash of chocolate bars. They wonder if he can take the strain.”
and lastly:
“The irony is that Labour’s underlying position may indeed not be that unsound, but its day-to-day politicking has been appalling for 10 successive weeks. (Even an amateur could have told them the late appearance at last week’s Lisbon signing was a disaster. As any parent would tell a recalcitrant child: either don’t go at all or go with good grace.) The Tories have underlying weaknesses, but their tactical plays have been consistently canny.”
46. Your view is obviously more realistic. But I can’t help wondering if Huckabee hasn’t arrived just a week or two too soon to nail down victory. Thompson’s definitely cutting his recovery fine!
I agree about the Edwards story needing to gain traction. But in such a close race, with several popular candidates, even the rumour can be damaging enough.
47 PtP
Hear hear
Sorry, link for Freedland:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/comment/0,,2229660,00.html
Interesting looking at the Electoral Commission website. The search engine seems to show something quite interesting about impermissible Donations.
Since 2001 the Tories have returned over 50 donations totaling £91,800 including voluntary forfeiture to the Commission three times including the two cases of which so much fuss has been made (because the Labour party has just caught up with the Commission’s month old press release).
The LibDems have returned nearly 20 donations valued in total at £55,000. One of these was voluntarily forfeited to the Commission.
In the same period the Labour party has returned only one donation of £1,000 because as a impermissible donation.
So in fact this current Labour attack again highlights how careless (or worse) Labour have been if they have only found one case since 2001 where the donation was impermissible while the other two parties have found and dealt with so many more.
Even the Green party found two donations and Respect one that had to be returned. The BNP found nine but the PC and SNP found none.
34
Very interesting column from Heffer, he really hates Dave doesn’t he! Read the first letter in the comments, from Arthur J. Smedley, wants Musharraf to come here and start a party: hmmmm!
47. Quite right Peter.
Re 31, Stjohn “25. Test. This site is called politicalbetting.com
You sound like a vegetarian addressing the annual dinner of the Butchers Guild. ”
BTW, It has only been a day, maybe Obderver has been tied up?
19. Prophet.
“I mentioned that bets are not legally enforceable but of course there non-legal means with which, as an habitue of the track, I am perfectly familiar. Mike is far too much of a gentleman to even contemplate these, even assuming he could identify and track down Mr Observer, but I can assure the latter that if he knew the kind of penalty commonly imposed for infractions of the kind in question, he would be writing that cheque out right now, just in case.”
If you mean what I think you mean - and this sort of stuff still goes on, widely - then I find it very worrying.
I’d hate to think of someone who’s a little bit financially irresponsible and desperate getting knee-capped because he can’t pay the bookies.
What kind of country do we live in??
Maybe the government SHOULD consider making bets legally enforceable and get rid of this criminality.
Talking of wagers….interesting that no-one has taken up my cats/dogs offer of Monday. That £10 is still on offer - the dogs say Labour will dip below 29% (ie 28.99% or less) in a national poll (Smithson adjudicated) by 31st March 2008.
Are there no puss-loving Labour supporters prepared to risk a tenner? Or are you really all accepting that your man still has that far to fall to plumb these new depths? What about The Fightback?
35 - I think most commentators have made the point that by only getting 50.x% of the votes Clegg has hardly secured a great mandate from his own party, and it’s not just partisan Tory voters like me. Had Cameron beaten Davis by the same margin, then I very much doubt he would still be leader after some of the difficult early months and the rough patch last summer. Or, he would have had to adopt a wholly different tack to the very successful one he has taken.
So I think it is fair comment that Clegg is hampered slightly in what he can do when half his party may not be with him, or certainly didn’t think he was the best man for the job.
It’s particularly bad because the general expectation seemed to be that it would be a walkover for him, that he might win by 60-40 at least. It must have left Team Clegg very shaken; Nick Robinson seemed to think so on the Ten last night. It suggests that highly significant numbers of LD members developed doubts about Cleggy during the campaign. Not good.
Just a thought on turnout for the LD leadership. Could it be that many could not make their minds up. As posted previously here I was in that position (eventually I voted Huhne) and that appeared to be the case of many others from conversations I have had. It is a dilema. I didn’t want not to vote as that looks like apathy. I also didn’t want to spoil my paper as that is negative and my view of both candidates was very positive.
43 LOL Gwynfa!
I was wondering if anybody else would pick up on Mike’s use of that term. I think it was you who once picked me up on it, long ago.
As I explained at the time, it’s one of those terms so ingrained in certain parts of our culture that its ‘racial’ origins have pretty much been forgotten. Certainly I never, ever thought about the Welsh when using the verb ‘to welsh’.
I honestly doubt it causes any offence now but correct me if I am wrong. If it does, it ought to be avoided. It would be a pity though. Everybody knows what it means, and ‘to renege on a bet’ is an altogether less satisfactory formulation.
You’re the Welshman, Gwynfa. You decide. Is it OK, or not?
Memory cells going, but I have a charity bet with…er…someone that Ken will beat Boris. IIRC it was £10 at 2-1, i.e. if Ken wins the cats get £10, and if Boris wins another charity gets £20. A not very frequent Tory poster has confirmed the bet before, but I’ve forgotten again who it was and am not sure of the exact bet. Can anyone (ideally the person I bet with) advise?
By the way, test, can’t remember if I confirmed receipt of your £20 for the cats a while back, but it came promptly, thanks!
43 Gwynfa. I heard that the actual origin of “welshing” on a bet is actually a slur on English people. In this version of events, it was applied to bookmakers who fled over the border to Wales to avoid paying up on large debts.
(See “Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins”)
43 - Another insecure welshman giving the rest of us a bad name??
58. I have yet to find a Clegg supporter who wasn’t happy with Huhne or Huhne supporter who wasn’t happy with Clegg. That certainly wasn’t the case with the candidates in previous leadership elections. I think you are barking up the wrong tree (wishful thinking on your part.)
[47] Peter the Punter laments I really wish I could say I had found the same levels of honesty in the City, where I have spent much of my working life, as I do at the track.
And yesterday (sorry if this has already been dealt with, but Virgin had a technical fault so I was disnetted) John Pilger wrote: In 2007, reported the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the United Kingdon faced the highest levels on inequality for 40 years… The International Monetary Fund has designated Britain a tax haven, and corruption and fraud in British business are almost twice the global average, while Unicef reports that British children are the most neglected and unhappiest in the “rich” world.
I do hope that Nick Palmer MP, Roger et al will have the grace not even to try to defend this outcome of ten years of NuLabbery, whilst I am confident that the Blue Harpies will be falling over themselves to argue simultaneously that Pilger’s sources are a bunch of wicked Marxist fantasists and that Cammy will sort it all out in less than no time.
58 So by the sam logic, Bob, and overwhelming majority, or a walkover even, would have been much better?
You must have been mightily impressed then by Gordon Brown’s election then!
Why can’t he just PayPal the money over to you? Then nobody needs to know who he is
Since the LDs are no fans of FPTP, why not run the leadership on a proportional basis, Clegg for 184 days, Huhne for 181? I think we should be told…..
60
I believe the term to, ‘Welsh’ meaning dishonest, was brought about during the middle ages, when along the Welsh/English border Welsh farmers would sell cattle to their English counterparts. These cattle were of the, ‘homing variety’ and would return to their previous owners, to be sold again and again.
I have to say, this seems a bit premature to be maligning this man’s character in such a big way.
Of course it might be justified in which case I think it would be worth tracing Observer’s IP to see if it links up to Lib Dem HQ (although I suppose Mike wouldn’t really want to use it as party political material against his party).
But after one day? People have other things to do in their lives, honestly.
56 Casino
The bookmaking community would dearly love them to be legally enforceable. Ask any bookmaker about their bad debts and they will tell you the extent of the problem.
No, I don’t think thuggery is common in pursuit of betting liabilities and certainly no more so than in pursuit of other more commercial debts. More common and effective sanctions include exclusion (’warning off’) and the removal of credit facilities.
It is, as I have remarked elsewhere, a remarkably well-ordered and honorable community and somebody with genuine financial difficulties is likely to treated sympathetically. Of course, somebody who is just taking the pi*s might get treated a bit roughly, but that’s life.
We’ll find out in due course which category Observer falls into.
47. Peter. I recall many years ago, when I was a bespectacled callow youth of about 14, placing my first bet with a Rails Bookmaker, at Goodwood.
The bookie instructed his clerk to put the bet down to “glasses”. I waited patiently and then with growing consternation for my ticket. The bookie, sensing my anxiety, then made a bolt for it with my fiver. His Rails colleagues roared with laughter while exhorting the increasingly embarrassed and bewildered “glasses” to chase the fast disappearing felon.
68.
The scary thing about that proposal is (provided the leader didn’t have to be an MP) I could be leader for about 13 minutes.
O/T Con gain Seoul !
Presidential election in South Korea - first exit polls
It looks like an easy win for Lee Myung-Bak (conservative)
KBS/MBC poll
Lee Myung-Bak 50.03%
Chung Dong-Young (Liberal) 26%
Lee Hoi-Chang (Independent Conservative)13.5
SBS poll
Lee Myung-Bak 51.3%
Chung Dong-Young 25%
Lee Hoi-Chang 13.8%
I think the difference between the Libeal Democrat leadership conest and the Tory one was that in the case of the Tories, there were very considerable political differences among the candidates (Clarke v Rifkind v Fox…), whereas in the Clegg-Huhne contest, political differences wre virtually non-existent (probably because in the case of the Liberal Democrats, it is the party that decides policy anyway, not the leader).
Apart from that, the Tories received millions of pounds worth of free advertising from media coverage, during an excessively prolonged campaign; hile the Liberal Democrats did not. Bearing this in mind, it is really shameful and highly significant of Tory apathy that their turnout was not higher.
The above is in answer to the postings from HF and Bob Sykes.
Re 72 Stjohn “The bookie instructed his clerk to put the bet down to “glasses”. I waited patiently and then with growing consternation for my ticket. The bookie, sensing my anxiety, then made a bolt for it with my fiver. His Rails colleagues roared with laughter while exhorting the increasingly embarrassed and bewildered “glasses” to chase the fast disappearing felon.”
Are you saying a bookie did a runner for a fiver?
76 Indeed?! And a Rails bookmaker at that! Generally I don’t go to the Rails for less than £50, although they will take less.
And weren’t you a bit underage?
It was all a joke, surely?
Did anyone hear Clegg on Five Live this morning? He seemed very hesistant and nervous, even answering questions such as should the England football coach speak English.
He will have to up his game a bit if he’s to make any impact.
Who says “Observer” is a “senior member” of the party - apart from himself? And what does the term mean anyway? Somebody above produced a list of MPs in an attempt to slur them all.
I would have thought that Observer was elderly (”senior” in the sense of “long-established”); and/or self-important (since Liberal Democrats don’t do hierarchy); and/or somewhat delusional (since he was so wrong; and also under the impression that he would convince anybody); and possibly even not holding any position of importance within the party. He also seems to have money to burn.
I can think of one name tht would fit this description; but he is not even a member of the party.
76,77. Peter, Benedict. Yes, they were all winding me up. Needless to say the horse lost so I was not able to test the probity of their bet recording system.
A fiver was a lot of money 32 years ago to a 14 year old. Can’t be sure of the horse’s name now. Possibly Sula Bula?
60. If you go down that road then the use of ‘Welsh’ in any context should perhaps be disapproved of - the original meaning of the Old English word ‘wealh’ was something akin to ’slave’ and was quite derogatory.
37 “31 yes but despite the name of the site, it’s 95% politics, 5 betting - if that. Luckily”
I like to take up this point, Test, because it goes to the very heart of what we all do here.
I believe, and I know Mike does too, that it is the betting element that makes the Site. Without it, it would be little more than a propaganda forum. You have only to go to a selection of other ‘Political’ Sites to see what I mean. Name one than comes anywhere near this in terms of quality and range?
Furthermore, I think this site works best when the betting and the political elements are combined. The best threads are when the politics has a betting edge, and vice-versa.
It is true that the overwhelming majority of posts have nothing to do with betting. Many posters have nothing to contribute to the betting element. They are not despised because of it; nor should ‘the punters’ be denigrated for their priorities. It’s a broad Church here and all the better for it.
Getting the mix right is important and difficult. In this respect, Mike and his team do a brilliant job. I would suggest that we could do with more betting, rather than less, if only because the betting threads tends to contain less of the tub-thumping partisan postings which I personally find so tedious - but then it’s a personal view.
Meanwhile, I’m happy to jog along with the mix as it is and hope others can put up with my preoccupations, as I try to do with theirs.
Of course he should pay. This is a matter of honour. His name must, in the public interest, be published if he doesn`t pay. He`s not fit to hold public office.
78: Just out of interest has anyone honestly been impressed by Clegg’s performance?
84. Oh yeah - like a Labour or Tory (or Nat) hack is going to say he is good, even if he is.
75 Tressage the examples you give were not the choices members got when 77% of them voted for either Cameron or Davis.
If Tressage you are right that 77% turnout is “shameful”, then a 64% turnout must be the pits!
Do bear in mind that I have in the past pointed to research into campaign volunteering at previous GEs which show for GE2005 that a similar % of Conservative and LD members volunteered whereas Labour’s % was well down.
These voting turnouts are an indicator that if a GE happened today the participation rates we can expect are 1st Conservatives opening a gap on 2nd place Lib Dems and in a distant 3rd Labour.
84. Ralph. Generally not but he came alive towards the end of his interview with Paxman last night. Time will tell but my impression so far is that he lacks fire.
72. St John - in the mid 80’s I recall going to Cheltenham with my wife and being bilked by a rails bookie who did a runner before paying out on the last race. Coincidentally he was Welsh although I never associated the word “welch” as in welch on one’s bets with this before! My wife and I now often refer to rails bookies as “slippery Sam” if the subject of going to the races comes up because of our “experience”.
84 not impressed by Clegg but I reserve judgement on him, as I am waiting to see how he does in these first months.
I did state that Clegg would be better in 3+ years time.
Ralph @ 84
No. (although as a Tory I am probably biased) However, I thought his performance on Newsnight last night was woeful. He and Paxman kept interrupting each other, he looked uncomfortable and unstatesmanlike and came really unstuck over the issue of ‘Town Hall meetings’, where apparently he won’t be ‘listening’ to people if they tell him things he doesn’t want to hear i.e. if they want a referendum on the EU Treaty.
Huhne in my view is much more left-wing, but speaks slower and more calmly than Clegg, who gives the imprssion of being flustered. I have heard the word ‘waffler’ used against him a number of times by commentators.
80 Sula Bula is an anagram, yes?
84: No, and (before Alan J accuses me of being a Labour or Tory hack) I am an undecided voter. I think Clegg is very unimpressive. when I hear him speak he reminds me of Blair, my mind wanders and then the radio is switched off. He talks in broad meaningless generalities. The LibDems should be attacking the Tory/New Lab economically liberal consensus - I think that Huyne would have done this. What a shame.
84. - I think he did ok vs Paxo last night - not stunning, but a lot better than ‘dead man walking’…..reminded me of that other young one…..
80 On reflection, StJohn, perhaps the horse you backed was the legendary Selohesra…
Early on I felt that the sensible thing for the LibDems would have been to go for Clegg. As the campaign progressed I changed my mind. Two reasons for this:
1) Perhaps it’s me, but Clegg comes across as very, very dull. Sure he’s personable, but entirely lacking in the “charisma” that Cameron seems to possess.
2) The danger to the LibDems is, obviously, from a Tory revival picking off their seats. The best defence is to attack Cameron as being inexperienced, vacuous etc. Huhne could have done that with some credibility. Not Clegg.
All in all, I think the LibDems could have made a serious mistake in over-reacting to Menzies Campbell’s problems with age (his selection in turn being an over-reaction to the perceived lack of gravity of Kennedy). Time will tell.
Re 80 Stjohn, “76,77. Peter, Benedict. Yes, they were all winding me up. Needless to say the horse lost so I was not able to test the probity of their bet recording system.
A fiver was a lot of money 32 years ago to a 14 year old. Can’t be sure of the horse’s name now. Possibly Sula Bula? ”
What were you doing putting a whole fiver on a hrose for anyway?
Did you get it back?
I wonder if anyone can help me with a small problem of etiquette?
We received a Christmas card yesterday from some old friends of my wife’s. A nice couple, they came to our wedding, apparently good sorts the pair of them. However, in the missive they announce that he has just been appointed Conservative Parliamentary Candidate ….. in a Lib Dem held seat!
As I have explained in the past, Mrs Carp is completely a-political. After 17 years of hard work, I have trained her to understand some of the more basic facts of life, such as, for example, that all Conservative candidates by definition are multinational drug traffickers who eat babies. And now all my good work has been undermined in a moment.
Should I ensure that they are struck off our Christmas card next year?
88 Really, Goupillon? That’s very rare, and at Cheltenham too. Presumably you informed the Ring Inspector?
I’ve only heard of this happening once, in a very famous incident at Epsom on Derby Day, but that was a carefully constructed scam.
I’m really very surprised to hear of this.
Re 97, Augustus Carp, “I have trained her to understand some of the more basic facts of life, such as, for example, that all Conservative candidates by definition are multinational drug traffickers who eat babies. And now all my good work has been undermined in a moment.”
“Should I ensure that they are struck off our Christmas card next year?”
No just write the card in green ink… Oh? you do that already
Re Clegg:-
*** disclaimer ***
I am a Tory, my opinion of the Lib Dems is biased…
However, during the TV news interviews Clegg made yesterday I made this basic observation…
He made the point about being different and how Labour / Tories were the same?!?
I can see what he was trying to do, but then he dug himself a great big hole and jumped in.
He went on to - almost exactly - repeat Cameron’s sound bites on overall policy / party direction without the conviction or PR charm of Cameron.
At least one interviewer said as much and it made him look very shallow and lightweight to be honest.
Picture Cameron with Clegg as a ‘mini-me’ if you will…
Lib Dems and Tories are very different parties, but it just shows how much Cameron has moved to capture the Lib Dem ground while Ming has been in charge. Can Clegg capture it back? or will he drive people to the ‘real thing’?…
Strikes me as the Lib Dems would die for Cameron as leader and have elected the person who most fits that aspiration. Clegg is going to be tagged by the press as a ‘wannabe’ / ‘light weight’ Cameron.
Many may ask, what is the point?
78
I saw him (Clegg) on Newsnight last night.
No wonder his profile in the election was so low.
Best described as a dull montone/ recite political cliche speaker.
I mentally compared him to the David Cameron/David Davies leadership debate.
I would rate him about 10% better than DD and about 25% less charisma.
I then compared him to the Gordon Brown leadership debate : and of course Clegg won handsomely
I believe the term is “no contest”.
I wait to see what happens.
Read the Torygraph article by Heffer. For a long time he has struck me as a bitter and twisted old fart. That article confirmed it.
88. Goupillon. That’s surprising and unfortunate. Just to be clear, my anecdote at 72 was the bookies having a joke on me.
Personally I endorse PtP’s views. I have never had an unfair encounter with a racecourse bookmaker. Not that I go racing much nowadays.
He could transfer the money to your account and all you’d have would be his sort code and account nummber, which wouldn’t reveal his identity. If that’s too revealing he could just post 10 fifty pounds notes via registered post, or even try the Abrahams approach and pay you through an intermediary. The problems on remaining anonymous are hardly insurmountable.
85: Alan, I find that in the mornings this site has less of the partisan nonsense that infects it later in the day.
The consensus of ‘not a great start but we’ll see’ sounds fair to me.
Augustus Carp @ 97
Was this in a formal printed section of the card, or as part of a hadnwritten message from the sender?
65: What makes me doubt what Pilger says (apart from his past record) is that if things are so corrupt why aren’t we seeing a larger amount of trials?
I heard one chap on Radio 5, this morning, advocating Nick Griffin in preference to Nick Clegg.
105 Augustus
You are a Liberal. Be magnanimous.
Though they have strayed, they are honest enough to admit it. Most would try to hide the fact from their cherished friends. Send them a nice card back indicating that you intend to remain friends and hope they will see the error of their ways in due course.
Not quite sure what you are going to do with Mrs C though.
96. Benedict! The horse lost so, no, I didn’t get my money back! I think that’s the side of the deal that works as an incentive for the bookies.
105 The photocopied Family Letter thing; daughter’s violin exam, the holiday in France, that sort of thing.
86 HF I think you have missed one of the points that Tressage and I have made. Many LDs found it hard to make a choice. That is certainly my experience from speaking to many others. I certainly voted very late and nearly not at all for this reason. I have never done that before. Whereas with the Conservative party leadership there were very clear choices.
If ytou don’t know how to vote what do you do with your vote?
Don’t don’t that to me please! I thought looking at that picture the headline was “Lib Dem lead of 18%!”
112-LOL!
Re 109, Stjohn, “96. Benedict! The horse lost so, no, I didn’t get my money back! I think that’s the side of the deal that works as an incentive for the bookies.”
i just wondered as it appeared he had not quite taken your bet!
108 Wise as ever, PtP!
[106] I normally discount Pilger, too, but I trust him to quote his sources accurately - although it’s not clear whether the “twice as corrupt” comes from the IMF or out of his own fevered brain. It may be that it’s not only in terms of party political corruption that the law isn’t fit for purpose.
Augustus Carp @ 110
Well I suppose that’s not so bad then. I have a friend who votes Labour or Green (shocking, but true) who, when we shared a house shortly after University and didn’t have much money, used to make his own Christmas cards with leaves and twigs and insisted that people should always write long newsworthy messages inside, rather than just “To X, Merry Christmas from Y”.
So on that basis, your friend was probably just being informative, although mentioning you politics to friends can be a risky business if they don’t share your views.
Heffer has been an aggrivating idiot for a long time now. He hates Cameron, constantly declaring his style and tactics as wrong and useless. Now the tories are well ahead in the polls he’s gone suddenly quiet over it.
Brown has got a friend to help him in this month’s press conference.
119 he just said “the tripartite system of regulation is working well”. er Northern Rock shows its working well……
You will recall that a few days ago there was a discussion here about the Rev Dr John Cameron, who has been on various sites on the internet saying mildly rude things about the Prime Minister. As promised, I spoke to Mrs Carp about her political campaign whilst at Edinburgh University in the 1970s, when she assisted Magnus Magnusson in a heroic but doomed attempt to prevent Gordon Brown from securing the Student Rectorship.
Mrs C was involved in both the Official Wing and the Provisional Wing of the Christian Union at Edinburgh, but she has no recollection of the good Dominie. She assumes, therefore, that he must be some sort of Episcopalian (or “heretic” as they are known in the more waggish Presbyterian circles).
I mentioned that Rev Cameron had referred to Brown as a “bully”, and Mrs C. became most indignant. She assures me that there were never any rumours of Brown being anything other than completely respectable when he was at university – the only thing held against him was that he was “political”, i.e. he was weird enough to join a political party. She said that if he was a bully, rumours of that sort of thing would have got out, but she heard nothing about it.
Britain’s economy is better than America’s and better than Europe’s.
O/T-”The Huckabee Backlash”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/the-huckabee-backlash/
119: “Brown has got a friend to help him in this month’s press conference”
Brown has got a “friend”? When did that happen?!
82 - offering wagers is also a good way of quietening the exciteable. “Dave is rubbish and will be out on his ear by February”; “Spurs are great and will win the League, FACT”; “England will win the next Ashes series 5-0″ - such patently absurd claim can easily be demolished by calmly inviting a wager on those things, which is invariably refused with a hasty “err, well I would, but I don’t bet, y’see”. So it’s not only fun, and profitable, but it silences the tiresome braggart.
69 - I’m not quite sure why, but the notion of “homing cattle” sneakily mooing their way home has made me laugh like a small child for several minutes. Excellent stuff.
Well welching on a bet is the act of a dishonourable man/woman but that’s a minor point in this affair.
As Mike is one of few lib dems who are prepared to be openly critical of the party’s direction the major point is the threats to him to keep his silence. This is unacceptable whoever it is from, whether from an influential politician or a common or garden voter.
In any case, surely I can’t be the only person who gets annoyed at those who publicly agree with their party whatever they do? I just couldn’t do that, it’s completely unnatural. In fact, the idea that you have to support a party line is what keeps me from attempting to join any party and it’s no wonder that membership of all parties (and lib dems are suffering more than most given their need for foot soldiers) is declining.
101. Clegg’s acceptance speech was almost like a rory bremner perfomance, taking off a cameron conference speech. Huhne massively impressed during the election, and clegg has a lot to prove now - not exactly what he’d have liked on day 1 of his new job.
Apols if this has been raised before but can anyone explain the lower turnout in this election? Ming was elected on a 72% turnout, while the Clegg/Huhne battle only spurred a 64% showing. Was the last contest that much more exciting?
Shame that “Laurel and Hardy” aren’t standing closer together at the press conference. Would have made some great ventriloquist and dummy photos!
” The bookmaking community would dearly love them to be legally enforceable. Ask any bookmaker about their bad debts and they will tell you the extent of the problem. ”
It’s the bookies fault.
In a previous career, I was involved in managing a betting office.
There were very reliable credit customers who always paid if they lost but they were mostly well off old school’ types, so that made a huge difference.
However, the general rule is that you should never ever give credit to punters, even for small amounts.
For example, I’ve seen a -£500 betting balance try to be wiped out by someone phoning and backing an odds-on dead cert (think it was the horse, Tenby).
Logic being, easy money - cancel out the debt, job done.
Only it lost and the balance then stood at something like -£1000. You can guess what happened next and it didn’t involve the person walking in with cash and a smile to pay up.
Happens no matter the amount as well. I’ve seen people dissapear off the face of the earth over £20 before.
Before anyone says - we always paid up when a punter won legitimately - it has to work both ways.
So, never ever offer or agree to credit if you are a bookie even if you have been taking bets off the person for years over the counter or via deposit (which is always tricky when they run out of money… I’ll pay up this afternoon…). It’ll go bad as sure as the Lib Dems will never form a government.
I don’t miss it much I can tell you. Stressful business.
Same goes with lending anyone money.
Bah humbug.
From the press con:
Female foreign journalist, eulogising about Brown.
Brown: “Anyone would think I personally invited you!”
Journalist: “You did!”
Much laughter…
119 Brown with Darling are coming over impressively at the Press Conference this morning.
127 Why the lower turnout? The main reason given by LDs (at 111 etc) is that the two candidates are very similar and some members just could not make their mind up.
Personally I view participation rates in all surveys as a good sign of the state of morale. It is very applicable in surveys of employees where a low participation rate is a sign of employees switching off into a catatonic level of participation.
Therefore I believe that morale within the LDs has declined compared to the previous Leadership contest and this contest has not reinvigorated the party.
The other indicator of morale is the direction and scale of change in the membership numbers which in terms of the scale of the decline, are Highest drop = Labour, 2nd biggest = LD and 3rd = Conservatives.
I am afraid I was one of the 36% non-voters. This is an awful admission, and had the majority been only 1, I would have felt dreadful. But I was never a confirmed Huhne-y, or a Cleggie at all, so I felt it was reasonable. I understand there were about 200 or so spoilt papers, and I did think about that option for a while. This is the first leadership election I have not voted in, btw.
*It’ll go bad as sure as the Lib Dems will never form a government.*
Before someone asks for odds, I would like to backtrack and say that I really mean’t…. it’s as likely as the Lib Dem forming a government…
Never is a long time and of course the likelhood is that ‘one day’ in the future a Lib Dem party (or a version of it) might be in a positiion to win outright however doubtful it may seem in the 00’s.
Since you mention it again, Matthew T (27), only too pleased to oblige (likewise, again)….
When you are faced with a straight contest between two outstandingly good candidates, and you find you would be very happy with either of them, you don’t become wildly partisan. And because you are not wildly partisan, your motivation to vote is less than would otherwise be the case. So turnout was a bit lower in the Clegg-Huhne contest for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats then it was the time before.
In contrast, the Tory leadership election had candidates representing various opinions and factions within the party: so it was all very exciting and turnout was high. Unfortunately for the Tories, they ended up with the candidate who does not seem to believe in anything much, except in getting himself elected. But that was the result of the rather strange voting system that they had chosen for themselves.
One of the main differences between Clegg and Cameron is that Clegg believes what he is saying, and the party is behind him. Cameron finds he needs to say the same things to persuade the voters, but his Conservative Party is not totally in agreement.
It might be a good idea, Matthew, to think again about which is the imitation of the other…
127 Not more exciting, Matt - just that the candidates this time did not come from as wide a spectrum of party opinion. 131 HF I think you are right looking back over the lat few months, but I do think there is some reason to think this election will turn things around.
On reflection, the party who Clegg’s victory could benefit most is Labour. They can portray their opponents as clones and offer the only distinctive leader.
That said, Gordon Brown will need to raise his game substantially before that strategy will work.
Whilst it’s perfectly understandable that the Blue Harpies should be crowing about their higher participation rate, whether in leadership elections or in foot-sloggers, is this any new thing?
Labour polled more votes than the Tories in 1951, of course, but the Tories won a majority of seats. (It’s said that this is what induced Churchill to take a softly-softly approach with the Unions and on social policy.) Labour attributed their defeat to a lack of bodies on the ground. I suspect that, unless the wheels come off dreadfully, Tories will back their party through thick and thin, whereas Labour’s foot-sloggers tend to idealism, and when Labour governments fail to produce Utopia, skulk in their tents. After all, if you’re a leftie, and Labour delivers centre-right policies, why not?
127. There could also be a ‘Oh, Clegg’s going to win anyway, so I won’t bother’ factor ?
One thing to come out of this contest - lots of people seem impressed by Huhne so I assume Eastleigh is a safer ‘hold’ for the Lib Dems than the small majority implies.
97 Augustus Carp
An old friend of mine, a former very senior back-bench Labour MP [ex-Minister - that sort of thing] used to send out several thousand Xmas cards each year. One knew where one stood by a] the greeting and b] the signatures.
Let’s call him ‘Fred’ and his wife ‘Wilma.’
If you received a card - ‘Best Wishes, Wilma and Fred Flintstone’, then you were on the list as a matter of political expediancy.
However if the message was ‘Merry Christmas and a Happy and Peaceful New Year, Fred and Wilma’, then you were up there where it counted.
There were a number of combinations in between.
I won’t tell you where my greeting stood in the pantheon.
However I once received a letter from Kenneth Baker signed ‘With thanks, Ken.’ If only he had known. My bottom was sore for almost a week afterwards.
malc19ken @ 139
Isn’t this also similar to a ‘Yes Minister’ sketch, where Jim Hacker is presented with mass of Christmas cards by Bernard, with instructions on how to sign each pile, depending on their place in the pecking order.
134 “When you are faced with a straight contest between two outstandingly good candidates, and you find you would be very happy with either of them, you don’t become wildly partisan.”
On rather shaky ground there. It would as valid to claim:
“When you are faced with a straight contest between two uninspiring candidates, and you find you would be unhappy with either of them, you don’t become wildly partisan.”
134 - I am amused by the notion that it’s unfortunate for the Tories that they elected Cameron. Why stop at “unfortunate”, Tressage? Given this apparently disastrous mistake, maybe “disastrous”, or even the exciting-sounding “cataclysmic” could also be applied to this hitherto unprecedented lack of collective judgement? Restraint is all well and good when speaking about such towering folly, but don’t sell yourself short.
127. I think a lot of Lib Dems were:
a. Not really bothered; either candidate was acceptable;
b. A bit pissed at having to vote again so soon after the last leadership election;
c. Still want to know what was really wrong with Charlie!
PR!
Another reason for low turnout in the LD leadership is because I know of several couples who whilst pretty much undecided, did in the ended decide to support different candidates but then decided together not to both voting as their votes cancelled eash other out. The party would also have save money on the non-use of the prepaid envelopes.
Just think how many more focus leaflets can be funded because so many failed to vote!
Actually though, many members were simply saying that they didn’t mind who won as they can confindence in both of them to lead the party, so they probably just didn’t feel the need to vote.
141 If the latter you can send in a spoilt vote. Nothing you can do about the former.
138 ‘My bottom was sore for almost a week afterwards.’ I’m not sure I should be asking this but can you explain?
139 I get a Christmas Card from Vince Cable each year which refers to an amusing and unimportant event that happened to me while I helped as a foot soldier in the election he first got elected. Dead impressed by this (or by the database he keeps!)
brown coming over ridiculously well here
138. That assumes Huhne will actually stand there again - surely not a given now. Having failed twice in the leadership stakes and with the polls so negative, he may decide to do something else with the rest of his life.
134 Tressage “Clegg believes what he is saying, and the party is behind him. ”
That is not proven, only 1 in 3 of the LD members are behind him as they voted for him. (Cameron had 1 in 2). 1 out of 3 members preferred someone else and another 1 out of 3 could not be bothered to vote for him.
Re 142, Andy D “Given this apparently disastrous mistake, maybe “disastrous”, or even the exciting-sounding “cataclysmic” could also be applied to this hitherto unprecedented lack of collective judgement? Restraint is all well and good when speaking about such towering folly, but don’t sell yourself short.”
Clearly electing Cameron was a mistake on our part. The polls are all wrong, we are clearly behind
re 188 yes the one good thing about an overwhelming Tory victory next time is that it might shut up Heffer for ever.
150 Lot of people thought it was for a while though, didn’t they Benedict? In particular, the crowd on ConHome thought so.
Mind you, whether you and they are part of the same Party is debatable.
re 121 there’s no John Cameron listed in the Episcopal directory. I’ll pop round to see a friend this evening who’s got a copy of Crockford’s clerical directory and look him up in there.
151
No chance of Heffer being quiet: he rants for England. (Sheridan for Scotland and Paisley for Ireland. Dunno who for Wales)
151 The thing is Heffer supports UKIP, he even turns up at their meetings endorsing their candidates.
Is there any other journalist on the Telegraph’s staff (not freelance) allowed to do support a party in that way?
Up to a point, Andy (142); but I am sure there must be some good in Cameron somewhere - after all, you Tories did vote for him, didn’t you? so you must be able to see something somewhere that I have missed.
Personally, I dislike him and distrust him, but you may have guessed that already. Unfortunately for you - or should I now say “disastrously for you”? - that was also the impression of a large part of the electorate in the summer during Brown’s famous bounce.
149. Well the whole party is standing behind him, but half of them might be clutching a knife …
156. Hilarious
152 / 156. Rather stretching the truth I think. I doubt, from empiral evidence, that more than a quarter of the Tory party ever thought particularly badly of Cameron, this summer or any other time. I think the fact that you have to resort to ConHome as your evidence rather proves the point.
152 - And therein lies the interest over who will profit from labour’s decline. Lib dems are pretty united and without extreme fringe supporters but have a leader who has been less than impressive and who, it is hoped, will ‘grow’. Cameron, conversely, is already an impressive and charismatic leader but he has a party that is loosely held together and which hides a number of those with ideas that are far different to him.
What factor will win out? The positives of a united party/ charismatic leader or the negatives of a disappointing leadership/fractured party? Indeed, can the negative perceptions shift with the tories remaining united or Clegg improving his media image?
Sorry PtP, my part jest got conflated with my more serious point there! Not to sound aggressive!
LibDem MP lies? No!
160. Yes if Clegg turns out to be a Cameron without the media coverage, what good is he?
Worth a read for one of the most venomous parliamentary speeches from a senior Labour parliamentarian, Ms Dunwoody.
“I have been in the House long enough to see the coming and going of many inadequate personalities. I have seen those on both sides of the House who have been promoted for various reasons. I have seen the crawlers…..”
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/12/battleaxe-slays-chipmunk.html#links
Hell hath no fury like a Gwynneth scorned?
156: Having met the man on more the one occasion I find him approachable, friendly, but a bit of a know it all, which is what I thought of Huhne too.
49. Ant, nice spot on the Edwards and Thompson Iowa article. The vibe on many right wing blog sites re Thompson seems to be turning again and is similar to that earlier this year when he was drafted.
I got some on him to win Iowa at 70 with Betfair earlier this week to cover my 14/1 on Huckabee just in case.
The partisan in me, naturally, wants to scream out; “Clegg is rubbish! Clegg is rubbish”, even before he’s got off the starting blocks, however, I want to try and assess his leadership victory more dispassionately than that. Although, obviously, I am not “neutral”
I am sure Nick Clegg is a highly talented and capable man, but for me the crucial difference between Clegg and Cameron is how Cameron came from behind (a long way behind) in the Conservative leadership campaign to pull off a stunning victory, winning supporters all the way, whereas Clegg started as the overwhelming favourite, but haemorrhaged support as the campaign progressed. He only won by a whisker.
In other words, during their respective leadership contests, Cameron gained support, whilst Clegg lost it. This doesn’t bode well.
Cameron and Clegg shouldn’t be confused. They are both good communicators. But I think what the Liberal Democrats did was to *assume* it was the young, good-looking, charismatic figurehead that was important (because it seemed to work for the Tories) rather the politician who understood and could fix the problem.
Remember: Cameron is a shrewd political operator and a skilled tactician. He is particularly good at grabbing the medias attention with gutsy speeches. He has come from behind (twice) now. In October 2005 and October 2007. He has a proven track record.
Also, the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats are two entirely different parties with two entirely different problems and two entirely different (required) solutions.
Cameron also understood what was wrong with the Tory party and proposed to fix it. Mainly, one of showing the Conservatives cared and were “decent” people;
Foreign Policy – Talk about the Falklands and Gibraltar, what about Darfur and Burma?
Tax and Spend – Always talk about cutting taxes, what about talking about public services investment? “Sharing the proceeds of growth”
Modern Britain – Talk about how we don’t hate it, we want to improve it
Family – We support it, we think it’s the best way to bring up kids, but we won’t discriminate against those who take a different path.
Social Breakdown – Don’t like the phrase “social responsibility” but the meaning is right, society needs to do more for things to change, not the government – Cameron’s other phrase is much better; “there is such a thing as society, it’s not just the same thing as the state”
This may sound vacuous to some, but it is all routed in basic Conservative philosophy, it’s an intelligent strategy and, what’s more, it has worked. People now listen to the Conservatives. Our policies get an airing. People don’t *mind* a Conservative government.
This is why Cameron was elected.
But why was Clegg elected? What is the Liberal Democrat problem? And how has he communicated to the country how he is going to solve it?
It simply *has* to be more, for the sake of the Liberal Democrats, something more than throwing the words “optimism”, “change”, “alternative” at a television camera.
Thing is, I’m not sure what else Clegg offers..
Re 151, Chris A “re 188 yes the one good thing about an overwhelming Tory victory next time is that it might shut up Heffer for ever.”
Could we get you to help out?
Re 152, Peter the Punter “150 Lot of people thought it was for a while though, didn’t they Benedict? In particular, the crowd on ConHome thought so.”
*cough* I hear UKIP has never been happy with Cameron as our leader
“Mind you, whether you and they are part of the same Party is debatable. ”
See above
RE PtP defence of the catholic nature of the posts on the site. To be honest I add little to the site other than the occassional cheap jibe. But the site has given me the confidence to place some bets for the first time. Make some cash on Australian elections and Clegg. Thinking about moving up a level to the spread bet market thanks to the info and posts from the serious punters on here. Its a great site. Lots of laughs and the chance to make some cash. What more could one want.
60 Peter the Punter, my own opinion is that all of us are free to use the English language how we please.
Mike may use the verb “to welsh” as he pleases, just as I may use the phrase “to be smithsoned” to describe the process by which a gullible person is shafted by a defaulter.
Have you ever been smithsoned?
44 & 88. There is no hard evidence that the verb “welch/welsh” derives from the word “Welsh”. That is pure speculation. The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the origin as “unknown” and does not even bother to mention the “Welsh” theory.
Similarly, it’s been claimed that the word “eskimo” derives from “eater of raw fish” and is therefore offensive. But recently many linguists have concluded that is most likely not its origin at all.
170. “What more could one want?” A blessing perhaps, Your Eminence?
Very good post Casino Royale. I listened to what I could find on the Lib Dem leadership contest. Where were the radical ideas or even the not so radical ideas to solve the problems facing Britain? I heard very little from either candidate.
” Cameron, conversely, is already an impressive and charismatic leader but he has a party that is loosely held together and which hides a number of those with ideas that are far different to him. ”
Thing is, surely with support levels of 45% you cannot hope to have everyone supporting every policy or idea within a party. It’s the nature of the beast.
And the reverse of that could also partly answer the question as to why the Lib Dems are not popular…?
His deceitfulness is why he’s a Lib Dem MP and we’re not.
161 No probs there Anatole.
No empirical evidence in mind other than my own impressions, colored by comments from my conservative friends who are definitely not of the Conhome persuasion. I recall some serious rumblings in the wake of the Tony Lit disaster, which seems an eternity away now.
Fwiw, I quite like Cameron. I certainly approve of the direction he is taking the Party. I think it’s healthy for his Party as well as the country as a whole. Although I am very unlikely to vote Conservative, I recognise that we may before too long have a Conservative Government. This may not be what I would wish but if it is DC led, it should be a very long way from the end of civilisation as I would like to know it.
171 Many times, Gwynfa, many times!
OK then, I shall continue use the term ‘to welsh’, which to me is entirely devoid of racist connotations. I wouldn’t give it house room otherwise.
166 Caveman - I don’t think that’s a bad bet as the polls might well swing Thompson’s way over the crazy Christmas season. But I doubt that anybody except Romney and Huckabee can actually win Iowa on the Republican side, even if Thompson does manage to run it close?
123 Me - what I find most interesting is that the “Huckabee Backlash” is relatively mild so far.
Casino
congratulations on an excellent analysis…its also the first time I have ever agreed with anything you have written
I’ve just seen Clegg’s interview with Paxman on the BBC news website. I’m not fixed to a particular party, although at the moment I intend to vote Conservative next year.
Clegg said he wanted to hold Town Hall meetings, saying he would listen to people. When JP asked him if he would give a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, he said no. JP asked him, if the public said they wanted illegal immigrants deported, he said no. So why would =he bother with Town Hall meetings if he’s going to ignore what the public say.
As I said, I’m not fixed to a particular party, but on the evidence of what he said in the Newsnight interview, I am now more entrenched with the Conservatives. The new Lib Dem leader has switched me off with his first TV interview.
180 ?
He told me I was talking rubbish the other day. You must have agreed with that, Cymru?
177. Prophet.
Out of curiosity, why are you so hostile to the idea of a Conservative government?
A lot of what you say sounds very similar to a moderate Conservative, say, Ken Clarke’s views.
181. Clegg is a fully-paid up member of the new European elite who want to replace democratic government by a kind of bureaucratic authoritarianism, in which all important decisions will be taken by unelected committees of technocrats.
This will of course be disguised by window dressing such as the fatuous ‘Town Hall Meetings’ you describe, as well as ‘regional assemblies’ and other such nonsense.
It’s surprising he made his position so obvious though - a serious gaffe.
I couldn’t see the point in those meetings, it sounded more like a series of speeches aimed at getting his point across, rather than listening to the electorate. Overall he sounded like Cameron, but without the charisma, and with a bunch of hollow soundbites that he never sounded convincing about.
I’m still trying to get over that massive campaign labour came out with, about how they’d tour the country and listen to the people. I think after the last election it suddenly dissapeared.
182. Prophet: Surely I wasn’t that blunt, was I?!
174. Malcolm: Thanks. I think Huhne was marginally better in setting out his stall, but only marginally so!
180. Cymrumark: You are too kind, but you must have agreed with me on *some*thing else before, no?
Ruth Kelly being a hottie? Being in love with Ave it? SeanTs book being a cracking read?!
Go on, admit it
re 172 Oh no, not back to the offensive words arguments again. Why on earth should “eater of raw fish” be offensive? Similarly I fail to see why Indian is an offensive term in the US. Columbus called them Indians because that’s where he thought he was. If anything the term is offensive to the stupid Europeans.
97: If it contained one of those God-awful ‘circulars’ then yes strike them off and never see them again
If it was a personally hand written note inside then no, the closeness of a relationship which merits a mere Christmas card is not great, we send and receive cards to and from all sorts of vague acquaintances.
Which seat BTW? With this new bloke in charge of the liberals will he win?
183 I’m not, Casino. Very briefly, because I have to go out….
I was brought up in a conservative household who supported what I would call good old fashioned One-Nation Toryism - solid, good-hearted, bit paternalistic but responsible and caring. I could have then, and still could now, drop quite comfortably into that mode.
By the time I started to get interested and involved in Politics however, the battle had become much more hard-edged. I couldn’t abide Thatcher, and all she stood for. Now I can look back and happily acknowledge that she rescued us from economic decline and the tyrrany of despotic Unions. Nevertheless I could not then and still cannot abide the harshness, intransigence and intolerance which was so much part of the package.
These are less conflicted times. If I was starting out again, I might well be attracted to David Cameron’s conservatives. I am not though, and I feel some loyalty to the Labour Party.
When I was a member of the Labour Party, many years ago, I spent some time and energy fighting against the Entryism and Infiltration by extreme left wing elements that really had little in common with a social democratic Labour Party. I left the Party not in protest but to devote more time to career and family. I wish I had stayed. The Party needed people like me and the fight, which in the end was successful, was well worth the candle.
I am disappointed by the Labour Party now but I think it needs the support of people like me, in my own small way, just as the Conservative Party needs people like Benedict White and David Herdson, who have not always had matters their own way in their own Party.
Does that answer your question? Whether it does or not, I’m afraid I have to go now.
189 I should just add, Casino, that I am a great admirer of Ken Clarke - always have been.
That won’t surprise you.
Re 187, Chris A, Yes that is bizarre. If you shouted accross the room “You eater of raw fish!” I would laugh.
BTW, I have written this on my blog about the professionally offended, and wondered what you thought.
re my 191, The link to the article is here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/12/sluts-faggots-and-professionally.html
156 - Tressage, equally I’m not really sure why you’ve elected Nick Clegg, about whom I could (if minded) rattle of a tiresome list of partisan snipes, though I guess twenty thousand people had reasons they could gladly share. I would imagine my ignorance of what Lib Dems do and why is not greatly dissimilar to yours with the Tories.
However if Clegg invigorates your party as successfully as Dave has with the Tories and increases their share of the polls by >10%, I’ll probably not consider you unfortunate to have elected him.
mike - if I was the observer, i’d tell you to go stuff your bet now, even if i’d been fully intending to honour it before. your article accuses him of welshing when its certainly not clear that he is, and you’ve also instigated a wave of speculation about his identity. you could ruin him. why shd he pay up on a bet which you didn’t properly nail down anyway simply because you’re using your site to intimidate him.
179-Ant-Yes, but even so, things can not be good for him forever!
Is there anything to stop “Observer” from welshing on the bet and coming back here as “Sunday Times” or something?
196.
Bloody good point
re 196, Augustes Carp “Is there anything to stop “Observer” from welshing on the bet and coming back here as “Sunday Times” or something?”
How dare you suggest I would do such a thing!
196-LOL!
BTW, 198 was I
187. I’m trying to work out when Political Correctness started.
My first memory was when a certain verse was cut out of the hymn “All Things Bright and Beautiful” (late 1960s I think).
Those who are easily offended, turn away now:
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them high or lowly,
He ordered their estate.
167. Post of the day.
189/190 - Interesting.
I fully respect your views, of course, but I am surprised that a man with such an undoubtedly sharp and perceptive mind as you could be (and are still inclined to be?) such a strong supporter of the Labour party.
Like I say, interesting. Thank you for giving such an honest and open answer
Mike is entirely justified in being annoyed.
Imagine if Mike wriggled out of a public wager; imagine the ribbing he’d get from the likes of Ian Dale and Guido, and many people on here. He’d be publicly ridiculed, and ruined as a betting commentator. In other words, it is impossible for Mike to wriggle out of any public wager.
For those he wagers with, however, they can easily disappear into the ether if they are anonymous. Without any trace. In other words, a wager with Mike is a no-lose situation - either you win, and Mike pays up, or you lose, and you have the option of vanishing.
Therefore, in order for future bets to be worth Mike taking up, he has to hit hard at anyone who shirks out of a bet with him.
Having said that, maybe Observer is on holiday or something, in which case it would have been smart for him to notify Mike beforehand that he wouldn’t be around when the bet was won/lost!
Been lurking here for a few weeks now. The result was only revealed yesterday, and if he’s a fairly big figure in the party he probably spent most of his time at functions/parties. Seems a bit unfair to besmirch his name without giving him a little longer to make the necessary arrangements.
On Clegg, some people (Lib Dems) described the speech as the best ever by a newly elected leaders. The others must’ve been bloody dire then. Clegg could grow into the role as Cable did, but right now he seems remarkably lacking in his oft-quoted “communication skills”. Surprised the BBC considered this bigger news than the £50-60bn exposure to the Crock.
104 - Rough
Not really Mike’s responsibility to ‘nail him down’ - this site works on the basis of honour. Observer was around the other day, and whilst you are correct that it is not 100% clear that he has welched, I think it is encumbant upon the debtor to settle his bets. If you fail to do so on the day that you lose, or even make contact, you leave yourself open to such complaints. The wave of speculation about your true identity is par for the course if you use a pseudonym, and post that you are a very senior member of a major political party.
I don’t think, even if we knew who Observer was, that such an incident would ‘ruin him’, and given that we do not know, it almost certainly won’t, so the role of Mke Smithson in Observer’s political death has almost certainly been exagerrated.
I understand your point of view, but if I bet a serious amount of money (which £500 is) with somebody who had the internet equivalent of a megaphone, I would be a little more careful about being prompt in paying my debts.
[184] It is this kind of dribbling, barking-mad Europhobia that stops Conservatives from being taken very seriously. It is like dealing with “Mother” out of Psycho- always this twitchy defensive wierdness keeps coming out. As Churchill once said, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”.
So “Runnymede” take your pills and go and have a bit of a lie down.
200-Benedict-I don’t why(because I don’t know if you have a blog), but I suspected!:)
205: The assumption is that he’s actually a Lib Dem but could just as easily be someone pretending to be one.
Re 208, “200-Benedict-I don’t why(because I don’t know if you have a blog), but I suspected!:)”
?????
Que?
134 - yes, the party is behind, with a stonking majority of c.500.
re turnout - can any lib dems compare the campaigning done by Clegg/Huhne with the campaigning by Campbell/Huhne/Hughes? (eg leaflets, mailings, phone canvassing).
Being a Labour member, I don’t know how active the campaigns were. The row over Labour deputy leader spending highlighted how expensive these things can be, and I wonder whether member to member (or a lack of it) campaigning will have counted for something in this drop.
before I get a pummelling from tressage, it is worth saying that 64% still represents a very good effort - triple the rate of my union’s last General Secretary election…
Brown was amazing today.
LAB GAIN Broxbourne!
Tories less than 50 seats, complete LD wipeout!
More cats in Westminster than Cons!
195 - you know I agree with you there!
I have been banging on about this for some and grab the 4/5 if still available.I am in heavily on this situation.
Nationalising Rock not ruled out
Savers’ deposits at Northern Rock are guaranteed by the government
Nationalisation is still an option for troubled lender Northern Rock, and the government is not ruling anything out, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.
Take it as read that “The Rock” will be nationalised
I haven’t yet read through this thread, and I do not know if there have been any developments since 4am, but my first thought on reading this thread this morning is that it is only a matter of hours since the election result was known, and it struck me as being a bit impatient to accuse someone of “welching” on a bet already. It may be that Observer has sent cash in the post, and that it will arrive in due course, or that he is investigating methods of payment.
If it were me (which it wouldn’t be because I don’t bet) then I would be (a) intending to pay, but (b) not knowing exactly how, therefore (c) investigating methods first. In other words, it would take a while to sort out, even if Observer is acting in good faith.
“owing to my position in the party I’m unable to provide you with my real name and address. Could we ask Betfair to put up a % market and we’ll match on there?”
Mike, as soon as I originally saw this, I felt your bet was in big trouble. I mean, honestly, who would conceivably concoct such a convoluted arrangement, when all he/she had to do was to send postal orders or good old fashioned folding money by Special, i.e. insured, Delivery by Royal Mail.
210-Benedict-When you posted in 198 as Sunday Times, I could still go to your blog by your nick. That’s why it was so obvious that the post was written by you!”Elementary, my dear Watson”
213-Yes!
Sixteen Nicks at the top of this thread!
Mike, I’m sure you’re excited about having a new leader, but isn’t this just a tad over-ambitious?
Re picture at start of thread… 15 Cleggs….., only in an alternative universe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
207. It’s understandable that you are upset when your new leader has so foolishly let the cat out of the bag.
Alan J at 201, the problem is that that hymn, one of Mrs Alexsander’s finest, is misunderstood! When today we hear…..
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them high or lowly,
He ordered their estate.
….we assume that the Poor Man is a beggar, locked out of paradise or something like that. What Mrs A was trying to convey was observable class difference - the Poor Man was the lodge keeper, or gate keeper: not in the castle, but still part of the Estate.
I tried explaining this to the Vicar of St James-the-Least-of-All, but he wasn’t having any of it. But he is a bit of a Bolshevist.
214.
I reckon the Prime Minister will regret this quote
Mr Brown said Northern Rock’s collapse had been caused by an “unsound business plan”.
But he said the fact that its problems had not spread to other institutions showed the “tripartite” regulatory system of the government, Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England, was “working well”.
Mr Brown designed the system and implemented it in 1997.
154 Madasafish “Paisley for Ireland.”
Now there’s a phrase I never thought I’d see
(Although in fairness I never thought I’d see him laughing and joking with Martin McGuinness either….)
What a reputation you are giving me, Matthew T (211)! Pummelling people?? Que? Moi?
To answer your question, I cannot remember how much there was last time. This time I had a couple of postal communications from Clegg, about five from Huhne. I was on Huhne’s mailing list as a supporter from last time, so got an e-mail communication on a daily basis. None from Clegg. No telephone call from either. I was not an insider or helper in either campaign.
218/219 MTF - were we separated at birth by any chance?
Question for the bookies on here - when would you expect to pay out on the presidential nomination markets - i) once a candidate has the majority of convention delegates or ii) after the convention itself or iii) some other criteria.
Reason I care is that if its only after the convention then my money will be tied up until August, whereas the race could be to all intents done and dusted by the beginning of March.
225, you must be the brighter twin, as you can count better than I cab. Funnily enough I was born in Roehampton……….
BMA’s take on Brown is perfect and deserves a wide audience for neatly encapsulating the man in a sentence.
‘has the jealousy of Othello, the indecision of Hamlet, the futile rage of Lear and, like Brutus, he goes to the wrong people for advice.’
I think a good Christmas competition would be an opponent of any leader (preferably from within as they are always more biting) to similarly describe Cameron and Clegg.
227… and worked for the local party HQ in Putney in 79, when ???? Tracy was the Chairman, I think he became sports minister later???. Mrs T came to Putney , during the election campaign and I met her there.
I knew weeks before the election that it was certain that the Tories would win. I leafletted and canvassed in Danebury Avenue (all those tower blocks ) and the number of those who said they were going to vote Conservative was considerable
222 Mr Brown said Northern Rock’s collapse had been caused by an “unsound business plan”.
So, in effect, is the Prime Minister conceding that the FSA as well as The Bank of England were both content to allow a bank with an unsound business plan to continue to trade?
This is an extraordinary.
229 MTF - Funny to think that, unknowingly, we could have been supping our pints of Youngs Bitter, standing side by side in The Green Man all those years ago!
PfP at 230: You feel that the FSA and Bank of England should asssess the business plan of every bank (or even every listed company) in Britain? Cor! How many expert staff do you think we should recruit for this task? How would you frame the law to put out of business any bank whose plan was judged by these central experts to be insufficiently sound?
229. Richard (Dick) Tracey - MP for Surbiton until ‘97 when he lost by about 60 votes. Now GLA constituency candidate for Merton and Wandsworth. His wife, Kathy, is Conservative Councillor for Wandsworth Common.
Re 228, kingbongo, Have you a link for that fantastic quote?
No, Nick, not every listed company, just those licensed to take deposits from the likes of you and me, who are surely entitled to rely on the so-called regulatary authorities to protect our interests, or else for what purpose do they exist?
You feel that the FSA and Bank of England should asssess the business plan of every bank (or even every listed company) in Britain?
You bet. What else is the FSA for?
How would you frame the law to put out of business any bank whose plan was judged by these central experts to be insufficiently sound?
Not granting (or withdrawing) their banking licence would do the trick
232.
Good afternoon Nick & others
Possibly the Governor of The Bank of England is able to answer
M King is a total hero — and it looks to me as if NULABUUR are trying to execute him…
King blasts bankers over Northern Rock fiasco
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor
Mervyn King has launched a major broadside at the banking sector, labelling it “dangerous” and urging politicians to impose fresh regulations on the City’s financiers.
# Central banks give biggest liquidity boost ever
# Huge ECB cash injection dwarfs BoE auction
# Get all the latest banking and financial services news
In comments which will aggravate the already-strained relationship between the Bank of England Governor and the Square Mile, Mr King accused the financial sector of “hubris” by taking excessive risks with assets in recent years.
Mervyn King; King blasts bankers over Northern Rock fiasco
Mervyn King has called for more regulations governing the liquidity position of banks, a task presently left to the FSA
Calling for more regulations on the way banks arrange their liquidity positions - how much cash they set aside for emergencies - Mr King said: “We need to recognise that banks can be rather dangerous institutions at times.” TOO RIGHT!!!
235/236 Adam Smith - Were we separated at birth by any chance?
Where can I watch Brown’s press conference?
239. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
Under video and audio news, a rather odd picture of GB looking like he’s watching Cameron being executed.
To Me and others interested in the US election,
Regarding McCain being the comeback kid, in the last few days he has been endorses by the Wall Street Journal (who liked his turn around on tax cuts) and by Joe Lieberman, the famously pro-war Democrat. This could well lead to a McCain-Lieberman ticket, which is a combination that would be a serious threat to the Democrats. Especially the case if the media narrative on Iraq continues to improve seeing that both stuck by the war even when it was unpopular. McCain seems to have been reluctantly accepted by the Republican establishment as their choice: they’re determined to stop Huckabee, know that Romney can’t win the main election, have become frustrated with Thompson and are losing faith in Giuliani’s ability to hold together under scandal. Such a choice is risky though: McCain is notorious as a maverick and, although he’s honest (and thus not lying about his new views on tax cuts), will be quite willing to change his mind on dearly-held Republican beliefs if thats where his thoughts taken him. He won’t feel he owes anything to anyone.
228. How am I supposed to know what that quote means? I am one of the vast majority of normal open-minded reasonable and tolerant people who quite correctly and logically believe that Shakespeare should have been strangled at birth, thereby saving hundreds of generations of innocent schoolchildren from being tortured with his doings. I don’t know what Othello or Hamlet or whoever were like. Can we have an alternative version which is more meaningful?
240-Thanks!!!
“a rather odd picture of GB looking like he’s watching Cameron being executed.”
LOL!
242. OK, here’s a version just for you: “Brown has the jealousy of Stalin, the indecision of Stalin, the futile rage of Stalin and, like Stalin, he goes to the wrong people for advice.”
For JohnLoony:
He ‘has the jealousy of Angie Watts, the indecision of Mavis Riley, the futile rage of Big Brother’s Nikki and, like Brian Barwick, he goes to the wrong people for advice.’
Just as poetic, I’m sure you’d agree.
TRADING CALL
In today’s Racing Post Hills offer 1/2 that the Lib Dems win more seats (over 62) at the next G.E. and an eye-watering 6/4 that they don’t. You’ll have to phone up if you’re interested.
241-Socrates-Totally agree. Yesterday I posted saying that McCain was becoming news again, there many reports about him and how he became “the Comeback Kid”. The momentum may be in his campaign, but he needs to win NH to keep going. As for Huck, I’m not so sure that he can secure Iowa, it seems that those who vote for him are more inclined to go to the caucus, but I still think that Romney organization can do better than most are expecting. As for the “McCain-Lieberman ticket”, Lieberman ruled out.Maybe he will change his mind…
232 - Nick, every bank & insurer regulated by the FSA must submit a whole raft of information to them, some on an annual and some on a quarterly basis. Business plan, solvency and liquidity information is included in this. Are you suggesting that the regulator does/should not review this information? Particularly for a retail institution, selling to the unsophisticated market that is the Great British Public, that accounted for 20% of the new mortgage business last year? I know the financial services industry would be delighted to know that the considerable burden of regulatory compliance was no longer necessary….
If NR is nationalised formally what will the shareholders get for their shares? They are currently trading around 90p but if Branson’s offer is any yardstick to go by then their “nationalisation” value now ought to be no more than 50p. Can anybody here who has more expertise in high finance suggest what happens to the existing shareholders and their share if the Government moves in to takeover?
247 I’ve never been convinced that a McCain-Lieberman ticket will either happen, or that good old Joe would add anything to the ticket. But I’d agree that, while McCain’s campaign has many hurdles to overcome, he’s certainly still in it.
249 - I assumed nothing. Why should the taxpayer pay yet again for what it already (with respect to liabilities) already owns?
181 - There’s a clear difference between doing exactly what the loudest people demand at a town hall meeting (and what happens if the BNP pack it with their supporters?) and honestly engaging with people within the context of your principles.
If it is against Clegg’s principles to deport refugees to certain death then more power to him and it reflects well on him that he wouldn’t be swayed on that principle by a baying mob whipped up by the tabloid press.
If he was intending the town hall meetings to be nothing more than a good soundbite and an exercise at which people listened to him and there was no meaningful dialogue… well, I hardly think we need the sham of the “Big Conversation” from the leader of the 3rd party.
There are many areas where I’m sure there could be useful debate - how does one reconcile “localism” with avoiding the inequities of the “postcode lottery”? How can one reconcile “localism” with “equality” giving the wide disparities in wealth between different locales? When does it make more sense to run things directly by the state (eg rail, tube) or private companies?
We could do with a bit more honest discussion than the soundbite posturing the politicians offer, or the contrived “scandals” and absurd questions dreamt up by Paxman et al.
Shame really.
245 - I have never heard of 3 of those 4 people - any chance of a version for those of us uninterested in Opera (of either the soap, or high kind…)
Re 121, 153: FWIW, Googling suggests that this may be Rev Dr John Cameron:
http://www.dundeepresbytery.org.uk/ststepenswest.html
http://www.geocities.com/dundeepresbytery/officers.html
250-Ant- I think you going to like it:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/18/independents_may_lift_mccain_not_obama_in_nh/
249 - the price per share will be whatever the new Nationalisation Bill sets it at. If it’s not done on the basis of a formal, independent valuation of the group (which may not give a nil value, though to my mind there’s little value left there right now), then I would expect a shareholder’s group to challenge this in the courts. Of course, if the government pay more than a notional £1 for NR, expect howls of protest from other parties.
255 excellent find! That’s a very surprising poll indeed and one which blows the conventional wisdom on New Hampshire (for 2008) right out of the water. It makes both contests more unpredictable in a way.
255. So why is McCain’s price so low - SpreadFair 1.4/1.6 ?
256. Animal - thank you. It looks like the lawyers will cash in again!
257-Amazing!I knew you would like…
246 Thanks for pointing this out Aaron. There is currently an extraordinary diversity on the LibDems prospects between the odds quoted by Wm Hill, i.e. 1-2 on their winning more seats and, say, IG whose buy price for GE seats is currently 51, i.e. 10 fewer than the LibDems won in 2005.
One of these two is calling it very, very wrong.
Mike.Do not understand The Obsever identity crisis. When I joined your site, I was required to record (not for publication) my EMail address. I assumed you held it as security.If not, who has access to it - and to The Observers address?
258-I don’t understand much about bets(I think I should warn you before I say why I think his price is “so low”). McCain is not the favorite to win the Iowa contest, Huck is, so I believe that people prefer to bet in someone that has a chance, and McCain doesn’t have it. Until one week ago, McCain was not the “Comeback Kid”, now he is, the Register and the Globe endorsment gave him a boost. I think there’s a new poll in NH today, that finally puts McCain in second and not tied with Giuliani. Did I explain your question?(I tried
263. Thanks for that, but what I was asking was why McCain’s overall chances of being Republican candidate are rated so low, despite a recent spate of positive stories. I still make Giuliani the favourite, but McCain has to be a better than 8 to one against, surely?
264-I don’t know who is the Republican favorite anymore. I think McCain price is low because he doesn’t have a chance to win in Iowa, and I believe that many who are betting are paying more attention to the Iowa contest. In the short term(IA), he is losing, but not in the medium term(NH). Maybe I’m wrong, as I said, I don’t know much about bets…
262 Mike should be able to see the e-mail address but there’s no guarantee it’s a real one. However he should also be able to see the IP address and check that nobody else is posting as observer.
263/264 I don’t know what the Spreadfair numbers represent (can’t get onto it at work and have stuck to betfair for this contest) but McCain is still rated lowly because winning in New Hampshire is a minimum hurdle that his campaign has to clear. If he wins NH, he’s then in the race but he might not even be favourite (depending on how others fair).
In addition, if Romney wins Iowa he’ll take a lot of momentum into NH, where his poll numbers have been quite strong. That could thwart McCain’s strategy.
I reckon that’s why you’re only looking at 8/1 against McCain. Personally, I’d say those odds are, if anything, a bit tight. When you compare them to Edwards, who was 19/1 yesterday, I know which bet I’d prefer.
261 - quasi-arbing between fixed-odds and spreads is not for the faint-hearted but there’s little downside in having £400 @ 6/4 and buying say £30 a seat at 51. [small loss window between 62-64, and increasingly bad losses below 31].
I’ve just taken the fixed-odds myself.
265 I think you’re right that some punters are probably paying too much attention to Iowa (I’ve been guilty of that at times too - mainly because it was such a defining moment last time round) but there are other strong reasons for McCain not being backed heavily right now.
There’s certainly no real favourite at the moment and that should help Giuliani but it all depends if somebody else gets enough traction to threaten Rudi when the bigger states come round.
264-Ant explained much better than me!
268-I still think that Iowa is the defining moment, not for the nomination. If Huck wins, McCain chances improve.If Rudy wins, McCain chances become more slim. For me it’s like a “domino effect”…
250. It gives the image of bipartisanship in a highly partisan age. Most Americans are right-of-centre, even on the American spectrum, but get tired of the lack of being reasonable from the Republicans in recent years. A ticket which says “We’re above party, but still mildly conservative” goes a long way.
269 it’s normally the other way around!
Ant. Thank you.If Mike finds that The Observer has also given a false EMail address, then he could well publish that point too.
254 so he is a Wee free then?
O/T The pound seems to be falling considerably against the dollar. And everything else as well.
Does this have any betting significance?
Socrates @ 271. I see exactly where you’re coming from and it’s a solid argument. But personally, I don’t think Lieberman would take many of those leaning Democrat with him and I reckon McCain could lose a lot of the Republican right (either to abstention or to the third party candidate that could well emerge - Huckabee?!). I’ll happily stand corrected in the fullness of time!
Sorry if this has already been posted but Clegg has done one excellent thing today.
Apparently he was asked on the radio this morning “do you believe in God?” and he replied “No”.
Is he the first main Party leader to admit to not believing in a “God”? How many up to now have pretended to believe in a “God” so as to avoid offending anyone?
You’re unlikely to gain votes by saying you don’t believe in a “God” as non-believers don’t care anyway. But you could well lose some votes as a small number of religious people may not want to vote for someone who has said they don’t believe in a “God”.
Well done Nick Clegg.
275
I have a forecast from Saxo Bank of around $1.75 to £,
It’s just fallen through $2.0 $1.9975 as I write.
I sbet it with IG Index using their interactive charts.
The economic implications of teh fall are great for UK exporters and v bad for consumers of cars and electronics and wine..
Now $1.9974
268, 270 etc. New Hampshire is undoubtedly the most important state for the Republicans, although that doesn’t mean the winner gets the nomination. Iowa remains the most significant for the Democrats.
As for Giuliani, I thought it was his to lose early on as his supposed drawbacks - his views on homosexuality and abortion - were only a big issue for the Christian right. Most social conservatives care far more about the War on Terror, which they strongly support, and Giuliani’s “The people you fear, fear me” bit more than makes up for liberal views in other areas. However, judging by the reaction of even moderate Republicans, scandals about his own personal sexual liberalism could hurt. A lot. The conformism of the US means although most Americans can just about accept a President who tolerates ‘deviant’ behaviour (as long as he doesn’t make excuses for it), but not a President who engages in such behaviour himself.
272-When we are discussing American politics we normally agree with each other!!!!!
“it’s normally the other way around!”
But I don’t think I can agree with this one!!!
$1.9965
274. Chris A. Don’t think so. Looks like regular Church of Scotland.
278. Now $1.9957….I guess the unanimity on the BoE rate cut and the discussion of whether more was needed has signaled UK rates as a one way bet……
279-Giuliani strategy wasn’t good. “Win in Florida and carry the momentum beyond, and forever”. He forgot that others would be carrying their early wins in other states and that the press would be giving much more attention to those winners(or winner?). And he forgot about “events”…
Two Rasmussen polls just out from Iowa and NH show McCain with momentum, and Huckabee falling back.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus
Iowa - Huckabee 28 (-11), Romney 27 (+4), McCain 14 (+8), Guiliani 8 (nc), Thompson 8 (nc), Paul 6 (+1)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary
NH - Romney 31 (-2), McCain 27 (+9), Guiliani 13 (-2), Huckabee 11 (-3), Paul 7 (-1) Thompson 3 (+1)
Changes on a week ago.
277. When Cameron was asked this during the leadership contest, he answered “Yes, but I don’t think I have a direct line.” It was this point at which I realised how clever a politician he was. In one stroke he pacified both the religious crowd in his party, and the irreligious in the electorate who were sick of Blair’s messianism.
But yes, I do agree Clegg is putting his beliefs above pragmatism in admitting his true beliefs.
285-Kieran-Thanks!
231 Peter from Putney,
The Green Man, the one on the lower Richmond road that was a jazz venue Cant remember the name), The Hand in hand, Crooked billet (wimbledon), and just about every one of the pubs in Wandsworth (bar the grotneys pub) were all my haunts. Youngs ordinary, best pint in the world. Youngs own lager however was terrible. It might be better these days?
286: Not wishing to revert to stereotypes but out of all the parties the Lib Dems would be the best one to head if you didn’t believe in God and wanted to admit it.
The Republican race is incredibly fluid and difficult to predict.
However, my take on it is to look at it as a series of playoffs.
Take Iowa. Huckabee has to win to keep his momentum, raise money and get free media coverage. Thompson has to finish at least 3rd to have any chance given his situation in NH. However even if he does this I don’t see him as very credible. He would have to win South Carolina to stay in the race.
McCain has to win New Hampshire. Romney has to win at least one of Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney has more leeway because he has the best organisation and resources, and therefore ability to recover. If he won both Iowa and New Hampshire Huckabee and McCain would probably be out.
Rudy has a big problem. He is behind in all the early states - he’s now given up on NH - and his national lead has virtually gone. At best he is in the low twenties. This is before his rivals get the boost from winning the early states. His hope has to be that they split them, and he isn’t facing a single opponent going into Super Tuesday.
In terms of viable stategies for the nomination I think Romney, McCain and Huckabee are best placed. Rudy shouldn’t be counted out but it’s looking difficult for him.
276. But the Religious right has no real beef with McCain. He’s anti-abortion, he thinks the gay marriage issue should be decided by the states, he was an early advocate of fighting climate change which has since become an issue for them, and he’s tough on fighting Islamic terror. The only problem is he once called a few of them “extremists” but this can be forgiven.
Plus, what a lot of people don’t realise, is that the religious right is extremely non-partisan. Their loyalty is to their brand of Christianity, not the Republican Party. A Democrat on the ticket would not be the slightest problem for them. The widespread misunderstanding of this shows the foolishness of conceiving political views as part of a linear spectrum.
Meanwhile Lieberman would win over the pro-war Democrats who disagree with Obama and dislike Clinton’s flip-flopping. There is a whole section of the electorate that consider themselves Republicans ever since Reagan but detest George Bush and the way their party has been taken over by the ideologues. In their views they are between George Bush Snr and Bill Clinton. This was the group Hillary was trying to court with her Iraq and Iran votes before she realised she might not win the Democrat nomination.
121 Mrs Carp might be able to further a career in investigative journalism and seek out the Rev John Cameron on the Edinburgh Alumni web site then report back through you
https://www.myed.ed.ac.uk/
290. Going into Super Tuesday there will be on eye on the election proper and everyone knows Romney won’t win. He needs to win both Iowa and New Hampshire to survive. Huckabee doesn’t have the organisation or funds beyond the early states and the propaganda machine will be undermining him. I reckon its 35% Giuliani, 30% McCain, 20% Huckabee and 15% Romney. As you say, Thompson isn’t credible - even if events went his way, he doesn’t have the competency to make the most of them.
241, 285 As a longstanding McCain bull, I’m happy that things are looking up for him. A string of key endorsements from Newspapers in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as Joe Lieberman have helped. He has found the money to run TV-ads in NH almost to the same level as Romney, and Rudy Giuliani is in real trouble, pulling back his effort in NH, and freeing up some of the less social conservative voters for McCain. A number of polls have shown McCain to be the republican doing best against Clinton.
The latest Rasmussen NH and Iowa poll is really good news. If McCain can manage a strong third in Iowa, he might be the man of the hour, and will be in even better position to win NH. After that, he will be the one with momentum.
William Hill is still offering 14/1. It won’t last. Several bookies are offering 33/1 for president, which now looks interesting.
#232 - Nick as someone who sat on the Treasury Select Committee you know better than that.
Re 228, kingbongo, Have you a link for that fantastic quote?
Benedict - it’s from the Spectator coffeehouse - I think Bob Marshall Andrews is the sort of person I would have to vote for in a GE notwithstanding party colours
228. How am I supposed to know what that quote means?
JohnLoony
If you spent less time reading rubbish about Stalin and more time studying human nature through the beautiful language of English you could start to apply your intelligance in a more fulfilling direction.
If you have never been moved by the St Crispin’s day speech in Henry V or laughed at the wordplay in The Taming of the Shrew I pity you - it’s neither snobbish or elitist to love Shakespeare, he had a brilliant capacity for language and describing human frailty.
NB: readers should note kingbongo is a computer scientist and not given to waffling about the arts.
Casino…it has to be said that I only dip in and out these days so it could be you have said something I would have agreed with if I had read it:)
Have no views on Ruth Kelly
althouygh ave it makes me laugh. What is Sean T’s book about? Is it available in Cymraeg:)
297 - Pwy? Wyt ti’n siarad Cymraeg?
Re 296, Kingbongo, “Re 228, kingbongo, Have you a link for that fantastic quote?”
Actually it is originally from the Guardian, and I have put it on my blog with links..
“Benedict - it’s from the Spectator coffeehouse - I think Bob Marshall Andrews is the sort of person I would have to vote for in a GE notwithstanding party colours”
Yes, I might consider that too.
I disagree on your assessment of Romney. He is strong in Iowa and New Hampshire. McCain and Huckabee effectively have all their eggs in one basket. They need to win NH and Iowa respectively. Romney also has the resources to continue the fight. The problem for Guiliani is that his national lead has evaporated. After a month of free media for his rivals he is likely to drop further.
An interesting aside. It’s looking more and more likely that Feb 5th may not be decisive - meaning those states who vote afterwards may be pleased not to have moved their primaries up. Plus there is the chance of a brokered convention, which would certainly be fun to watch.
To change the subject could we have a thread about Clegg not believing in God. Think it’s a great thing and worthy of discussion. Thanks Mike!
Sorry that was addressed to 293
301 - There goes the non-conformist vote
Could Observer be Nick Clegg?
Afterall Observer is vacuous, ramping and self serving… it all fits!
(Put hard hat on, duck and run whilst Lib Dems get ready for their assault
)
301. I vaguely recall a conversation like this:
Sir Humphrey: The bishops are divided 50:50, minister.
Hacker: Divided on what?
Sir Humphrey: Between those who believe in God and those who don’t.
297…no I dont but various people I have yet to find christmas presents for do
and am always keen to find something new 
Morus are you a singer based in Bangor? Let me know if you have any gigs coming up Llandudno way…
307 I don’t think I’ve ever been to Bangor, nor Llandudno. In common with many of my compatriots, I am a singer once I’ve sunk several pints of Brains SA, and somebody starts up Calon Lan on the pub piano…though that happens less often in London than it did back in Cardiff.
308 Morus
You don’t happen to know The New Sea Lock in Bute Town, do you?
It is not entirely surprising “Observer” was happy with his bet.
There was a genuine belief within the Clegg circles that they would walk this election. Typical was this article written by Melissa Kite (deputy political editor) in the Sunday Telegraph “Nick Clegg is planning a big shake-up of the Liberal Democrats if he wins the party leadership contest this week. He believes he has won a decisive victory over his rival, Chris Huhne, which will allow him to stamp his authority on the party…..the Clegg camp is confident their man has beaten Mr Huhne by at least three votes to two. They have suggested Mr Clegg may not even offer a promotion to Mr Huhne, the party’s environment spokesman.” The article goes on to say Clegg will be promoting young talent such as Julia Goldsworthy and Danny Alexander.
I am pleased Huhne did much better than expected and there is evidence older members were not swayed by the starry eyed enthusism of some of their younger colleagues. I am hopeful though Clegg will be a better leader because of this salutary lesson.
300. Maybe I’m a bit harsh on him with 15%, but I genuinely would be shocked if Romney won it. Momentum and organisation only allows you to have the publicity to get your message across. If your message doesn’t particularly resonate then neither are very fruitful. Just what is Romney’s strength? On tax he loses to Giuliani. On religious and social conservatism he loses to Huckabee. On foreign policy he loses to toughness to Giuliani and knowledge to McCain. On electability and consistency he loses to everyone. He can look Presidential sometimes, but lacks the charisma needed to connect with the average voter. Plus he’s a member of a religion considered a cult by the bulk of the religious, and regarded as secretive and misogynist by the irreligious. At current, he’s running on money and organisation alone. I just can’t see that holding up.
277,301. Michael Foot is an atheist, though no idea what he said on the issue when leader of the Labour party. Neil Kinnock is cited as an agnostic, though again, no idea what he said when asked about it as Labour leader.
309 - If it’s where I’m thinking of, I remember it vaguely from many years ago (I was almost certainly not old enough to drink when I drank in there), but I’m fairly that it is there no more. All of that area has been redeveloped (largely for the better, though they have been careless with some wonderful old places), and is now Atlantic Wharf, I think.
Wasn’t there a betting shop next door? Have I got the right place in mind?
OT: BMW have criticised the latest EU carbon-cutting ‘proposals as “naive” steps that would distort the market in favour of makers of smaller cars.’
Isn’t that exactly the point?
309, following 308 - “No, but if you hum it I might remember…”
Sorry, I’ll get my coat…
323 Nick Palmer, you said “You feel that the FSA and Bank of England should asssess the business plan of every bank (or even every listed company) in Britain? Cor! How many expert staff do you think we should recruit for this task? How would you frame the law to put out of business any bank whose plan was judged by these central experts to be insufficiently sound?’
Well, the FSA says itself that:
In designing its approach to supervision, the FSA has regard to the principles of good regulation set out in section 2(3) of the Act. In particular, the FSA’s regulatory approach aims to focus and reinforce the responsibility of the management of each firm (section 2(3)(b) of the Act) to ensure that it takes reasonable care to organise and control the affairs of the firm responsibly and effectively and develops and maintains adequate risk management systems…. (section 2(3)(c) of the Act).
So are you saying the FSA is not adequately resourced to do its job?
The new cover of the National Enquirer — hitting the streets on Wednesday — will feature a shocking scandal story about a leading Democratic Presidential candidate fathering a soon-to-be-born “love child.” National Enquirer claims John Edwards had an 18-month affair with female staffer on his campaign, who is supposedly now six-months pregnant and in hiding. Edwards and the staffer reportedly are vehemently denying the story — although the newspaper purportedly has interviews with friends of the woman in whom she reportedly confided about the Edwards details. The newspaper also claims to have emails and other evidence supporting the story. With Edwards’ “good husband” image associated with his ailing wife, this story — if it has legs — has the potential to destroy his campaign. Yes, it’s a tabloid newspaper — but remember that it was also a gossip tabloid that broke the Paula Jones sex scandal story about Bill Clinton during the 1992 campaign. Stay tuned.
16
Don’t talk about the FSA.
They’re a bunch of toothless overpaid wannabees who see insider trading at most takeovers and do nothing about it.
As for them reviewing business plans: it’s laughable. No-one can do it without 1,000s of overpaid staff who would be idling away most of the time. Come to think of it…
Could not organise a drinking competition in a brewery.
311 - You’re right Romney has significant drawbacks - and he certainly isn’t the clear favourite - but I wouldn’t be that surprised if he won the nomination. He is in many ways the traditional candidate. His problem as you say is not appealing to one specific group, but he is the most rounded conservative in the field (with his current views anyway). It’s all looking very unpredictable anyway.
317. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/The_Clintonite_who_owns_National_Enquirer.html
Seeing that Edwards has overtaken Clinton in Iowa this could be a hit from the Clinton campaign. This reeks of desperateness: If Edward’s campaign falls apart then Obama will soak up his support. If it is a Clinton hit then it means they are going for second place.
277. He obviously showed signs of inexperience because, despite the format of the interview, he didn’t qualify his views. Hence the subsequent statement, saying he respected people’s right to believe.
New thread on Clegg’s statement that he does not believe in God.
I don’t think it’s myth, but it’s another point of view:
“McCain’s Comeback, Sasquatch, and Other Delightful Myths”
http://reason.com/blog/show/124012.html
318 Madasafish Exactly.
Who fiddled while the rest of the town smelt enough smoke to guess that NR was burning as far back as June?
The FSA admit they knew about the problem in August but on 14th September from the FSA: “The FSA judges that Northern Rock is solvent, exceeds its regulatory capital requirement and has a good quality loan book.”
Morus….a case of mistaken identity on my part. Your singing is similar to mine though clearly you have never lived if you have never been to Bangor or Llandudno