Aug 6th 2007: the day Gordomania hit its peak
August 6th, 2008
-
Would PM Miliband get the same fawning treatment?
Exactly a year ago today the Guardian asked breathlessly whether any previous incoming prime minister had had such a first month in office having to deal with one “crisis” after another.
To recap there had been some storms, a failed terrorist attack in Glasgow and some animals had got ill. Out of the ordinary? To a limited degree but nothing on the scale that several other incoming prime ministers had had to grapple with. Yet the mood of the time led many in the media to suspend their critical faculties - none more so than the people behind the Guardian piece above.
To compare dealing with a few storms and a failed terrorist attack with, say, Churchill’s first month in May 1940 beggared belief. And what about the first period of Harold Wilson’s incoming government in March 1974 government as he sought to deal with the miners’ strike, the oil crisis and the events that led to the overthrow of the power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland?
And, of course, John Major took over in November 1990 just as the build up to the first Iraq war was taking place.
But as we contemplate the possibility of a third Labour prime minister in less than eighteen months could the new man or woman expect the same fawning media treatment - or will what happened with Gordon make them more sceptical?
Would, also, the opposition parties be so blanked out of the news agenda again as they were in the July-September 2007 period which I regard as the single most important factor behind the Brown polling bounce?
My guess is not. While there will be relief that Gordon is gone and praise for those who had the guts to put their heads above the parapet I don’t see coverage on anything like the same scale or with the same tone as last year.
Changing your leader too often leads to diminishing returns when its comes to media coverage - just ask the Lib Dems.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I still put the August 07 ‘bounce’ down to Tories being on holiday and Cameron having a difficult summer. The overwhelming reaction of most people from whom I canvassed an opinion last summer was bemusement that Blair had been forced out by his Party and replaced by a Dour Scot that nobody particularly liked and for whom nobody had actually voted.
Wow. First post at last. I’ve only been contributing here for about 2 years…
Repost from last thread…
Talking of opinion polls and betting…
Currently, SpreadFair has Tories on a mid-price of 345 and Labour at 235, implying a Tory majority of 40.
Yet, the opinion polls are projecting - according to our UNS calculators - a Tory majority well above 100. Therefore, it seems the gamblers out there are already factoring in a recovery by Labour, or believe the opinion polls are overestimating the Tory lead.
So what happens if Labour recover, under a new leader or simply because this summer is the nadir of their fortunes? Will the markets move back towards a small Tory majority or even NOC, despite them retaining a strong lead in the polls?
I think this caution by gamblers is because…
1. This really could be the Brown bottom, so the only way is up.
2. Opinion polls are amplifiers and exaggerate the weakness of Labour and the strength of the Tories.
3. Gamblers are inherently conservative and can’t bring themselves to back a landslide.
I’m currently still a Labour seller.
by Baskerville August 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
If it were to happen and we had a new Labour PM, I don’t think the media would make the same mistake again. Basically, they swallowed the ‘not flash, just Gordon’ line uncritically, apparently only because it was repeated so often by Brown and his mates.
One of the reasons why the media have now turned so viciously against Brown personally is that they are embarrassed by their previous fawning.
4 - I actually think the Tories should use “Not flash, just Gordon” as an effective campaign slogan…
5 - Yes, it turned out to be true. But not quite in the way that was intended.
5
Or “Not Gordon, not Labour”, what more could a voter want
One also has to remember that the shine hadnt really come off Brown - people still said “abolished boom and bust” without laughing. His claim to leadership was economic competence and without it, he was just Mr Bean with delusions of grandeur. Any new leader would be relatively unknown, with a fractious party, and everyone knowing that Labour were useless. No media honeymoon, but at least a small bounce for not being Gordon, now revealed and reviled as the useless cretin that he really is.
Mike, I agree that Comment would be modest in comparison with a year ago, should a new labour leader be elected or proclaimed.
But I beleive now that our dear Great Leader with the CLUNKING FIST, will stay on ’till the bitter end.
1. we will put out the flags..
3. There’s at least two other reasons: non-UNS effects and the balance of risk.
On the first one, it’s possible that a sizable Conservative lead could produce a lot of 15000+ majorities, but could fail to eat a long way into the safer Labour, Lib Dem and other seats. Obviously, that’s not by any means certain, but the possibility needs to be kept in mind.
Also, and probably more importantly, if the spreads were midpointing (apologies for that word) around 345, there’s an equal risk (to different people) of the Conservatives finishing on 375 or 315, of which both results are possible - even 315 is over a hundred gains. By contrast, were the midpoint around 380 - as the polls suggest - the buyer is accepting a big risk if Cameron slips, whereas the seller is unlikely to have to pay out too much if there’s an even stronger Tory performance. After all, what’s the absolute maximum the Conservatives could get? 400 seems close to being out of reach in any plausible scenario. By contrast, 270 or less is not unreasonable if Brown is replaced, the economy picks up and things go wrong at CCHQ.
153 (l t) — PtP
I’m now laying McCain for about 5000$ (backer’s stake) on betfair.
I expected as you do now to lay him @ 2.88-2.9.
However, due to the McCain surge we are witnessing in both polls and media coverage, I’m now laying him @ 2.82.
**
BTW, I’ve become a fan of … Paris Hilton.
Don’t know if it will last, but you guys have to admit that her ‘ad’ was pretty good on the money, right? — showing how stoopid it was for the Mac Campaign to put the super-chick into politics…
12 - Phillipe, that is a bold but excellent move.
Are you laying Obama, waiting to bet on him if he regains his lead?
3. Baskerville. I am glad you reposted that as I wanted to respond. Good and interesting analysis.
I had a stab at this question yesterday but messed it up. I miscalculated a Tory GE spread seats position of 345 = 20 seats majority and not, as Mike corrected me, 40 seats. (345-325)x2 = 40 being the simple calculation.
But my point remains the same. The spread markets are settled at a Tory 40 seat majority. The Election predictors and the views of most pundits are that it will be more than that. I think the major reason for the difference is not that Labour and Brown have reached thier nadir but that the spread market is already factoring in the real possibility that Brown will be replaced and that this will improve Labour’s fortunes.
I think the current spread prices almost fully factor in this and that if Brown is not replaced, or his replacement is not popular, then Labour GE seats spread price will fall further. If he is replaced by Miliband then they will improve initially and then stabilise a bit higher than where they are now or drop back to the current position. If he is replaced by Harman or Cruddas I would expect Labour seats to fall, though with Harman it’s a difficult call. If replaced by Straw or Johnson then I would expect a reduced Miliband effect.
William Hill rate it 5/6 each of two as to whether Brown goes before the next election. I think that’s about right. So in summary, I agree with you the value currently appears to be in selling Labour GE seats.
163 [lt] Thanks Philippe. Yes that’s about what my calls would be - though not quite to those amounts!
Correct call on Ms Hilton, too. Any celeb who can take the pi*s out herself like that has got to be admired.
And of course 3 days later Northern Rock happened. If ever there was an event which should have nailed the myth that Gordon was a brilliant Chancellor it was this. The regulatory system set up as one of his first acts failed at its first test.
Yet we still hear the nonsense that Gordon’s best placed (or the indeed the only person) to see us throught the economic difficulties which he has helped bring about.
Looking at the headline. While Brown handled the public side of the job very well last summer. I wonder if the events carried a cost. A few quiet summer months might have enabled the govt get established more firmly. Just a thought.
Afternoon again all
Not sure I entirely attack with Mike’s analysis here. Changing a Prime Minister especially after the predecessor had been in office for so long is a major newsworthy event. I well remember the easy ride given to John Major in his first two or three months.
“Crisis” always works well for a new PM. It snuffes out the opposition and unifies the Party. Brown was in many ways fortunate - he couldn’t be blamed for the floods personally and his response looked good next to Cameron’s. The terrorist attack was a failure and was therefore a victory for the forces of security.
The principal opposition party, when it changes its leader, gets some publicity. When the curcumstances are tragic (Gaitskell, John Smith), the response to the new leader (Wilson, Blair) is predicated on a need for respect. Changing leader through internal upheaval doesn’t warrant the same soft touch.
Miliband is not arriving by popular demand. He is being parachuted into place to preserve the Lisbon Treaty, with the aid of the Brussels-backed BBC and other media. All other possible contenders for the crown are being squeezed out of the picture, exactly as they were prior to Gordon’s coronation.
We are witnessing not democracy, but its carefully planned and executed destruction.
Brussels chooses who rules. They don’t give a fig about popularity or elections which will be rigged accordingly, as the GE was in 2005 with postal voting fraud on the large scale. The only inevitability is the gradual finishing off of any possible resistance to Lisbon and the EU by the powerful propaganda at the EU’s disposal.
Watch the endless playing of films of rats and maggots on the media today, and wonder what this is all about - getting Miliband into place.
It’s powerful undisguised targeted propaganda, designed to quickly kill off Gordon Brown, the BBC his willing executioner, just as they were his most willing proponent and supporter as in the propaganda above not long ago. He’s done his bit in putting the EU into power over Britain. Now they want Miliband to protect their established position, while they stitch up Ireland.
For the record. I’ve just had £11 with Paddy Power on Tony Blair being the next permanent Labour leader at 250/1! Difficult to see how this might come about but, well, the odds tempted me in!
19. Is Gordon against Lisbon ??
OT It was amusing to watch Ivan Lewis MP being skewered just now by Dermot Murnaghan on Sky news on vermin infestation in hospitals, but what I can’t understand is how could several thousand people in Bury vote for such an odious, bumptious, aggressive nomark like this? He’s like a cross between Tony McNulty and Gerald Kaufman but ten times worse. I’m sure he’ll be out at the next election.
14 Yes, that’s about right, StJohn.
Time is another factor, of course. If the polls remain static, you would expect the Labour Seats pice to drop over time as the opportunity for recovery diminishes.
Our resident spreads expert, Aaron, would also I think emphasise the length of the ‘tail’ on a Labour sell. You have touched on this but it’s worth emphasing the risk to such sellers. As SeanT would say, they need plenty of cullions.
And as you know, I am currently such a seller. My cullions are looking fine, thank you.
19 I guess the Tories are in on this enormous Machiavellian conspiracy, it was their story that kicked it all off.
11. I agree with your analysis, David, only insofar as it shows how conservative punters are at the moment; they are simply refusing to believe the opinion polls are right. Whether their caution is justified is the question other gamblers must judge.
20 stjohn. £11 ?!?!? did you find the extra quid down the sofa ??
22. Let me guess, he kept going on about their massive investment in hospitals, got very annoyed when questioned about the matter at hand and just kept saying he ws being very clear when he wasn’t.
18 “Brown was in many ways fortunate - he couldn’t be blamed for the floods personally”
He’s getting his share of the blame here in gloucestershire as the tw@t who cut the flood defence budget leaving many towns and villages at the mercy of the Severn and the Avon. Go ask the people of Tewkesbury and Gloucester what they think of Brown.
27, he reckoned it was trying to mask the good news stories.
26
Seriously, I think it’s because it was PP’s max and they work in euros, Jack.
24 - Please, don’t feed the sweet old thing. Or we’ll send Mandy and the Bilderburgi to get you…
30 PtP. Indeed. I don’t bother with PP on-line !!
27 Spot on. He also kept shouting about a government survey which shows that 99.99% of patients are totally satisfied with their “hospital experience”. Enver Hoxha would have been proud.
…and blamed the Tories for ‘running down the NHS’ and ‘hiding the good news’.
19. Gordon’s weakness has put the whole Lisbon project at risk.
24. The BBC are running with this as if they were Nazis after the Jews. They don’t normally run with Conservative output except where it suits their needs. Lisbon has to be protected. Brown must be sunk quickly, and safely replaced before the left wing of the Labour Party get any steam up to take over. Cameron’s irrelevant to this piece of politicalplay, as if Labour EUrophiles last until 2010, Lisbon’s done and dusted.
Even more pathetic than last year’s failed terrorist attacks are the people who’d have us believe that such attacks are going to succeed in destroying Western civilisation where Hitler, Hirohito and Stalin failed.
35 - Nurse, (or failing that JackW)….hurry
By the way, as you all know, I’m not Gordon’s biggest fan, but am I the only one who never found Cable’s ‘Mr Bean’ gag that funny at all?
I can almost hear the EU mandarins fuming as we speak — “And we’d have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for that pesky Gordon Brown!”
Hmmm…Gordon Brown as Scooby, Milliband as Scrappy; I quite like that analogy!
38 — yes.
What a surprise, why answer the question when you can come across as an aggressive arse. This is why their in such dire straits at the mo, every time the public see a minister all they want to do is punch them.
41 Is this because John Prescott has left the govt? No fear of reprisals.
36 “Even more pathetic than last year’s failed terrorist attacks are the people who’d have us believe that such attacks are going to succeed in destroying Western civilisation where Hitler, Hirohito and Stalin failed.”
I’d estimate the probability of a dirty nuclear bomb attack on a big city over the next ten years to be nearly unity. The technology is crude and easily mastered, the availability of nuclear material all too easy, and there are too many people nursing political grievances.
In fact, the big city that is most vulnerable is pretty obvious.
Such an attack won’t succeed in destroying Western civilization, but it will change the West irrevocably.
43, what a cheery thought.
Btw, do you mean a dirty nuclear bomb, or just a dirty bomb?
I would’ve thought if you’ve got a nuke to play with there’s no need to make it dirty.
Don’t worry, Gwynfa — Labour’s going to make sure it doesn’t happen by wasting billions on ID cards instead of more police and spooks.
No ID card, no Plutonium-239 for you; that’ll learn ‘em.
43. Would change the middle east irrevocably too. Downtown Tehran would be warm-ish.
Sorry Tapestry, I’m as eurosceptic as the next man, but your 19 does rather substantiate Cameron’s famous “UKIP = fruitcakes” remark…
25. That the polls are wrong, or that ‘events’ will shift them - they ask how people would vote if there was an election tomorrow, not in 2010.
19. You are a deeply embedded Brussels plant whose job it is to undermine the Eurosceptic case by producing fantastic conspiricy theories that no-one will believe, and I claim my €10.
45, apparently ID cards will make people immune to nuclear weaponry, in addition to fighting terrorism, stopping illegal immigration, making the sun shine and preventing herpes. They really are indispensable.
41 Labour ministers are being increasingly found out and they don’t like it, particularly having had such a relatively easy ride from much of the media for so long. The official state broadcaster’s still generally onside though.
47. So you think the BBC isn’t trying to remove Brown in favour of Miliband?
Or you don’t think the EU is trying to save the Lisbon Treaty?
Or you don’t think the BBC bats for the EU?
Don’t be sorry, Bob. Tell us what it is that you don’t see.
Fruitcake? Just ate a piece of it! Mother’s best.
47 So that must mean you’re in on the conspiracy too, Bob!
I have failed to be impressed by anything Brown has done in the last year. I could not understand the press and media fawning over Brown at the time. Nick Robinson seemed to change from being a silver tongues reporter into a Brown tongued Labour stooge overnight.
The Daily Mail were positive about Brown because they hated Blair and were judging Brown as his record as PM rather than C of E. I think they were also trying to push the Tories into some particular policy policies such as IHT reform.
43 Well thanks for that little note of optimism!
Much more rational to fear crossing the road than dirty bombs.
Obama’s new ad calls into question McCain’s image as a maverick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHN9bLCgF7k
51 - The BBC isn’t trying to remove Brown in favour of Miliband. They’re trying to make some news out of not a lot, but they are no more united on whether Brown going is a good thing (helping Labour keep out the license-fee-cutting Tories) than Labour voters at large.
The EU is trying to save the Lisbon Treaty by putting pressure on Ireland, and making sure there is no Cameron government in the next year. Undermining Brown would give a second unelected leader, seriously risking an election earlier than 2010. If you just want a Labour government, and don’t care how unpopular it is, you support Brown sitting tight.
The BBC bats for the EU - yeah probably.
Your conspiracy is completely barking mad. Hanlon’s Razor would help.
56. Is that really Morus?
19. Paranoid, Europhobic nonsense! You don’t really believe what you write do you?
Is the safest bet for Lisbon-ites not to shore up Brown until 2010 ?
30 PtP. I was asked some time back why I was still backing Obama at somewhat thin odds. Effectively Obama starts the race with a huge electoral base with little to defend :
Firstly add Iowa and New Mexico to Kerry states and we start with Obama 264 and McCain 274. 270 to win.
The only two Kerry states that look remotely in play are Michigan and New Hampshire and none has seen a recent poll with McCain ahead.
Effectively this means that McCain has to win every larger swing state to avoid defeat :
Nevada (5 EV’s) .. Colorado (9) .. Missouri (11) .. Indiana (11) .. Ohio (20) .. Virginia (13) .. North Carolina (15) .. Florida (27) .. Georgia (15).
And win two of the following three smaller swing states :
Alaska (3) .. Montana (3) .. North Dakota (3).
Not impossible for McCain, but a big big ask.
55. This is exactly what the Democrats need to do. Go after McCain on the maverick thing, because its the sole thing keeping him up, and its really not that true any more.
56. you seem to agree with most of it…only that the media is not hunting Brown, and backing Miliband. Pardon me for not believing what we are told to believe, and seeking my own interpretation of events. I see the media quietly building Miliband, and undermining Brown. Howl……..
@38:
Gordon as Mr Bean a joke?
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_01/brownbean0308_468×314.jpg
If only.
60. If Obama wins Iowa+New Mexico+Kerry states and Nevada, it’s a draw, what happens then?
47 - Yes, a decent conspiracy theory has to have a germ of logic to it, so that if you accept the basic premise then the loony consequences follow logically or at least vaguely plausibly if you fail to do a reality check on them. This one doesn’t even pass the first hurdle of why the little green men in Brussels would want to remove Brown, especially since the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified.
I’m sure we can do better. Let’s see, something like a plot by the CIA in league with disaffected LibDems to discredit Labour so that, in the turmoil, Charles Kennedy can return as leader, win the ensuing election, restore Iraq as a major political issue, and thus shaft Obama?
@62:
THERE IS NO SEKRIT CONSPIRACY.
You can trust me. I fnord know.
64 G. A tie is a win for Obama as the Presidency is decided by the House of Representatives and the maths works to Obama’s favour.
51 - the EU is certainly trying to save the EU Treaty. No quibbles about that. It was in the rest of it that your conspiracy theory started to fall down. I don’t think the Beeb is any more pro-EU than other broadcasters, perhaps inherently pro-Labour but that’s not the same thing. And clearly it is not alone amongst the media in trying to “get rid of Brown and replace him with Miliband”.
52 - hm, now you mention it I did have an official EU-produced ‘euro-regions’* wallmap pinned up in my bedroom when I was in my teens…
(* - the one that had no mention of that ancient European region known popularly as “England”)
56 Morus. This from Wells gave me pause on Newport. Perhaps you as well.
“richard j (not registered)
The seat of Newport East in the Assembly Elections was won by Labour with a Majority of just 875 over the Lib Dems who were on 27.7 of the Vote. The Lbour Party were on 32.1% of the vote.
That gap has now been reduced in the Local elections to just 20 votes a clear sign that Labour are in real trouble here.’
57 - Yes, but I’m feeling whimsical today, and am slowly but surely losing my marbles. I decided to meet the tin foil hat brigade half way…
@64:
Twelfth amendment comes into play.
No limit Teksas Huld’em, winner takes the Oval Office.
70 Morus. You’ll do very nicely then as Obama’s Veep !!
65. Do you really believe what they tell you in the media, Richard? If not, you have no choice but to build your own explanations. Your example is amateurish, - but a start.
67. And the incoming House too, which will be even more strongly Democrat.
65. It’s a Murdoch conspiracy… he wants a PM with big tits.
60 Thank Jack. That’s very helpful. You really can be most lucid when Matron admisters the right medication.
72. Sounds like he’d fit better with a McCain ticket…
I’m looking in now and then here in Pennsylvania but not posting much as the time difference means it’s usually at the tail-end of a thread at 3am UK time. I’ll repost some comments from a few days ago on US impressions which may interest some who missed it. Sorry that makes this post long.
On the repeated topic, especially yesterday’s thread: because of the Lib-Tory dominance on the site, I think many of the posters, and even Mike, don’t have a strong feeling for how Labour actually works. The idea of a union coup removing Brown at the conference is a fantasy for both political and technical reasons:
- The unions have just signalled (through the amity at the NPF) that they are not disposed to undermine the leadership at all, let alone overthrow it. They’ll pursue their members’ interests with their customary vigour (e.g. the strikes) but they’re not in insurgency mood. If they were, they couldn’t simply dream up a resolution overnight - they all have their procedures for it, which they take seriously, and any leader who suddenly fished a resolution out of his back pcket would be sharply called to hell by his executive, even if they agreed with the content. It’s far too late for people to start organising conference resolutions.
- As Rod and others pointed out, the rulebook - if you read the whole text rather than individual paragraphs - makes it clear that the sine qua non is a nomination of a rival by MPs before the conference. That isn’t happening.
Many people here are in the same position over Brown being replaced that I and others were over Hillary’s campaign when Obama built up a delegate lead that was almost impossible to overturn. We felt it ought to happen, we could construct scenarios that would make it happen, we though tDemocrats were mistaken not to make it happen, so we thought it quit possible for some time after it stopped being a realistic possibility. If you bet on these things, I’d really recommend laying a leadership change in 2008, even if you’re convinced it ought to happen.
Insert from a few days ago:
If you’re really interested in politics, you can get it in much more undiluted form than in Britain. On PBS (the austere non-commercial channel, which also shows BBC World news and pointy-headed BBC drama), I watched 45 minutes of a McCain ‘town gathering’ meeting in Wisconsin which seemed to be simply a straight recording with no reporter or commentary whatsoever, hooray! In Britain, you’ll be lucky to get more than 30 seconds of Brown or Cameron before you get Nick Robinson telling you what to make of it. Even the mainstream networks give more unmediated footage.
- Obama has proposed seating the FL and MI delegations in their entirety, another token of goodwill to the Clinton camp (and confirmation if it were needed that he doesn’t expect any last-minute hitches in the nomination). Choosing Evan Bayh, very much a Clinton man, would among other advantages help further heal past wounds.
- McCain was very interesting to watch. He’s not fluent, often stumbling for words or rephrasing things, in a way that reminded me of his age (I don’t mean he seemed senile, just a bit old). I also felt he was slightly out of his depth at times - at one point he appeared to promise every American a $5000 grant towards a low-carbon automobile, which I estimate would cost roughly $500 billion. The audience was naturally pleased, but wtf? On the other hand, he was often gritty and courageous in refusing to say crowd-pleasing things. A Christian questioner asked if he agreed that the Bible was an absolute prediction of the future. He said politely that he was a keen Christian, but he thought that humans had their destiny in their own hands. Another asked for more help for Christians wanting to pick their own schools. He said he was in favour of choice, but not only for Christians but for people of any persuasion. What about global warming? Yes, he thought it was caused by carbon emissions, and America needed to be embracing renewables and nuclear energy as part of the solution, and he disagreed with conservatives who thought otherwise. I think he would be unpredictable as President and I’m not sure of his intellectual grasp (whereas Obama is quite clearly up to the job), but I can see why people like him, in rather a similar way that they liked Reagan: he seemed quite obviously a good guy in a non-political and very American sense. [Added: saw one of his campaign ads this morning - it portrays him as the ultimate maverick, who fights special interests of every kind]
- Also saw a long interview with Nancy Pelosi. Again, a leading politician much less fluent than the average British MP - lots of awkward pauses - but also more enthusiasm, more of a sense of wanting to do something exciting rather than the hey-it’s-my-job sense you can get in British interviews.
- Haven’t seen Obama at any length yet, nor any campaign ads at this early stage.
Er…called to heel! (Freudian slip!)
Interesting take on Politics from Roy Greenslade in the Standard.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23527425-details/Watershed+moment+for+Dave+as+the+papers+turn+against+Gordon/article.do
76 PtP. “Matron Admisters” ???? …. are these your medical tranny friends ??
68. Beeb not more pro-EU than other broadcasters?
Are you sure?
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3257748.ece
69 - That does give pause for thought - I thought the Tories would win both Newport seats. Lib Dem gain in Newport would make that bookies prediction much more plausible.
72 - Damn straight - it’s the Veep who looks after Elvis at the Naval Observatory, and keeps the keys to Area 51.
64 - House of Representatives votes *by State* (so if a state had 5 Congressmen - 3 Dems, 2 GOP - they would vote as a delegation who to cast their vote for: the Dems win 3-2, so that State Delegatio casts one vote for the Democratic Candidate). A candidate needs 26 States or more to win, remembering that states with an evenly divided number of congressmen between the parties (eg 2 Dems, 2 GOP) must abstain.
The NEW Congress votes for President (the House) by state, and the Senate chooses a VP. If they cannot choose a President, the VP becomes acting President, if they cannot choose either, the new Speaker becomes acting President, if they cannot choose a Speaker, the Senate Pro Tem takes over as acting President.
83 Morus. I think it was Nate @ 538.com who ran a series of variables for the projected new House that indicated a pretty comfortable win for Obama and a near impossible route for McCain to reach 26.
81 LOL! Another Freudian slip.
68 - I remember getting mildly annoyed in the late 1980s when the Kent Messenger kept on producing a supplement in French.
@83:
God knows why the drafters of the 12th amendment didn’t just go down the ’simple plurality’ route for the Electoral College.
Not obscure enough?
84 - I’ve done the same Jack, and Obama would win even on this House of Representatives (26-21). If they increase in tally in some key states with even delegations then it could be easy.
If this had happened in 2000, the House Delegations were split 25-24 to the Republicans, but interestingly, the Texas delegation in the House was 17 Democrats v 16 Republicans. How would they have voted, given that if they went Republican, that would have given it to Bush. By State allegiance, by Party allegiance, by how their district voted, by how their state voted?
83 It fits my understanding that things are deteriorating more rapidly than expected for Labour in Newport. They’re still shellshocked by May and just not used to really active campaigning. I’ll be bold and say unless Labour recover to at least 32% I would be more surprised if the Tories don’t gain Newport West than if they do now. With Newport East all the Lib Dem Councillors are there so they will focus the lot on that. The Tories number 1 priority is to take down Flynn before they worry about Morden.
It’s a pattern elsewhere. I think the suggested strength of Labour no major challenger throughout like the SNP in Scotland is a weakness in fact. Who do they attack Tories? Lib Dems? Plaid? Whereas they have to be everywhere their opponents can just concentrate their resources. Look at 3 seats in close proximity. In a small area Labour have to fight Plaid (Llanelli), the Liberal Democrats (Swansea West)and the Conservatives (Gower). Sums it up I reckon.
re 33 of course, I don’t imagine the dead ones got much of say in the matter!
afternoon all and Maggie Thatcher fan askes me to say hi as he is somewhere on the A9 this afternoon.
In the Summer 2007 Gordon had still folled most of the media and electorate into thinking that he was the most super duper Chancellor since we appointed someone to operate the Monarch’s abacus.
In the past 12 months most of the media and almost all the electorate have come to realise Gordon was a total fraud and couldn’t balance his way out of a public toilet let alone a set of abbreviated accounts for a micro business.
that realisation has been similar to the scales falling from Saul’s eyes on the road to Damascus on his way to writing stories of biblical epic proportions. So if Millipede, Harperson or any of the other would be PMs dislodge Gordon and ascend the greasy pole, at best I would think Labour might recover to around 32% but in the marginals where frankly the only votes count, the increasing rate of repossessions, redundancies and all the other tragic consequences of a plummeting economy will ensure Labour go down and down badly whenever they have the guts to call an election.
78 Thanks Nick.
As it happens, I had another £200 at 8/13 with William Hill this morning on GB NOT being deposed this year. I felt good about it at the time and feel even better now.
Those odds are still available incidentally and represent the best way of making the ‘lay’ bet that you suggest.
Trust you are very well and enjoying your stay. Is there much talk in the MSM there of Morus’s impending visit?
re 43 Gwynfa fancy a bet on that?
It will only change the west irrevocably if our sheep like politicians are panicked into doing the terrorists work for them. I imagine knowing this shower that they will.
@92:
No. The EU is paying the American MSM to maintain a total news blackout on Morus’s visit.
94 Thank you, Martin.
That’s a far more plausible theory than some I have read here of late.
Barack Obama’s birthday was yesterday. He was asked what he wanted as a present.
“Colorado, Virginia and Indiana” was his answer.
He’ll get a bike.
And like it.
88 Morus. BTW have you had to open the contents of your pippy bank for Veep vetting …. and we better not discuss in too much detail those surveillance pictures of you with Madame Patricia the Punter !! …. such dexterity with a snake and jeroboam bottle !!
If Labour elects a new leader (a genuine PM for the long term contender and not a caretaker), how long would he or she need to consolidate his/her position and put forth a distinctive manifesto before going for elections.
In other words, given that May 2010 is the latest date for the elections, what is the latest date when Gordon Brown can be pushed out, with a realistic time interval for the new PM to mount a realistic challenge?
98 “pippy bank”
97 G.
98 - “pippy bank” shome mishtake shurely?
96. Thinking about it, that signals that Indiana is on his target list, a hint it could be Bayh.
96. meaning if he wins, he will be the fifth youngest president in US history, after Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton and Grant…
98 - Listen, Thomas Eagleton got away with being a drunkard, a psychotic, and a hospitalised subject of electrolysis. Spiro Agnew had more skeltons in his closet than a necrophiliac who can’t afford a cleaner, and Aaron Burr killed a man.
By comparison, my dalliances with women of ill-repute and the odd-bottle-of–vintage-port-too-many don’t really stack up to very much, do they?! And the money was just *resting* in my account…
re 67 but Jack W the Democrats hold in such a case wouldn’t be as secure as that. In the current Congress if everyone voted according to their party affiliation then Obama would win 27/20 which is only 1 more than required constitutionally. Several states have fairly close delegations as well. In such a deadlock the Vice President would assume office and that’s almost certain to be a Democrat.
97 - Very good!
80. ‘Papers turn against Gordon’….what was it we were saying earlier?
106 - 27 state delegations in the House is historically quite high (at least in the last decade or two). The key variable is the number of states with an even number of Congressmen. When this happens, it makes it much harder to win 26, as the constituencies are gerrymandered to make safe seats, so even-numbered delegations are very often split, so have to abstain.
At the moment, the number of even-numbered delegations in the House is very low, so one candidate or other should get the 26 or more needed. It would be almost impossible for the GOP to win this way in either this House, or the next.
Interestingly, you could win the 26 states with only 55 of the 435 Congressmen, I think.
106 Any thoughts on 89.
+that is 109+
80. Papers also seem to be promoting Miliband on the qt in same article.
93 ChrisA, not sure I want to bet on such a macabre topic, but I think it is important [if hardly cheery] to estimate how likely such a scenario is.
Latest Rasmussen Tracker :
McCain 46% .. Obama 47%
Note - Reverse of yesterday. McCain’s lead lasted two days.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Brown was taken at face value because he brought with him the myth that he was a great Chancellor. If you thought his bubble would burst, you were a ‘fanatical Tory’. Even those who questioned his competence were frightened of his luck, which seemed like it would never run out.
Well, it did.
Miliband has been a great ????? nonentity?
As both Porillo and Short pointed out over the weekend, his rise has been through patronage - not outstanding work or popular acclaim.
He is where he is because Tony put him there.
Brown has never had a contest head on? DM hasn’t even had to do the backroom manoeuvering.
Unlike Cameron, who had to get his hands on a seat when competition was tight and fight and win a leadership contest from nowhere, Miliband was handed his seat and his support by Blair.
A numbers of articles have suggested Miliband has not so much been challenging as ‘offering himself up’. Its all he has ever had to do in the past.
Having been ‘taken up’ and given golden opportunities, what has this guy who has clearly been harbouring leadership ambitions done with them, when we are still questioning his recognition factor in the polls?
There is nothing in his rise to suggest political nouse.
There is nothing in his Commons or QT performances to suggest any threat to Cameron.
On top of that, he is just alittle bit weird. Labour can’t do weird again. They will get a reputation.
An intelligent youngster with a slightly strange appearance and an odd verbal style, grabbed at in a moment of desperation, long before he is ready….Labour have gone into William Hague mode before they have lost.
But Mike, seriously, Churchill KNEW about the ongoing fighting in Norway, the Nazi blitzkrieg sweeping France, the need for a massive BEF evacuation, the need to fight off the U-boats, and an impending attempt to conquer England. But Brown had no way to know so many animals would get sick!
115 - “As both Porillo and Short pointed out over the weekend, his rise has been through patronage - not outstanding work or popular acclaim.”
Like Major.
Tapestry - your theory breaks down very simply. There is a much greater chance of Lisbon being ratified if Gordon is still in power.
From your assumption that the press moves as a pack, and is interesting in “bigging up” Milliband, I can only assume you’ve never had anything to do with the media. Presumably in Tapestryland Murdoch takes his orders direct from Brussels:
“Rupert, keep pretending to be a Eurosceptic and get rid of that Brown. Bwaaaahhhaaa bwahhhaaaaa haaaa.”
@117:
Major won a leadership election and a general election.
Gordon? Not so much.
re 113 that’s a shame because I would estimate the probability as practically zero. Prof Lord Rees of Ludlow, President of the FRS has made a similar bet with Wired magazine that that within 20 years one instance of bio error or bio terror would lead to a million fatalities. Can’t remember how much it was for, but it was fairly substantial.
13 — Morus.
On betfair, I’ve backed Obama @ 1.99 (average odds) for $8,820.15.
And laid him for 8820.15 @ 1.43 (average odds). Keeping a potential profit of 4939.28$.
With my capital on betfair, I don’t feel at all like backing Obama now. I preferred in the last few weeks to buy McCain, again and again, in order to lay him when crossing a certain threshold. But here, I don’t intend to keep any profit on him, as I did with Obama. To be @ zero, in order to maximize my profits with an Obama Victory.
However, this might change. For I don’t feel now all confident as I did before that Obama will win this Elections. I really don’t. In fact, I feel nothing now in this regard.
Can he trow an effective punch or two at McCain? I donno if he can.
121: I’m fairly confident (55-60%) of an Obama victory, but I’m heavily long McCain.
If the Obama price drifts beyond 1.9, I’ll be buying him (or selling McCain), otherwise I’ll be staying on McCain.
119 - I know. I was actually comparing Major to Milliband.
Both seem to have get to a high level rather on patronage rather than any general popularity in the party or country. Both are dull, but quite endearingly sweet.
I suspect taht Milliband is academically far brighter than Major, but certainly no cannier a politician. Forget Gordon - he’s toast -Labour have to think who in the long term will perform best against Blair Mk2 (otherwise known as David Cameron).
The long term solution is Milliband, probably therefore. But not yet. Straw is the best choice for Labour now - damage limitation at the next GE, stay around to do a bit of washing up…
What will Gordon do then? Could he stay on the backbenches and attempt to break Ted Heath’s record for the world’s longest sulk?
119 - Major won 2 leadership elections! Beat that Gordo.
115 & 119 Both points are true. Many politicians have those who talent spot and promote them but then up to them what they make when in charge. Major promoted by Thatcher, Cameron by Howard and Miliband? by Blair. Cameron is successful, Major was intially and Miliband who knows. It’s a long road when Tony is no longer there to hold his hand in public. He may be a success though you never know.
121- The immortal words of John Paul Jones could apply to Obama: “I have not yet begun to fight.” Maybe your closeness to the action makes you understandably more nervous, but I don’t think you should really be so concerned. Think of this as McCain’s Battle of the Bulge, where he scores a momentary advance before the overwhelming forces arrayed against him inevitably turn the tables.
I feel that Brown was still benefiting from a general feeling that the economy was still doing well when he came into office this helped to build his reputation.
Brown dealt fairly ineffectivley with what our fairly minor events ( apologies to flood victims) His inteventions were generally not helpful. The heading in the gaurdian headline was clearly written by someone with little knowledge of History. Winston Churchill came into office just as the blitzkrieg was ploughing through the low countries.
Any sucessor will be dealt with a deterioating economy and a different media dialouge , the isuue for Labour is that the sentiment for change is perhaps to great whoever is at the helm, most of the non politicos i know have simply stopped listening to labour spokespeople.
123 - Sorry, this whole “academically bright” thing is starting get on my nerves.
Miliband got three Bs and a D at A level, and got into Oxford on a ‘disadvantaged family background’ basis. He’s not some uber-brainy geek, he just looks like one.
128 - To be fair, he did get a First. That does suggest a modicum of brains.
128 - do you know that? Or did he take the entrance exam, get a two-E offer, and then relax for the last two terms of his Upper Sixth?
129- so, in fact, Oxford made the right decision, rather than getting someone with 4 As from a better school…
129 - So did Cameron, but you don’t see many people maintaining that *he’s* an academic powerhouse.
132 - Well I maintain exactly that.
92 - I have also taken this bet (many thanks for drawing it to my attention); Nick Palmer’s words about his thoughts on Obama v Hillary have struck home with me.
126. If you look at Obama’s past campaigns, he has a habit of waiting and then doing a mad dash at the end. It gives you that come-from-behind insurgent vibe. Also, I imagine the campaign is aware that Obamamania couldn’t last from the primary season through to the general, so they want to let it dull before the convention.
128. Really? That’s incredible considering his reputation. I guess it shows how mediocre our present bunch of politicians are.
@129:
Not in a real subject.
126 — S&S — Yeah, you’re probably right.
My fear is that McCain and its Generals can actualize something like an Operation Fortitude — able to destroy “Fortress Obama” against all odds, with the sheer psycho-affective power of deception techniques and spectacular propaganda…
http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/german_blunder_an_allied_victory
128. He did get a First in a joint honours degree at Oxford though, so I reckon that counts as academically bright.
131 Instead they got someone whose dad moved in academic circles.
136. What the heck counts as a real subject? Politics, Philosophy and Economics are all proper, traditional subjects.
128 - that was presumably back in the days when Oxford set an entrance exam. I don’t think everbody got straight A’s back in those days.
O/T - All this congratulation to Ramprakash the other day - well Graham Hick, now 42, has just scored a century better than a run a ball. First class century number 136. Also has 40 one-day centuries and 2 in the 20/20. Including one day runs, I understand he is now way ahead of Jack Hobbs in total runs ever scored.
Shame that he like Ramps was no mediocre in Tests.
128 …. ‘disadvantaged family background’ basis.
Can this be right? I seem to remember reading that Old Father Milliband had to make use of inheritance tax loopholes ?
141 - should say “so mediocre”
Perhaps Hick and Ramprakash are just flat track bullies who can’t cut it at the highest level. Like Gordon Brown?
I am getting a bit bored of the Labour leadership debate! All talk and no action!
Come on Miliband denounce Brown and thrust your dagger!
Interested to see Nick Palmer’s post! Good luck in retaining the World title! I hope for a British Victory! (Indeed an English one!
)
Interesting point about Nick Robinson and his his summarising of points; I am not really sure it is necessary. Mind you that is probably what he gets his telephone salary for! I always remember seeing Robinson at PMQ’s when i watched in the chamber about 5 years ago! He had just landed the job and he looked pretty pleased with himself and the obvious fame that came with it! He made a pretty rapid rise from run of the mill reporter to ‘top notch’ commentator overnight so it would seem.
78. “Lib-Tory dominance on the site”. Sounds good Nick! But you need to remember that partisans of these two ancient parties spend most of our time having a go at each other. And Stuart Dickson ensures that the SNP pulls its weight, so what it really boils down to is the fact that when you’re away there is scarcely a Labour viewpoint worth listening to.
128. I was intrigued by Miliband’s mediocre A level results too. Just a couple of thoughts:
(1) Miliband’s school was an academic disadvantage, but his family background? Did the tutors take pity on him because he was the son of a pair of raving socialists, and had to put up with Tony Benn pontificating over the dinner table - and therefore let him into Corpus so that he could learn the rudiments of market economics?
(2) Miliband got a first at Oxford IIRC, so it’s possible that his A level grades reflected his schooling more than his ability.
@142:
Ralph Miliband was a radical Marxist. Surely using tax loopholes would be deeply unprincipled?
144 - Isn’t he in Spain ‘on holiday’? I wonder if he is anywhere near Toledo?
Who got the best GCSE’s. Perhaps it matters more what they did after their education? I suspect Milliband’s rep came from his advisor role. A bit like George Osbourne. Cameron clearly didn’t have that rep when he was off at Carlton…
“Jeff Randall, writing in The Daily Telegraph where he is a senior executive, said he would not trust Mr Cameron “with my daughter’s pocket money”.
“To describe Cameron’s approach to corporate PR as unhelpful and evasive overstates by a widish margin the clarity and plain-speaking that he brought to the job of being Michael Green’s mouthpiece,” wrote the ex-BBC business editor.
“In my experience, Cameron never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative, which probably makes him perfectly suited for the role he now seeks: the next Tony Blair,” Mr Randall wrote.
Sun business editor Ian King, recalling the same era, described Mr Cameron as a “poisonous, slippery individual”.
Vernon bogdanor loved him though, “one of the ablest” students he has taught. No surprise there though!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4502656.stm
146. I’ve studied Ralph Miliband’s writings. I was most amused at the fact his saved his most scathing criticism for social democrats, who he considered to sell out Marxism and act as a bulwart to protect and legitimise the capitalist state. And now his son could be a Blairite PM!
146 - I thought Marxist principles were for everyone except those who propound them?
141. Yes, the Grade inflation has devalued the A-level. I got pretty miserable A-level grades because i was very unhappy as a 6th former and wanted to leave school and work full time. My mum made me go to university because she could not afford to keep me at home to repeat A -levels plus it was just after the last recession and jobs were difficult to come about. Ironically i would have been better off not going to university missing years of full time paid work and having my qualifications seen as a bar to the sh*t jobs i have done in the past. Employers baffle me; you are over-qualified for jobs that are fairly well paid and end up having to take even worse ones as a consequence on lower pay. It beggars belief!
And by the time I posted that, half a dozen of you had already commented on Miliband’s first.
As regards the comparison with Cameron - I think being considered “clever” may still be an asset among sections of the left, whereas Tories are still suspicious of politicians who wear their brain on their sleeve. And of course, Etonians learn early in life how to avoid being typecast as intellectuals.
135 — Socrates : “If you look at Obama’s past campaigns, he has a habit of waiting and then doing a mad dash at the end.”
Herrrr… Obama got away with a non-offensive approach in the primaries against Clinton because Clinton was the huge favorite, entering the race. Also, Obama stayed a goo guy by not playing really offensive against a woman.
But he did promise to go manly after McCain or any other Republican opponent, right?
And he is yet to do so…
I short: Obama is failing to play offensive — thus giving Mac the opportunity to define Obama as a phony inexperienced unpatriotic flip-flopping egomaniac.
The people does not seem to buy that a vote for Mac is a vote for a third W Bush term…. (apart UKpaul, I mean).
144, I can’t take Robinson seriously. He all but accused Cameron of racism, and neglected the following day to mention that Trevor Phillips praised the speech for seeking to deracialise immigration.
If journalism consists of reading government press releases and echoing whatever the mainstream is saying, Robinson’s a grade A journalist.
152 George Osbourne is seen as a clever Tory. That Havant MP and the bumbling Etonite ex Shadow Chancellor. (names escape me today)
151 Sadly, when someone says you are over qualified, they’re just saying as politely as possible that they don’t want you.
146, It seems (from googling) as though a deed of variation was used to minimise death duties.
In other words, Ralph Milliband had nothing to do with it, and his Marxist principles remain unsullied. It seems as though it was the younger generation of Millibands who must have been the prime movers.
Still, hardly a disadvantaged background … except in the topsy-turvey world of New Labour.
155, Oliver Letwin?
157 That’s the one!
148 -
“Who got the best GCSE’s”
What’s a GCSE? I would be very surprised in either Major or Milliband have any.
@152:
To my mind, being an intellectual is one of the best excuses for not being clever. It’s not a luxury politicians can afford, however.
153. Just look at how things went in the run-up to Iowa. That was the campaign that decided the whole primary season, and I said after he (unexpectedly) pulled it off that he would very probably be the nominee.
I don’t necessarily buy this idea that you need to get your narrative out first. Any candidate has a finite amount of resources, and it makes sense to use those resources to maximum effect when people are most paying attention - that’s from the conventions onwards. You also don’t want to be the front-runner, because then you get all the scrutiny and the media always loves the outsider.
152 - being clever is not that great an asset in politics. John Redwood? William Waldegrave?
162 Gordon Brown?
152. I don’t see why being knowledgable and intelligent should ever be considered a bad thing. It’s a dangerous attitude to have, you end up with leaders like George W. Bush.
@162:
Makes my point: Redwood’s an intellectual, but he’s far from clever.
152 - Being considered stupid did John Prescott no harm, and of course Attlee cheerfully wrote about himself:
“Some said, a non starter,
Many thought they were smarter,
But, he ended PM, CH, and OM,
An Earl, and a Knight of the Garter”.
Rab Butler and Nigel Lawson were both perceived as smart cookies in the blue corner, and Iain Macleod was a toprank bridge player as well as a senior Tory politician. I’m not sure that the relationship between party affiliation and intellectualism is anywhere near as straightforward as you suggest.
GWB is clever in his own way. You just can’t become POTUS without having something about you, even if it is to get Karl Rove to like you.
161 — Fair point. I have to admit that I began to follow the Democratic primaries only in the middle of February. To GOP ones seemed to me much easier to predict — hence more profitable.
164 - you mean Yale graduate George W Bush.
Lack of education was no hindrance to Major or Callaghan. They had other problems, not of their own making.
Gordon Brown to survive to end of 2008 now 1/2 from 8/13 with William Hill
Harold Wilson - the most academically gifted PM.
Brown the first PhD in no10?
163- is Brown really meant to be a collosal intellectual like, say Harold Wilson or Keith Joseph?
167. Bush is charismatic and amiable. That’s a talent, but its not a form of cleverness.
Hague is a bright fellow. As is portillo!
Actually the Tories have quite a few talented folk in terms of academic success and political.
Obama stalls in public pollin: ThePolitico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12334.html
“What all this suggests is a general election that is much tighter than many analysts predicted and defined by far more stubborn levels of support.”
170. Yep the heat has gone out of the situ - 2010 now a cert.
171 - his dissertation was The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29. Yawn!
@173:
Bush’s one great political talent is making people believe he’s not smart.
169. Yeah. With a GPA of 2.35 and not a single A in sight, despite the best private tuition! Once you get in to a US university, it’s next to impossible to fail to graduate. And we all know it wasn’t his smarts that got him in to start with…
177 - Maybe he’ll get to write a companion volume on 1997-2010
137- I expect this sort of paranoid hyperbolic fear from a dedicated Democrat, but not from a cool customer in the betting markets!
Too much of Obama!
“Nearly half (48%) of the public says they have been hearing “too much” about Obama lately. And by a slight, but statistically significant margin – 22% to 16% – people say that recently they have a less rather than more favorable view of the putative Democratic nominee.”
– The Pew Research Center, via NRO
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGViZDczYzZjOTRjNWI4MTI5Zjk1ZTA0NjE5ODI0MTY=
170 Come on, Honestdave, ‘fess up! How much did you have on?
It must be virtually free money, no?
How’s life treating you these days? All well down in your neck of the woods?
166. Butler, Macleod and Lawson were all successful politicians, but none became party leader. What I’m trying to say is that Cameron had no reason to stress his own academic credentials or to portray himself as an “intellectual” (whatever that is) when running for the Tory leadership; and has no incentive to do so now.
171, 172. I read somewhere that Brown was a strong undergraduate but took ages to finish his PhD. And of course he spent part of his university career messing around as “Rector” of Edinburgh University.
171. Does Brown have a PHD or did he start it and break off and never finish?
20. Within what time frame?
184. I just did a search and it came up that Brown has an honoury doctorate from Brunel university i think!
178. If he was as smart as people allege he secretly is, his finest achievement wouldn’t be declaring Jesus Day in Texas.
185 He does have a PhD. Big trivia question, what other PMs were Drs.
@188:
Well, he was elected the most powerful man in the world twice. That’s definitely something for the CV.
181 — lol
Yeah! I shall soon stop doing yoga 3 hours a day — a start doing push-ups and musculation again.
I shall stop with that vegetarian diet, and begin to drink blood wine and each flesh again!
It obscures or dumbs the mind… Eric Cartman would despise me now (am I becoming a f***king hippie?).
—
For the record, I’m all for using deception against an opponent, and think mass-propaganda is great.
The great CIA was born from the ashes of Operation Fortitude and Operation Enigma, so it can’t be bad….
The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29
I will say this for Brown at least he doesn’t call himself *Dr*! But i suppose it would not fit in well with his man of the people act!
189 - well, none since 1945, as all PM since then that were graduates went to Oxford. Oxford does not have PhDs. It has DPhils instead.
192. Seems like he’s still stuck in that era..
193 I said Drs not PhDs
190. Campaigns are about a lot more than the candidate. I’ll agree that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are extremely bright.
195 - true - sorry!
193. Degrees? Pah!
Alec Douglas-Home played First Class cricket.
125
Cameron was a nobady in a forgotten neglected opposition.
Miliband is the For Sec. Has already been put up as leader [which would have made him Pm] previously.
We ought to have felt his punch by now.
194.
I notice his PHD study period finishes on a high water mark for the Labour party before the 1931 debacle!
Socrates, I believe one of the deleterious side effects for the Democrats of having the mainstream media shilling for them is that they start to believe their own propaganda. In any sort of fight, it is much better to have your enemy underestimate you, and it is best to not overestimate one’s own side. But the Democrats seem to always fall victim to the media’s version of events and then fail to see their own candidates’ weaknesses, and the Republicans’ strengths, until it is too late. Then theories are later constructed about diabolical Republican dirty tricks, hypnotism, or whatever, that somehow explains the unexplicable (i.e., how the Democrats could possibly have lost). After all, it couldn’t possibly be that people actually thought about what both sides were saying and preferred governance by Republicans! I’m just saying that you believe the Democrats’ propaganda about Republicans, and about themselves, at your own peril.
200. Yes “la la la - I can’t hear the bad news” was a trait even back then
On GB … “he was associated with the history department at Edinburgh for 15 years - from matriculation in 1967, through the award of his honours degree, to the completion of his PhD in 1982.”
Given it’s a four years honours degree in Edinburgh, that means Gordon Brown took 11 years to do his PhD.
It seems Gordon got in plenty of practice in missing deadlines — average length of time is 3 or 4 years.
“I’ll agree that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are extremely bright.”
As are many fellow sociopaths.
203 - It nicely matches the period covered by his dissertation 1918-1929.
Talking of being bright :
“He is a Visiting Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, a Governor of the Ditchley Foundation, a member of the Council of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a member of the Global Aging Commission, a member of the Advisory Board of the British Council, Visiting Professor at the Cass Business School, and Economic Adviser to Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein.”
Maybe hie’s very bright but the political track record of David Willets leaves something to be desired…
203. He re-adjusted the submission cycle “an end to Tory missed deadlines” - he probably crowed to his supervisor…
re 166 more usually rendered in Limerick form as
Some said, that he was a non starter,
Many thought that they were smarter,
But, he ended PM,
CH, and OM,
An Earl, and a Knight of the Garter”
192 “I have just looked up Brown’s PHD title:
The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29″
He can spend his twilight years updating it for recent events. He could call it Decline and Fall…..
Crikey: i would be interested to read his PHD, wonder if it is any good? Having said that if it is like most academic stuff then it will be pretty grim!
Did Brown work at the same time as doing his PHD? Of so it does show he could multi-task in the past even if it is a skill he has lost now!
183. Hi Peter. I’ve backed it @5/6 and 8/13. I topped up £500 @8/13 just before the price change. All well in Swansea apart from torrential rain. Trust you are not TOO busy.
201. No, I absolutely agree that in 2000 the public wanted Republican governance. There were underlying trends there, as well as reactions to the Clinton administration, with which the Republicans were far more in tune with the American public than the Democrats. George Bush also had tremendous campaigning strengths. These were the main motivators behind his victory, the dirty tricks simply nudged them over the top.
But none of those things means that Bush had great intelligence. He doesn’t. He has a very average intellect.
to a = than an ? WTF
11 years! First clear signs of dithering.
Maths at 109 was a little out - you can win 26 state delegations in the House with 58 Congressmen
27 Smallest States’ delegations by # Congressmen
1 MT, AK, VT, SD, WY, DE, ND
2 ID, NH, ME, RI
3 NM, NV, UT, WV, NE
4 KS, MS, AR
5 IA, CT, OK, OR
6 KY, SC
7 LA, AL
To win 26 states
All of 1-man delegations in 7 states equals 7 Congressmen
All of 2-man delegations in 4 states equals 8 Congressmen
2/3 of 3-man delegations in 5 states equals 10 Congressmen
3/4 of 4-man delegations in 3 states equals 9 Congressmen
3/5 of 5-man delegations in 4 states equals 12 Congressmen
4/6 of 6-man delegations in 2 states equals 8 Congressmen
4/7 of 1-man delegations in 1 states equals 4 Congressmen
TOTAL to win 26 states equals 58 Congressmen
Still the important point with any PhD is to finish the thing. Shows commitment. So many walk away. You don’t know the pain and misery of a PhD until you’ve been stupid enough to attempt one. Anyone who came out the other end has my respect. A million times more difficult than an undergraduate degree where you have some nice man to ask questions that have well known answers. Kindergarten stuff.
New PPP poll for Florida :
McCain 47% .. Obama 44%
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2008/08/florida-president.html
216 No it is not.
Google was founded by two people who didn’t finish their PhDs.
211 Honestdave
Well done, mate. You still know a good thing then!
No, not too busy, and enjoying life, thanks.
Glad to hear you are well too. Btw, Mighty Fella now a happy pet in a caring home. Crafty bloody dog got injured on purpose, I reckon!
Atb.
re 215 presumably in 1803 the states were much more evently sized. it seems ludicrous that this anomaly hasn’t been corrected.
215 Have you been working on that all afternoon, Morus?!
216 - Bit of ego-tripping there Dr. Jonathan. But, as the lady said, ‘cos you’re worth it’
219 - …And posts here under the name Tapestry?
When Miliband applied to Oxford, it would still have had entrance exams that were far more important than A level results. Can we stop with the “he got in through the back door” crap. He then got a first, suggesting that he was bright. But bright doesnt mean sensible.
My regard for him collapsed after his idiotic personal carbon credit idea - which would have been intrusive, unworkable, and expensive. And one could achieve pretty much the same result with a straight energy levy on energy and fuel firms, with a big rebate to the poorest families. This would have achieved about 90% plus of the personal carbon credit with about 99.999999% less bureacracy. Only someone who was clever and impractical would ever think for longer than about a nanosecond that the idea was anything other than bonkers. I saw that the idiotic Yeo thought it was a good idea too.
A PhD/DPhil is a great achievement, however long it takes. Many people don’t do it straight after undergrad, so I doubt it took him 11 years.
I saw Letwin speak a year or so ago - he has a PhD in moral philosophy from Cambridge. Very bright, but woeful on political philosophy.
One of the cleverest MPs was Roy Jenkins. He had left Oxford with a Congratulatory (ie Starred) First, and was giving his maiden speech to the House. Someone commented to Nye Bevan “He’s from Abersychan, you know. Took a brilliant degree at Oxford. They say he’s a clever chap, but lazy”, to which Bevan replied (in his famous stutter) “N..N..N..No boy from Abersychan who s…s…s..speaks with that Oxonion accent c…c…c..could possibly b…b…b..be called lazy!”
220
I think the number of representatives per state is changed each census to reflect population.
Well, after all the above light banter, I can tell you one thing
Dow Jones is heading south again!
221 - I have a day job, Peter, that tolerates a little occasional posting, but objects to me having large numbered maps of the Congressional Districts up on my screen whilst on client site! That, and the interminable meetings, slow down the amount of time I can spend correcting my own maths!
228
90 DAY COUNTDOWN TO US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 4th
Here are some of the highlights to watch for over the next three months, taken from article published in today’s Seattle Times by Scott Shepard of Cox News Service:
August 8 - Summer Olympics begins in Beijing, launching Obama $5m TV ad buy
Aug 16 - McCain & Obama at campaign forum (not a debate) hosted by evangelical Saddleback Church (22k members) in Lake Forest CA.
Aug 25 to 28 - Democratic National Convention, Denver CO; last day features Obama’s acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium.
Aug 29 - McCain’s 72nd birthday.
September 1 - Labor Day
Sept 1 to 4 - Republican National Convention, St Paul MN; last day features McCain’s acceptance speech.
Sept 5 - Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics releases August unemployment figures.
Sept 11 - the 7th anniversary of 9/11
Sept 12 - Family Research Council (evangelical conservatives) host “Value Voter Summit” in Washington DC.
Sept 15 - deadline for withdrawl of “surge” troops from Iraq; triggers 45-day pause for Gen. Petraeus to determine feasibility of further US troop reductions.
Sept 18 - Google/YouTube presidential candidate Town Hall Meeting in New Orleans LA.
Sept 22 - start of absentee/early voting in some states.
Sept 26 - Commission on Presidential Debates hosts 1st Presidential candidate debate (domestic issues) at University of Mississippi, Oxford MS.
October 2 - CPD hosts Vice Presidential candidate debate at Washington University, St Louis MO.
Oct 3 - Bureau of Labor Statistics releases September unemployment statistics.
Oct 7 - CPD hosts 2nd Presidential candidate debate (town hall) at Belmont University, Nashville TN.
Oct 15 - CPD hosts 3rd Presidential candidate debate (foreign policy) at Hofstra University, Hempstead NY.
Oct 22 - Bureau of Labor Statistics releases September layoff statistics.
Oct 23 - Federal Election Commission deadline for submission of final pre-election campaign finance reports.
Oct 30 - US Department of Commerce issues advance estimate of 3rd quarter GDP.
November 4 - the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November: ELECTION DAY.
So is Brown the first Dr in no10. Genuinely interested to find out.
—
222 Ego tripping, why? I know it’s unBritish but if someone bothers to finish something like that they should get a bit of respect. Even a PM! It’s definitely an intellectual step up.
In Science it’s quite a big leap to go from solving well worn “solvable” problems in a Masters degree to ones that are messy in a PhD. And it’s all the more interesting for it. Can’t comment on Arts PhDs, but imagine the amount of information must be quite a challenge. You’d should give it a go.
218 Google was PhD reseach, anyway isn’t Page still offically “on leave”?
215 - math is still off because you’ve left out Hawaii which has 2 Representatives in US House.
231 - Yes, I’m sure he is.
224. This Carbon Footprint idea is completely idiotic, and dreamed up fanatics who wanr to prevent “glabal warming”.
Even if mankind didn’t planes and cars and engines and the rest of civilised living,the greatest polluter of the planet would still be homo sapiens.
There are over 6 billion people on this planet, breathing out every 2 seconds more CO2 (carbon dioxide) then all the above pollutants.
The only answer to our CO2 are plants. Plant more forests.
I would say 1/2, 2/1 Brown staying/going in 2008 feels about right. I certainly wouldn’t describe it as free money. Evens he leads Labour at the next election also feels about right to me.
If there is a poll soon which shows Miliband doing a lot better than Brown and also shows Labour’s poll ratings sinking even further then the pot of speculation will start boiling over again.
Of course Brown would have to be persuaded or else go voluntarily.
233 Were there any “proper” Drs in no10? Google is surprisingly unhelpful here.
228 see 89.
sorry for the spelling. Have to get a nw keyboard.
The conservatives get there but it took em a day longer than the blogosphere..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7545571.stm
234. Or less humans - mwhahahahahaha….
The crystal ball clears …
The election is done. Obama has improved on Kerry - but only to the extent of Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. McCain held a razor thin lead in many swing states, but the EV tally is 269-269.
It goes to Congress, which divides by State. With abstentions due to equal numbers of Democrat and Republican Congressmen in some states, neither candidate gets 26, Obama falling heartbreakingly short.
All is not lost for the Democrats. The Democrat-dominated Senate selects the VP, who is installed as President.
A disbelieving Hilary Clinton, selected by Obama in an attempt to bolster the base as his polling leads falter, gleefully takes office.
…
Sorry. We return you to your scheduled programme …
232 - Right you are - replace both Hawaii Cogressmen for 4 from AL/LA, meaning it could be won with just 56 congressmen
237 - Don’t think it’ll take too much to beat Flynn. Still reckon the Tories will take Newport East and West on balance.
225: Hmmmmm I’m not sure about that. The more I think about my D.Phil. the more embarassed I am. I just turned up for 3 years 9.30 -5ish and mainly p1ssed about, then cobbled it together at the end. Bit of luck with a few results, bit of padding and a very small amount of hard work, there you go.
Meanwhile back in the real world house prices had gone up 30 grand. Oh yes a fine achievement by yours truly there
11 years sounds just rubbish, sorry.
(re: 241 - apologies if I’ve got the procedures wrong - I’m no expert at all on US electoral law and it’s just gleaned from today’s conversation)
278 - Nick, so where are you at in the great Keystone State of Pennsylvania? (Haven’t had time to keep up with PB postings/comments for a while)?
231 Page and Brin were clever enough to realise they didn’t need to finish their PhD’s.
Someone stupid would have plodded on regardless. And then have spent their time droning on about their postgraduate qualifications, and how difficult they were to obtain.
re 226 I meant the anomaly in the Constitution whereby the president can be elected with 13% of the vote, rather than the number of representatives per state.
234. Human breathing is less than a tenth of the total C20 produced, and thats ever rapidly decreasing. We simply couldn’t plant enough forests to cope with the present amount of greenhouse gases from industry, power generation and transport. Let alone for the expected rate of increase of those things.
246 - Very few people decide not to finish because it is unneccessary to complete as a path to global domination at the head of a multi-billion dollar empire.
Most just give up.
243 - Point taken, but I think there is a case for not denigrating post-grad study. Even if it just represents a challnge of personal fulfilment (take our recent guest writer, who completed a PhD at the same time as law conversion - GDL and LPC). I’m looking forward to doing my doctorate, but without any intent of going into academia full-time - I just like the idea of taking an idea and writing something significant/definitive on a subject, as much for my own satisfaction as anything else.
244 - No, you’ve got it spot on.
Reading a lot of boring books about the 1920’s didn’t prepare Gordon for the current reliving of the 1930s.
re 236 by “proper” doctors I presume you mean people without a doctoral degree who have nothing better than an MB to put against their name?
I had thought Thatcher had a PhD but it seems only to have been a BSc - which I presume would be an MSc these days.
Do you know what I find quite astonishing about the current Brown speculation is just how utterly ineffectual he or his team seem to have been about dealing with it.
Were I a Labour and Brown supporter I’d be beside myself by now that my own leader - under sustained attack - has just done.. well, nothing.
He sat back an allowed rampant general election speculation to run completely out of control last summer which went on to cause him a fatal wound and here we are a year later with another press hare running and gathering pace and he is doing diddly squat about it.
The McCavity tendancy was always likely to be his Achilles heel but even knowing what he is like it is amazing to behold.
Even though I want him to hang on in there it is just increasingly hard to see how he can survive the Conference.
244. That’s right. Clinton won’t be the VP pick, but that is scarily plausible on first reading! Still, Obama would surely take Colorado before Nevada. And I imagine there would be a fair amount of bribery and patronage to get those congressional votes!
But in such a circumstance, who would be VP?
I’m not sure if Balfour had a PhD but he did write a published philosophical treatise. I would hope that Jonathan would accept that was an intellectual endeavour at least as substantial as obtaining a PhD.
252. Sometimes doing something just adds oxygen to the fire.
Gladstone had a double First in Classics and Mathematics.
249 Morus, where are you doing a doctorate?
Research is valueless unless curiosity-driven. Too many PhDs are not curiosity driven, and so they are not worth the paper they are printed on.
In Academic terms, Harold Wilson was probably the PM with the highest qualifications.
Wilson did well at school and, although he missed getting a scholarship, he obtained an exhibition which when topped up by a county grant enabled him to study Modern History at Jesus College, Oxford from 1934. At Oxford, Wilson was moderately active in politics as a member of the Liberal Party but was later influenced by G. D. H. Cole to join the Labour Party. After his first year, he changed his field of study to Philosophy, Politics and Economics. He graduated with “an outstanding First Class Bachelor of Arts degree, with alphas on every paper” in the final examinations.[1] He also received exceptional testimonials from his tutors, including a comment from one that “he is, far and away, the ablest man I have taught so far”.
Although Wilson had two abortive attempts at an All Souls Fellowship, he continued in academia, becoming one of the youngest Oxford University dons of the century at the age of 21. He was a lecturer in Economic History at New College from 1937, and a Research Fellow at University College during the period 1938 to 1945. For much of this time, he was a research assistant to William Beveridge, the Master of the College, working on the issues of unemployment and the trade cycle.
252
But you are making a serious mistake: you assume Labour MPs think about retaining power - the ingrained habit of the Conservative Party.
The Labour Party choses duds and sticks with them until even the most obtuse can see they are useless. Foot 3 years, Kinnock a lifetime? etc. There is no killer instinct.
(rather like the Democrats…)
253- In such a bizarre scenario, there would presumably be no VP until the new president was installed, at which time the Senate would again choose a VP.
Marcus, have you considered this?
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/_OAPs-should-help-sweep-the-streets_-says-Tory-PPC-newsinkent15134.aspx?news=local
Could be a vote winner in Torbay!!
Voting breakdown vs moeny spent for Henley
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/jonathan_isaby/blog/2008/08/06/counting_the_cost_of_defeat_in_the_henley_byelection
Top spenders per vote were ….
Richard McKenzie (Lab) - 1,066 (£14,121.42)
Chris Adams (UKIP) - 843 (£17,056.00)
242. Hmm he’ll not make it that easy. He works his patch. If you’re right I think we’ll have the sort of 3 way squeaker you have suggested in Cardiff South as a possibility. Reason being I’d have expected a greater Tory advance in Newport East in May rather than the Lib Dems closing the gap unless you are thinking purely the national tide will overrun it. Any view on the more general point at 89.
I’ve just been reading the thread backwards, which I don’t think I’ve ever done before. Interesting debate about intellectualism. Certain politicians seem to be able to get themselves a kind of mythical reputation often supported by the media for being ‘intellectual’ only for this to be exposed in high office. Brown is the classic example. I remember David Starkey wrote an article dismissing Brown as an intellectual. He claimed he was one of the few people to have read Brown’s book on Robert Maxton (now there is dedicated learning) and described it as rubbish, badly argued nonsense. Brown has always come across as a man who knows a lot and has litle insight, his speeches are full of phrases invented by others. I don’t ever remember the guy offering a single original thought.
As for Miliband, if people want to doubt him because of his poor A Levels, I don’t know where to start. That’s the sort of schoolboy politics even Quentin Letts would be ashamed of.
One thought about Cameron. He clearly did very well at University, got a 1st, but then gave up. Showed very little ambition as a man of learning. He saw the bright lights of corprate wealth and political power and decided he’d had enough of learning things. So I don’t think he can be considered intellectual in any way.
257 - Not sure yet - I’m applying in October, so need to scope out where has a supervisor that would be right for me.
253 - In such a scenario (where the House didn’t choose a President) the next in line (ie VP chosen by the Senate) would only be the Acting President, until the President was chosen by the House, however long this took. If they don’t choose anyone for the full-term, the Acting President is still not the President, and cannot choose a VP. They are the VP acting in role, just as Cheney was for GWB.
264
Just because he didn’t stay in academia doesn’t mean “he’d had enough of learning things”.
258. So Wilson spent the war as an academic studying unemployment and the trade cycle. Certainly not stupid.
Blairites….Gordomaniacs….What will Cameron’s fans be?
Cameronites? Cameronciples?
263 - It’s a position that only this Labour government have ever found themselves in - fighting for seats against 4 different parties. The Tories in 1997 were not directly challenged by PC, and I can’t remember if the SNP were challenging any Tory seats either.
It does create an awkward battle, because they have to repudiate four policy positions, with the inevitable incoherence nationally, comared to if they were only fighting one or two parties directly.
I was quite proud of ‘Milibandits’
Cameroons, is (I think) becoming standard usage.
268 - For good or ill this appears already to be settled as Cameroons. At least it has the merit of novelty.
For Gordon, I like Brownians. As in Brownian motion, the random movement of particles suspended in fluids. It seems apt for this Government.
262 - Incorrect. The Miss GB candidates spent far more per vote:
Amanda Harrington (Miss GB) - 128 (£9,327.36)
Louise Cole (Miss GB) - 91 (£7,690.59)
“The IMF predicted the UK would grow by 1.4% in 2008 and 1.1% in 2009, down from the 1.8% for 2008 and 1.7% for 2009 that it predicted in July.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7545447.stm
If memory serves, Darling’s Budget was predicated on growth in 2009 of 2.75% to 3%.
265- I presume the latter part of your post is a hoax (or at least I hope so!).
Are high academic qualifications a guide to your ability to do the job as PM, not much evidence to say they are.
Its like the argument about, ‘culture’ does liking, classical music, quality literature etc. make you a better person, well there’s plenty of evidence to show the opposite.
All the European dicators, were classical music fans, and hated jazz or popular music, therefore we should ban classical music, it produces bloody thirsty fanatics.
Case in point, Reinhard Heydrich, son of the founder of the First Halle Conservatory for Music, Theatre and Teaching. Reinhard was a musical prodigy and a concert pianist, who was obsessed with classical music. Would Reinhard been such an evil man, if he’d been a jazzfan?
Name me one evil blood thirsty dicator who liked Armstrong?
p.s.
Musso’s son becam a jazz musician, but his father hated it!!
Ah yes Cameroons.
Brownite sounds like a bowel disease.
265 - “One thought about Cameron. He clearly did very well at University, got a 1st, but then gave up. Showed very little ambition as a man of learning. He saw the bright lights of corprate wealth and political power and decided he’d had enough of learning things.”
I’m not sure ‘gave up’ is the right phrase. Maybe he decided that it would be a better use of his talents to do things rather than write about other people doing them. You know the kind of thing - becoming an MP, making speeches so good that they make a major impact on the political landscape, becoming Conservative Party leader, making the party electable, etc etc - all that stuff he’s so far achieved. Not to mention the possibility of being a very great prime minister in the future. Others, more academically minded but less talented, will no doubt write theses about him.
But leaving aside routine PB banter, I think there is a serious point here. He is ambitious and dedicated to winning, in a way that no Conservative leader since Thatcher has been. And a jolly good thing too.
276
There were any number of articles about Mr Bush being the ‘first MBA president’, suggesting his business background would make him an excellent ‘government CEO’. (I think Mr Bloomberg showed how well this could have worked out.)
“Name me one evil blood thirsty dicator who liked Armstrong? ”
Papa Doc Duvalier, and Kim Il Sung were fans.
Speaking personally, I found that post A level I really couldn’t apply myself selflessly to a very narrow subject. I am very much of the type that I like to know a reasonable amount about a reasonable amount, rather than trying to know everything about one subject. I therefore have a large collection of academic tomes on many subjects on my bookshelf and actually do seem to know a reasonable amount about a reasonable amount. I certainly wouldn’t want to be classed as an intellectual.
267 - He worked as a statistician and economist for the coal industry during the war.
I know this will come across badly, but it is clearly better that he used his considerable skills in a crucial industry for the war effort than on the front-line. That is in no way undermining the incredible contribution and bravery of those who fought. But it’s horses for courses and it was clearly sensible to make use of Wilson’s specialist knowledge behind a desk rather than behind a gun.
275 - No - Cheney took over as acting President twice from GWB, under the recusal provision of the XXVth Amendment. Once for an operation under general anaesthetic, and one other time.
In neither case was he ’sworn in’ as President - he was acting President.
220,226,247 - state allocations of representatives in US House is adjusted every ten year on basis of decenial census, as per US Constitution. (However, this did NOT happen in 1920s because it was blocked by rural interests which dominated Congress back then.)
Below is the original 1789 apprortionment of US representatives per state, as stated in US Constitution (Article 1, Section 2):
CN = 5
DE = 1
GA = 3
MD = 6
MA = 8 (including ME)
NH = 3
NJ = 4
NY = 6
NC = 5
PA = 8
RI = 1
SC = 5
VA = 10 (including KY)
Total = 65
And here is the first reapportionment, following the 1790 census:
CN = 7
DE = 1
GA = 2
KY = 2
MD = 8
MA = 14
NH = 4
NJ = 5
NY = 10
NC = 10
PA = 13
RI = 2
SC = 6
TN = 1
VT = 2
VA = 19
Total = 106
The intial reapportionment was conducted under provisions of federal law passed by the 1st Congress. This provided that each state would receive 1 representative for every 33,000 inhabitants (with each slave counted as 3/5 of a person, and excluding Indians not taxed); note that each state was entitled to at least 1 representative regardless of population. This created a House of 105 members in the 1790s, and a House of 141 members in first decade of the 19th century. In 1811, Congress increased the quota to 35k which created House of 181 members. In 1821 the quota was again increased, to 40k which created House of 213 members; and in 1831 quota was upped to 47,700 (=240 representatives).
Note that in admitting new states, Congress would accord the new state a certain number of representatives (1 or more) pending the next census; these were extra to the existing overall siz of the House.
In 1841-42, Congress made a major change in the reapportionment formula. Using a fixed membership of 213, each state was apportioned 1 representative for every 70,680 inhabitants (again with slaves counted as 3/5 of person, and excluding Indians not taxed); then each state was allocated an additional member for every remaining fraction above 35,340. In addition, for the first time Congress required that US Representatives be elected from single-member districts. Interestingly, when President John Tyler signed this reapportionment bill, he included a statement questioning the constitutionality of the districting provision, which was condemned by congressional leaders including former president John Quincy Adams.
Following the 1850 census, yet another change was made. Under the new formula, the size of the House was first set, then the total inhabitants (for apportionment purposes) in each state was divided by that number (233 for 1850s), with each state guaranteed at least 1 representative. Then any unallocated seats were awarded to states with the largest remainders. This method was used for the remainder of the 19th century. However, because states with static populations protested the loss of representation following the new census, the overall size of the US House was increased: to 241 in 1860s, 283 in 1870s, 325 in 1880s, 356 in 1890s, and 386 in first decade of the 20th century.
Note that following the Civil War and the granting of voting rights to freed slaves, the 3/5 provision went in abeyance. The 14th Amendment provided for the reduction of a state’s apportionment in line with the number of qualified electors who right to vote was denied; however this was dead letter until the Civil Rights revolution of the 1950s-60s.
In 1911, Congress set the total size of the House at 435 (anticipating the admission of Arizona & New Mexico the next year) where it has stayed ever since, with the exception of the late 1950s when the admission of Alaska and Hawaii temporarily increased the House to 437 members.
Also in 1911, the apportionment formula was tweeked; first each state was assigned one representative (the constitutional minimum) then remaining seats were apportioned according to overall quota, with final seats going to states with largest remaining fractions.
276- Eating habits aren’t much of a guide, either. Hitler was a devoted vegetarian while our first black president, Clinton the Great, ate Big Macs by the shovelful.
269 The SNP were certainly. Even now from 2005 figures notionally top Tory targets in Scotland should be SNP. The SNP surge has probably rendered that moot though. Do you agree Wales is far more serious though. In Scotland they bump against Tories and Lib Dems slightly but ovverwhelmingly the fight is against the SNP. In Wales it really is like a crazy jigsaw.
On Newport East your reasoning then is national tide will do it.
re 264. I seem to recall that Brown’s book on Robert Maxton was his PhD thesis.
What I find remarkable about Brown’s intellectual capabilities is the surprising narrowness of his vocabulary. One of the reasons he is so awful to listen to is his inability to make what he says interesting through the use of words. For some reason Brown does not have it.
In terms of brain-power I would think that he trails Cameron by some distance.
280
Strange friends you have!
283- Yes, this is a common practice. But what is your authority for the proposition that the VP chosen by the Senate would never become something other than an “acting President?”
281 - It’s also worth noting that in the law it is routine for the most brilliant students to leave academia to make their fortune. It is common for practitioners to write serious academic work while still in private practice.
284 However, this did NOT happen in 1920s because it was blocked by rural interests which dominated Congress back then.) - How could they defy the Constitution.
In US Constitution the only provision for “Acting President” is Amendment XXV which provides for cases of presidential disability.
289 - The XXIIth Amendment makes quite clear that in the absence of a President chosen by the House, the VP chosen by the Senate ’shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President’.
Whilst under circumstances of death now means the VP *becomes President* they were *acting and unable to appoint a VP* when the XXIIth was passed (thus the need for the XXVth later on). Prior to the XXVth, this part of the XXIIth applied to Clause 6 of Article II, which indicates that the VP could *act* as President ‘until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected’ - in this case, I would interpret that as until such time as the House chooses a President (election).
Another reading could say that the House only has until Inauguration Day to choose, after which the VP *becomes* President, but I think if that were the case, Congress would engineer a choice of VP so that one of the Presidential candidates would become President.
291 - They defied the Constitution by stonewalling reapportionment bills. But in 1929, a permanent system of reapportionment was established that did not depend upon specific congressional enactment following each census.
292 - No, prior to the XXVth there is *only* the provision for the VP to *act* as President, not to become President. Allowing the VP (as Acting President) to appoint a VP in his stead is the significant change, as it means that the VP has *become* the President.
Prior to the XXVth, there was only *acting*, as refereced in Article II clause 6 - because it includes “until the disability be removed” (ie the President is elected when not old enough.)
287. Maybe it’s Brown’s complete absence of imagination that explains the poor vocabulary? He resorts to endless stock phrases and doesn’t know how to appeal to the gut. Despite the seeming narrowness of his ability, he was of course pampered as a prodigy in his schooldays, which I’m sure made him feel like the cream of the crop. I’m not even convinced now that he’s prepared to acknowledge his weaknesses, so we just get him ploughing on with the same production figures.
293 - Believe the administration of John Tyler, the 1st vice president to become president following the death of a president, established that, in the absence of anyone elected as president, a succeeding vice president is not “acting” but has full presidential powers.
But then I’m not a black-robbed robber.
286 - Yes, national tide being more important close to England!
I need to head off, but would love to discuss the constitutional crises engendered by the XXIIth and XXVth Amendments tomorrow, if you clever souls are still around! On Friday: can the VP running for President vote to break a 50-50 tied senate vote to elect his running mate as the new VP? Gore/Lieberman 2000?
?sdrawkcab daerht eht gnidaer fo tniop eht s’tahW .462
293- Morus, I see you’ve given this some thought! While I respect your earnest effort to review the relevant passages and interpret them, I would come to a different view. I believe the idea is that, if a President is still in office but is unable to perform his/her duties for some reason, the VP can “act” as President. However, if there is no President because of death, resignation, or failure to elect a President as in the highly improbable scenario above, the VP would become the “real” President. Usually, this would just involve a VP being sworn in as President. But in the proposed scenario, I believe what would happen is that the VP would be sworn in as VP at noon on January 20 and then would immediately thereafter be sworn in as President. Then the normal procedures for choosing a new VP would ensue, as happened in 1973, for example.
re 284 Thanks for that. So even with the original apportionment the presidency could be won with the votes of only 23% of the representatives.
296
There’s a theory that praising kids for being clever, results in lack of confidence, and leads to them being extremely risk averse.
http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/
264. I usually read threads backwards when I come to one late. It seems like a much less daunting task than doing them forwards for some reason.
278. Quite. Becoming a successful Prime Minister is surely a far greater achievement than simply getting a PhD.
298 286 - Yes, national tide being more important close to England!
- That may need qualification. Unles you think the Alyn and Deeside will go Tory…
re 293 I take it to read that Congress has only until Inauguration day to break the deadlock or else the VP will be sworn in as president.
How would it be engineered that a presidential candidate would become vice president? Presumably the house and the senate would vote simultaneously and the results announced on Jan 6th would have the Democrat elected as VP whatever the representatives did. Surely once elected the senate could not rescind this decision?
But then I’m not a black-robbed robber. 297 - Something you don’t like about the Justices.
300. So when Hillary comes to power, she can choose Bill as VP the next day, without worrying about appearances!
300 - Ok, one more comment! That might well be how it would happen, but I have legal concerns. Surely the XXIIth can’t refer to the XXVth, and the case is best described as being of the class of a VP acting for a President under disability soon to be resolved.
In the case of a 37-year-old being elected, the ‘disability’ would pass, so Article II implies the VP acts for an uninagurated President, until the disability has been removed. Similarly, the impasse in the House would be forced to pass eventually (maybe after mid-terms).
I suppose there is a difference, because the uninaugurated President hasn’t even been identified in the tied-House example, but I still feel that the XXIIth only allows the Senate to choose a VP who can act as President, rather than ‘if the House can’t decide, the Senate chooses the President’.
The President was always to have been chosen by the people, represented in the House. The XXIIth also precedes the XVIIth, which allowed popular election of Senators - so an impasse in the House would have led to the VP/President being chosen by ‘the States’ not by ‘the People’. That is bad if the VP is ‘acting President’, I think it would be against the spirit of the Constitution if this were a permanent President, especially as they would have half the role in confirming the new VP as well.
Imagine, as a composite problem, the President running for re-election with his incumbant VP also on the ticket, sees a ‘tied’ House and a 50-50 Senate.
The VP would be casting a vote to elect him ‘President’, rather than to make himself ‘VP and acting President until the impasse in the House was resolved’. For a Constitution based on checks and balances, this would be completely beyond the spirit of the law.
Anyway, I’m now very late, so will come back tomorrow and read your responses proving I am an idiot! Night all.
Been stuck in spreadsheets before auditor comes tomorrow so catching up on thread.
Part of, if not the main reason, why Gordon had such good press was that he had spent a great deal of time befriending Murdoch and the Editors, Mr Dacre, Ms Wade particularly but IIRC correctly the Telegraph Editor was joshed after Gordon’s conference speech for leaping to his feet to applaud. Not surprising his friends welcomed his assumption of office.
Even now the Sun and Mail still haven’t fallen out with him and editorials still talk of this honest, hardworking, intellectual man who is charming in private while their papers report hurled mobiles, broken furniture, tears and policy failures, lack of leadership etc.
307- Indeed, it’s almost as good as those juicy presidential pardons that can be doled out on January 19!
310. I think I’m going to break something large and expensive when Karl Rove and Scooter Libby get theirs, even though I know its coming…
Seriously though, what is the purpose in the President being allowed to overturn a jury’s conviction?
289/292. The Twelfth Amendment makes reference to the original Constitution (Article Two) if the House shall fail to choose a president “then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.”
As we know, when Tyler assumed office in 1841, he ignored the bit about acting as President, and declared himself President, a convention that was followed in subsequent cases of succession.
Had matters rested there, it would probably be the case that if a deadlocked House arose, the VP would declare himself or be acknowledged as President, following Tyler’s lead.
However, the much more recent 20th amendment which replaced, in part, the 12th Amendment, repeats that “the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified”
So it appears that a VP-elect in such circumstances really would not be able to call himself President.
308- Morus, this is kind of fun even if it is completely irrelevant in reality (as this is unlikely to happen any time in the next thousand years or so)! The great thing is that the Senate WOULDN’T be choosing a President; they only choose a VP. The VP is sworn in on January 20 and, uh oh, there’s no President! No problem, because there is a VP who can ascend to the vacant office.
Granted, there is an argument to be made for your side, and I’m sure it would be made vociferously by some folks if this problem ever arose. But if this were ever resolved in a court, I’m pretty confident that my side would win, if only because it would be very, very bad to have such an unstable presidency where the collective will of the House could sweep out the President at any time. This would be very bad from separation/balance of powers standpoint, anyway. We have never had a Cardinal Richelieu standing in for a princeling to come, and I doubt if we would end up with such a scenario.
311- I don’t know the origin of this delightful executive privilege, but perhaps someone here who has studied the issue can inform us of its rationale. It does indeed seem, to use a legal term, arbitrary and capricious.
267. That’s a bit harsh on Harold!
He would have been of far more use to the country preparing and researching for the welfare state for completion after the war. Even if you don’t like the welfare state it’s durability has been remarkable! Somebody obviously did some very sound thinking for generations to stick with the system. If it had been pointless or not workable it would have been tested to destruction. The only thing about the welfare state one could critise it for now is it creates pockets of dependents and the longevity of the population has caused it to be re-evaluated on grounds of expense i.e. Shifting the age of retirement up and equalisasing the pension age.
You would not have sent Einstein into battle as a soldier! Wilson by all accounts was a very intellegent man indeed!
Latest Gallup Tracker :
McCain 44% .. Obama 46%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109312/Gallup-Daily-Obama-46-McCain-44.aspx
Couple of questions. When the House and Senate are electing Presidents and Vice Presidents do they have to stick to people who were on the ballot or could anybody stand/be nominated?
Is it the new house or the old one that votes ? If its the former does not it meet until something like the 6th of january. with inauguration set in law as the 20th that doesn’t give much time for rangling?
Fianlly does Obamas slight cooling in the polls increase Hilarys chances as VP as a big name safe bet?
317 Not while she’s married to Bill I reckon.
evening all, I guess we must be in for a YouGov political poll at the weekend as I have just completed a poll for them as a member of the panel.
287.
“In terms of brain-power I would think that he trails Cameron by some distance.”
Lord!!! If he’s THAT bad then we are all doomed. Cameron’s loquacity roughly matches that of Nigel Havers. Moderate to good actors both. But brainpower? A phrase of John McEnroe comes to mind.
317. They would be choosing from those with equal votes in the Electoral College.
http://therightstudent.com/2008/08/paris-for-president.html
what are the odds for Paris being president?
320, yes if only they had the colossal intellectual equipment possessed by El Cleggino.
287. Having the most brilliant mind does not mean an individual will be a first-rate politician (see Enoch Powell for details). Likewise, being a first-rate politician does not require a brilliant, or even very good, brain. In those circumstances where a politician is not particularly intellectually gifted, what is needed is a good team around him or her, the members of which are given properly delegated tasks and trusted to get on with them. Of more use to a leader is a good instinct and empathy.
320. And your qualifications, friend wage slave, for judging someone who got 12 O-levels, 3 A-Levels (all grade A), an S Level (Grade 1), a First from Oxford, and was described by Professor Vernon Bogdanor as one of his ablest pupils, are what exactly?
320. You underestimate Cameron. I drove him a couple of years ago and was surprised at the facts about some obscure political event from 3 decades ago. He is very well read so don’t let the Labour taunts of shallow salesman mislead you.
317. Yellow submarine. I would say yes to the Hillary VP question. I have reversed by RED positon on Hillary as VP over the lsat few days.
How do PBers think Obama’s price would move if he did choose Hillary? I think he would be close to a sure thing.
320 - wage slave - Cameron read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford, gaining a first class honours degree.
Your brainpower has gained you what, exactly?
Gordon Brown provides the classic definition of an intellectual - one who has been educated beyond the level of his intelligence.
317- The Electoral College ballots are not officially tablulated until the new Congress convenes in January, so it would have to be new Congress that dealt with the mess.
308 - I think you are putting too much store in which amendment came first, which isn’t legally relevant. It is all law and all has equal status. It is quite possible for earlier law to be interpreted by reference to law which did not exist when it was enacted. I think Sea Shanty Irish’s interpretation is, in practice, the one which would apply if the interpretation was ever tested.
320. I object to people like you besmirching Cameron’s ability or any Tories for that matter just because they are a Tory. The Left are complete snobs in relation to academic qualifications obtained by people: What puzzles me about the left given the academic snobishness of them is the lefts complete failure to advocate a compelling alternative to Capitalism.
It is out of order and party identification for politicians is by no means a way to measure people.
327- I doubt it would be anywhere close to a sure thing. I’ve always wondered why their partnership on a presidential ticket has been commonly described as a “dream ticket.” I’d call it more of a nightmare ticket, since these two don’t seem compatible at all. Any brief elation from the pairing would soon descend into stories of bickering, disagreement, cross-purposes, and of course the ubiquitous Bill. Why would this be a dream come true for Democrats, Obama, or anyone but Republicans?
331? The VP becomes Pres if the incumbent kicks the bucket I thought.
153 - Cameron’s laid back approach until the time to twist the knife has some similarities to Obama’s.
“The people does not seem to buy that a vote for Mac is a vote for a third W Bush term…. (apart UKpaul, I mean).”
Not McCain the person, I just see McCain as weak and (like Bush) guided by shadowy figures. The maverick thing is unravelling and, as Socrates said, that’s his usp gone.
317 - They can choose anyone with at least three electoral votes. Rogue electors could mean this includes somebody not on the ballot but that is unlikely.
I think the idea of Clinton as VP is as unlikely as it has been for a while. Although Obama’s lead in the polls has slackened, there is no real indication this is because he is failing to attract Hillary’s supporters, nor anything akin to panic or freefall needing emergency measures. The factors against a Clinton VP nomination (not really in her interests, doesn’t look totally credible, he doesn’t like the idea) remain and it is probably wasted money betting on it.
333. We agree!
If Gordon can survive until next spring and low ratings persist,then Labour may decide it is best to let Gordon take the rap of an election defeat rather than taint a new leader.
182 - Hopefuly the networks will now realise two things - firstly that the elctorate know they are peddling back on McCain and they need to do more to analyse his campaign, secondly that the electorate are getting a lot of information about what *others* think about Obama but that they *need* more about his ideas and policies as they still feel they don’t know him.
As usual they are driven by viewing figures and hopefully this will aid the switch.
319 - I also received an invite to partake in their poll.
334 - The debate is about whether he becomes acting or actual President if instead he becomes President because a VP is selected but no President (which is technically possible). The fact he becomes actual President on death of the President is well established but of course there is no precedent for highly theoretical case we are discussing and the Constitution is ambiguous.
Hopefully and electorate.
I really would like a sans serif typeface to be able to see what I am typing more easily!
191 - “For the record, I’m all for using deception against an opponent, and think mass-propaganda is great.”
Aha, you are my nemesis M. Magnan - the 180 degree opposite.
re 313 why so unlikely? It has happened before and 1824 showed what a mess it was.
It could easily have happened in 1968 if the Dem/Rep race had been a bit closer, and with many southern states voting for Wallace then deadlock in the House might have been intractable and the Senate would easily have voted for Humphrey. Watergate might never have been.
325/328.
Modesty forbids me from describing my work in coaching Oxford and Imperial College graduates for higher things. I have never registered lower than 149 on any IQ score and normally top 160. And I have never been daft enough to wish to be Prime Minister!
Getting a good degree can come from any combination of initial advantage, hard work, superior teaching and abnormal intelligence. PhDs are another matter: obsessiveness is a pretty useful charactaristic as is perseverence. But so many doctorates these days are about ‘questions’ that nobody sensible would consider worth asking, let alone answering.
I have never yet found a better pillow than a certain Oxford graduate who also makes a marvellous lasagne. Consequently I do not feel the need to keep searching!
321. The 12th amendment deals with this. They would choose from the three candidates receiving most electoral college votes. This would for practical purposes probably mean just the two main candidates, but would make life interesting if there were a faithless elector (John Edwards got a vote in 2004 from Minnesota) or if there were a serious third party candidate in play who could win at least one state.
re 317 the House chooses from the top 3 with electoral votes. For instance in 1976 when one of the Washington electors voted for Reagan, if Carter and Ford had finished 269/268 then Reagan could have found himself president 4 years early despite only having won 1 vote.
Just got in to see a large move against Obama on Sporting Index’s markets. They seem to be catching up with the US markets and, for my money, present an excellent buying opportunity. I simply can’t see McCain winning the election looking at the states he has to take to do so. So Obama represents very good value indeed (can’t imagine he’ll go much lower?) Or do others think I’m missing something?
302. Great article. It’s interesting how it suggests those who are brilliant at certain things tend to be less inclined to work on their weaknesses and also to be risk averse. Two characteristics that make me think of Gordon.
re 336 the 12th amendment states no minimum number of electoral college votes to get on the ballot.
344- I thought we were talking about a scenario where 1) There is a tie in the electoral college and 2) The House fails to elect a President. This did not happen in 1824, or at any other time in U.S. history.
332.
I suspect a certain anti-Tory paranoia Martin. Besmirched??!!
The only lady I ever proposed to (and she accepted) was (and still is) a Conservative. Strange creatures, women.
I attack Tories for their Toryism which is a dangerous form of intellectual laziness. Cameron is hardly worth a mention were it not for his position: not even a serious Tory -just Blair re-visited.
336. It’s the top three in terms of EVs, not those with more than 3 EVs.
351. It very nearly did in 1800, though that was before the 12th amendment, and indeed was the main driver behind it being passed.
The tracking polls have been fluctuating greatly because of the three day average. In actual fact, if you look longer term, with a ten day average Obama’s lead has remained at between three and four percent for ages.
Of course that doesn’t make good news copy.
(figures are for Gallup via Emory University Political Science Professor Alan Abramowitz)
Despite all the fevered speculation on here this afternoon, the relevant clauses were written well before there was event a concept of universal adult suffrage, or even elected senators. If such a situation as 1824 happened again would the representatives and senators be able to escape the moral outrage which would occur if they didn’t elect the right people, i.e. the ones who won the popular vote? Or would they still vote party line and damn the consequences?
Perhaps our American friends could comment.
re 351 the tie is immaterial, all that would be needed to trigger the 12th amendment is no-one getting a majority, as happened in 1824 when Adams with 84 EVs “beat” Jackson who had 99 EVs
356- I would expect that the members of Congress would contrive some explanation of why they had to vote for their own respective parties’ candidates and act accordingly. Maybe it would be “my party’s candidate won the popular vote” or “my party’s candidate won the most electoral votes” or “my state voted for my party’s candidate” or “my congressional district voted for my party’s candidate” or “the country cannot afford four years of so and so as President,” etc.
356. “would the representatives and senators be able to escape the moral outrage which would occur if they didn’t elect the right people, i.e. the ones who won the popular vote?”
Well, since the electoral system itself does not guarantee this [2000 most recently], it’s hard to see why the House should take it into consideration…
357- Yes, but tie or no tie in the electoral college, the scenario is still extremely unlikely. A House tie that cannot be broken in any number of ballots is very unlikely.
352: “I attack Tories for their Toryism which is a dangerous form of intellectual laziness…. Cameron is …not even a serious Tory”
Let’s get this straight:
Toryism = Intellectually laziness.
Cameron is a Tory.
Therefore Cameron is intellectually lazy.
But Cameron is not even a ’serious Tory’.
So Cameron is someone who is not even seriously intellectually lazy.
Maybe they’ve dumbed down IQ tests since my day, but this doesn’t sound - how shall I put it? - the most intellectually rigorous way of attacking the Conservatives.
Have you considered an alternative hypothesis? That intelligent people - who for example get Firsts from Oxford - might hold views different from you?
352. Blair got a 2:1 IIRC where as Cameron got a First: Shorley Cameron is an improvement on the Blair model!
361, also, IQ tests are not a good way for defining intelligence. They can be useful for logical reasoning of linguistic or spatial ability, but logic alone does not a Prime Minister make.
Candidate team’s reactions to Paris Hilton’s ad. Compare and contrast.
McCain - “It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - including both alternatives and drilling. Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan.”
Obama - “Whatever…”
(actually, the Obama team missed a trick - to be totally accurate it should have been “Like, whatever…”
364. My reaction to her energy plan: “loves it!”
Blair is immediately discounted as any kind of intellectual in my opinion because he chose to spend his free time swanning around in the Carribean with the rich and famous.
Is Cameron different? Who knows? But I think we have a right to be told what sort of man it is that wants to be PM. He obviously thinks otherwise and will be as opaque as he possibly can be.
357 How was that not a majority. Were there other candidates.
3 months to SUPER MCCAIN victory!!!!
360. Yes, I’d agree with that. It’s not unlikely but not out of the question that an election might go to the House, on a tied EC vote or third party intervention, but to believe that the House might not be able to choose someone (from just three candidates) really takes a leap of faith.
Looking at the example cited in [344], there were majority Democrat delegations in 26 states after the 1968 election, to 19 for the Republicans and five states were tied (although this might have been slightly more to the Democrats’ favour if we imagine a presidential vote where Nixon failed to get a majority). While a number of Southern states would no doubt have voted for Wallace initially, so depriving Humphrey of a majority, the Senate would have already voted for the vice-president and would have chosen the Democrat Muskie, given the majority the Democrats enjoyed at the time. Could they have held out voting for Wallace continually, to no effective end? Surely at some point a deal would have been done.
US Presidential Pardon
The pardoning power of US presidents is established in US Constitution in Article II, Section 2. It was modeled on the pardoning power of the British crown, and is unlimited except that does not apply (directly) to impleachment.
The pardoning power was put into the US Constitution as part of the movement to bolster the independence and authority of the president. Alexander Hamilton suggested it. Attempts were made in the Constitutional Convention of 1789 to restrict it (for example, to limit it to “after conviction” and to make treason an exception) but these were defeated. For Hamilton’s defense of the pardoning power, see Federalist #74.
367. Yes, William Crawford won 41 EC votes and Henry Clay 37. Jackson also won a comfortable relative majority in the popular vote, though not an absolute one. Even so, John Quincy Adams won 13 state delegations in the House, to Jackson’s seven and Crawford’s four.
368 And 9 months to Watford’s relegation to League 1!!!!!!!!!!!
361 I believe Wage Slave is suffering, rather like Alice asking how she will get in, in that he has jumped to a conclusion which he has failed to justify and thus rendered his entire endeavour full of sound and fury, signifyng nothing.
Rather like all left wing politics, ever (irony)
373 ugh, my grasp of English…
He has predicated from a conclusion which he has failed to justify..
372 Punter. Will the former Watford Conservative PPC serve longer in prison than Watford FC in the Championship ??
366
“But I think we have a right to be told what sort of man it is that wants to be PM. ”
I think the ‘Cameron on Cameron’ book is intended to answer some of those questions.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cameron-Conversations-Dylan-Jones/dp/0007285361/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218048171&sr=1-1
And he seems to be doing Q&A sessions all over the place.
http://www.selfcast.com/Conservatives
I believe small ‘town hall’ meetings like this are supposed to have helped Mr McCain’s chances in the Republican candidate race, perhaps that’s where Mr Cameron got the idea?
372 Punter - are you one of those here whose IQ is less than 150? Or more likely 50???
375 YOHOHO Jack - remember Mr Oakley is just a young man making his way in life and I am sure the judge will reflect that!
377 Ave it. I’m sure you’re correct …. but the magistrates nickname of “Hang em high Hilda” is less than encouraging !!
367 - Yes, which is why no one got the required EV majority.
By 1820 the Federalist Party was all but kaput, leaving the Democratic-Republican Party as the only national party. That year, James Monroe was elected unopposed, and lost the vote of just one elector (who wanted George Washington to remain the only president elected by unanimous vote of the Electoral College).
In 1824, there were four D-R candidates:
–William Crawford of Georgia, Monroe’s Secretary of the Treasury, nominated by the D-R congressional caucus
–Andrew Jackson, US Senator from Tennessee, nominated by the TN Legislature
–Henry Clay, Speaker of the US House, nominated by Kentucky Legislature
–John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, Monroe’s Secretary of State
Results of 1824 election:
Jackson = 99 EV
Adams = 84 EV
Crawford = 41 EV
Clay = 37 EV
With no candidate receiving an EV majority, the election went to the US House, which had to choose between the top three candidates. Where John Q. Adams prevailed and was elected president. Then one of this first official acts was to appoint Henry Clay as Secretary of State. Which caused howls of outrage from Jackson and his supporters, who alleged that a “corrupt bargain” had transpired.
This election led to the demise of the caucus system of presidential nominations, to the election of Andrew Jackson and defeat of JQ Adams in 1828, and the split of the D-R party and the rise of its successors: the Democratic Party (not “Democrat Party” that is simply GOP historical ignorance) and the Whig Party.
By 1820 the Federalist Party was all but kaput. That year, the only candidate for the p
Isn’t it about time for a new thread? Let’s bring it full circle here just before the end… as for me, I’m still at the height of Gordomania!
380- On that note, do any of you know anyone who still swears up and down that Brown is a great PM?
No answers? Anyone from Brown himself to the crazy cat lady down the street will do…
Socrates et al
Oddly enough I have also recently taken sometimes to reading threads backwards.
This is partly I think because the “refresh” button for some reason takes you to the end of the refreshed thread each time these days instead of leaving you where you were as it did before.
It’s less confusing to read backwards than you might think, since even when you’re reading forwards you’re constantly scrolling back to rediscover whatever post the person was responding to already - in fact it probably saves quite a bit of time.
378 alternative punishment: mandatory attendance for one year at all Watford home games?? Or even worse all Luton games???
380 I’d say my opinion of him is no worse than it was in August 2007.
382. There are probably some who think he was a great Chancellor but not suited to being PM for some reason. It’s the main reason I think Labour would be bound to do better under another leader. I don’t care what the polls say and it might not win an election, bu surely they wouldn’t be less popular than Gordon.
Good night.
382 Gabble, Stephen Pound and the cast and crew of Holby City
382 and 38% of the presenters on Price-Drop TV
US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2008
Since McCain and Obama wrapped up the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations, there have been many significant developments. But nothing definitive with respect to the result.
Indeed, not counting the overall political climate, which is anti-Bush and pro-Democratic, there are only three truly definitive events:
1. VP choices of McCain and Obama
2. Democratic and Republican national conventions
3. Presidential debates
WHAT’S IN A NAME?
Here is Washington State, under the new “Top Two” primary law, candidates do NOT file by party. Instead, they are allowed to state a party preference, which can be anything their little hearts desire, provided it is limited to 16 characters AND is not (obviously) obscene.
Each candidate for partisan (as opposed to nonpartisan) office is thus listed as “prefers _____”
Note that most avowed Democrats are listed as “prefers Democratic Party” although there are a handful of (ignorant) ones who are listed as “prefers Democrat Party”. Either way, they are not hidding their light under a bushel.
The same can NOT be said for many Republicans, however.
Most Republican hopefuls are listed as “prefers Republican Party”. BUT there are quite a few listed as “prefers Grand Old Party” or “prefers GOP” or “prefers GOP anti-Tax Party”, and similar.
Clearly those “prefering” to list themselves as “Grand Old Party” or “GOP” are NOT exactly eager to associate themselves with the Republican Party in the minds of voters who slept through civics class or are otherwise unaware that Grand Old Party is a euphamism for Republican.
Wonder why????
382. Vera Duckworth!
all this talk of 1sts and 2:1s’. Surely the point is that most politicians, like sadly a growing section of the unemployed, underemployed and unemployable have degrees in didly squat. They study nonsense subjects taught by pseudo intellectuals frequently remote from the real world.
Do we really need 10,000 or 100,000 graduates each year in subjects like English and History, Politics and Philosophy, Media Studies or Sociology? As a country we dont have enough engineers and scietists and the number of teenagers taking A levels in England or Highers in Scotland in Modern languages has fallen through the floor during the 11 years of this hopeless government. In Scotland the fall is around 15% in 10 years of those taking French, German, Spanish or Italian.
I see thousands of CVs every year and sadly my experience of most school leavers and graduates in this country today is they cannot read, write or spell. Indeed most cannot even use UK spellcheck.
If this Government stopped kidding on youngsters that only graduates succeed then we could close down half the micky mouse colleges which have morphed into University status and concentrate the funds on schools, further education colleges and proper universities teaching subjects which are relevant to the 21st century. Certainly we need some historians, philosophers etc etc but not tens of thousands of them. Maybe if this government, whose members all had the benefit of free higher education, concentrated on true academic establishments of distinction then once again we could have our students studying free of charge instead of finding themselves unemployable after 2 or 3 years attending a “university” with £20-30,000 of debts unless they have parents fortunate enough to spend their hard earned savings subsidising them!
391 good call - let’s keep the university attendees down to no more than 20% of school leavers, give proper support for those from working class backgrounds who want to go and ensure that those who don’t want to go to university have the chance to get on!
389- Of your three great events, the first two seem big and exciting now but will probably have faded to insignificance by election day. I would also add a fourth and a fifth item, both of which I would put on the top of the list: cash and the media. We have yet to see the bulk of the cash spent, and it will do as much to shape this campaign as anything else. The media will also play a major role in how they choose to cover the late-breaking developments, particularly as we get well into October.
New thread - The mad mad world of Barack V-P choice betting
375 Who knows. It feels like Prison if you ever watch Watford playing football….
395 HAHAHAHA funniest thing you have said.
Do you go there on day supervision then???!!!!
Re. 391. ‘Do we really need 10,000 or 100,000 graduates each year in subjects like English and History, Politics and Philosophy, Media Studies or Sociology?’
Such degrees keep people’s options open to a whole range of careers which require one to have critical faculties and be able to communicate ideas effectively; journalism, broadcasting, public administration etc. And you’d be surprised how many English and History graduates are on the boards of major banks and other companies - in many ways it’s a better preparation than a degree in accounting.
You’re quite right on foreign languages though - couldn’t agree more.
393 - faded perhaps, but doubt that insignificance is really true. Believe they will be more significant than what is being bandied about as earthshaking on pb and other venues.
You make good point re: money and media. Think coverage will be a mixed bag, though likely leaning toward Obama because he’s such a mediagenic candidate. But it seems clear that Obama is going to enjoy a significant dollar advantage, itself a sign of the GOP’s dire straights.
Agree that late-breaking developments can have a major potential impact. Still remember how HHH breaking with LBJ on the bombing of North Vietnam helped narrow the 1968 race. Also possibility that late news about W’s likely DWI arrest(s) helped narrow the 2000 race.
One other factor: field campaigns and turnout. Note that for all the howling about Ohio 2004, I’ve yet to meet a serious political operative (as opposed to polemnicist) who thinks that the GOP stole the Buckeye State that year. Instead, to a woman/man they believe that the Kerry campaign screwed their candiate royally by failing to set sufficiently high turnout goals for themselves in Ohio. What happened was that they met their turnout targets, but they were too low, because the GOP turnout operation was underestimated by the lead-heads running the Kerry campaign.
This is NOT a mistake that the Obama people are likely to make, in Ohio or anywhere else.
Hmm… Not sure I can see that after there being a post-Tony ‘Brown Bounce’, that getting rid of Gordon would result in a ‘Blairite Bounce’ when they revert to type.
What is surprising is that the Blairites seem to be able to get away with an approach which may well result in a ‘We must have a contest to get rid of the damaging speculation’ announcement from Gordon, when it is they who have been masterminding most of that ‘damaging speculation’..
397 Any views on 89.
391
Isn’t the top-up fees / student debt changing patterns of study? With students considering the value-added by different degrees in the job market?
400. Well, I’m no expert on Newport. Surprised to read at 89 that Labour are ’shell-shocked’ in Newport. Their loss of the council was surprising, yes, but far from being their most shocking result of the night (that honour probably goes to Torfaen, with Llanelli a close second).
Agree that Newport West looks seriously winnable for the Tories. Still not sure about Newport East. It’s one thing the Lib Dems getting close in a low turnout election, in a general I’m not convinced. It partly depends on where the Lib Dems concentrate their resources. They don’t have infinite reserves of activists in Wales, though they are good at concentrating them. Cardiff Central is probably safe, which will help. But with some tricky defences in mid Wales, plus a probable attempt at Swansea West, targetting another seat properly may stretch them. By the way, the parliamentary Newport East’s boundaries go beyond the city itself, taking in 8 Monmouthshire wards. In Caldicot in particular, Labour did OK in May, and the Lib Dems were nowhere.
I completely agree with the second point at 89. While I’d love for Plaid to be in the SNP’s position right now, fighting on 3 fronts does present awkward challenges for Labour.