Henry G Manson: Lammy for Mayor?
November 9th, 2008
Back Lammy to Lead Labour’s London Bid
The recent months have seen some interesting little developments that could impact on who will be Labour’s mayoral candidate in London. Ladbrokes have been first off the mark with a very thorough market for who will be the next Mayor of London. Boris Johnson is 5/6 and as much as it pains me to say it, I think this is a value choice. However it is also worth examining the possible runners and riders on the Labour ticket and whether any of them could run him close. I think David Lammy can and will at super odds.
Ken Livingstone (10/1)
Twice winner Ken is second-favourite to be the next Mayor of London. He has been a presenter of radio shows with LBC which have kept him in the public eye and earlier this summer he declared that he would like to challenge again. However he has agreed to be an advisor for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. This is a big negative in my book for his chances in the future and I see this more as a near retirement occupation rather than a way of rehabilitating himself with swing voters. Ken’s age is important - he will be 67 at the time of the next election and there’s a sense in the party that he’s had his go and we need to move on. His selection would be by no means guaranteed and I think in a few years time he will bow out gracefully.
Jon Cruddas (16/1)
If the polls are replicated at a general election Jon Cruddas could very possibly lose his parliamentary seat which will be fought under new boundaries. Well known across London and with a national profile from his Deputy Leadership bid last year, he has become a forceful critic of ‘New’ Labour. He would have strong support from plenty grassroots members and the trade unions and was backed by Ken for his Deputy bid so may run with his blessing. But I can’t quite see him running for this position and at the moment his mind seems to be firmly on national issues.
Alan Sugar (25/1)
Well known businessman celebrity and a lifelong Labour supporter. He has no political experience and would be treated with great nervousness by the trade unions. I just can’t see him swapping his lifestyle and interests for Mayor of London.
David Lammy (33/1)
Emboldened by his friend Barack Obama’s success in the States, Lammy is starting to speak out on a wide range of issues. He has subtly criticised Ken Livingstone on a number of occasions including most recently for running his campaign as part of the Establishment. He has no risk of losing his Tottenham seat, so wouldn’t be tainted with defeat from 2010. If Labour is in opposition facing a reasonably large Tory majority surely he’d find running London far more attractive than whiling his way as Shadow Minister for Health or Housing.
Lammy would have the support of the right of the party, but he is now positioning himself firmly in the centre ground of the party as demonstrated by remarks such as, ‘old Labour was hostile to the market; New Labour has arguably been too deferential to it.’. Lammy is part of a new generation and I think would beat Livingstone in a selection contest (if he ran) and could run Johnson close in the election itself.
Tessa Jowell (33/1)
Minister for the Olympics but won’t get a look in now that Johnson is in charge. Not particularly popular across the party in London and seen as ultra-Blairite. Anxieties about her lack of knowledge of her husband’s finances and dealings with Berlusconi remain. A likely backer of a Lammy bid.
Trevor Phillips (40/1)
A longstanding foe of Ken Livingstone but has had his chance to run for this office. Continues to speak out on a range of thorny issues. A likely supporter of David Lammy’s.
Dawn Butler (50/1)
A thoughtful soft left MP with an interest in youth issues. Liked across the party but hasn’t the clout to go toe-to-toe with Johnson and an emboldened Tory machine.
Nicky Gavron (66/1)
Has previously run for selection for Labour’s mayoral candidate and was a successful Deputy under Ken Livingstone. Often worked behind the scenes and played a major role behind some of his most popular policies. She could conceivably run for Mayor but I doubt she’d be able to beat Johnson. Worth a small bet at these odds.
Oona King (100/1)
Still reasonably popular in the party despite her vocal support for the war in Iraq and her defeat to George Galloway. High profile and has recently written a book. Sadly she has demonstrated little personal or organisational competence within her career. It could be argued that Boris Johnson has lowered the level of entry on that front and therefore she is worth a nibble at 100/1.
Konnie Huq (200/1)
Former Blue Peter presenter was criticised for supporting Ken Livingstone at a number of events in the run up to the mayoral election. Carried the Olympic torch and sister Rupa is active within the Labour Party. Apparently there is a ‘Konnie for Mayor’ facebook group with over a hundred members. If Labour wanted a celebrity candidate they could do worse, but at present she is only worth a very small bet.
Others
Emily Thornberry (100/1) will almost certainly lose her parliamentary seat on the national swing but is regarded as a good local campaigner, particularly on green issues. May have support among the centre-left, but would be behind plenty of others in the pecking order. George Galloway (100/1) has chance on any ticket. Len Duvall (100/1) is a respected player on the London Labour scene but not a front man. Val Shawcross (100/1) good hardworking assembly member but arguably hasn’t the charisma or presence for this office.
Conclusion
Avert your eyes Shadsy! David Lammy looks like he is interested in running and would be a powerful candidate with reach and support across the party. He is one of the few Labour names that could beat Johnson and at 33/1 offers excellent value. Take anything over 8/1.
Henry G Manson is a long-time contributor to PB.com
MessageSpace Advertising
First
Second
And third
I mentioned on the Trevor Phillips thread that I had taken your advice on this, Henry.
I think 33/1 looks superb value. Cruddas would be the only other candidate who could appeal, but I thought that his Dep Leadership campaign (running for Dep Leader, but not DPM) indicated that he prefers the back-room partisan work rather than high political office. He also turned down a Cabinet job.
I’d point out that a YouGov poll in 2004 (unprompted request for names) saw Richard Branson and Greg Dyke as favourites (alongside Rudi Giuliani!). Dyke was approached by the Tories but the LibDems wouldn’t run a joint candidate, so John Major was asked before they chose Boris. He used to be a Labour supporter, and could fund his own campaign. Branson I am not aware of political connections.
Odds like 33-1 are always attractive, but Lammy seems a bit of a nonentity to me. More seriously, wouldn’t his candidacy completely pigeonhole Labour in London as the ‘ethnic’ party - already a problem due to Livingstone’s antics?
Following on from the Trevor Phillips thread, if he can get the media profile, James Cleverly is one to watch for Mayor of London.
Does Lammy want to be Mayor? He may think of himself as a up and coming generation of Labour MP’s that will help Labour deal with its defeat at the hands of the Tories, and get back into government?
This is one of those interesting pb thread-questions, to which the answer is neither “Yes” nor “No”, but “Who gives a toss?”
7. Perhaps he wouldn’t like to wait that long….
There is value in any Labour contender: for the moment, Greater London politics, like the GLC before them, is likely to swing against the party in power before them; and, while BJ is a popular choice, he doesn’t have the highly unusual personal vote that Ken built up in his heyday. Lammy is certainly a possibility, although he’s not brilliantly charismatic; but would he really sacrifice a safe seat for a period in City Hall? He’s got a fairly decent chance of holding office in the future. Cruddas would be a very good candidate for Labour, particularly as he might help repair the weakness in the outer London working-class vote; but he’ll have bigger fish to fry, unless he loses Dagenham and Rainham (and he would be damaged goods then).
If that’s the best Labour have to offer, then I think Boris for a second term looks the best bet.
Henry, I’ve followed you in with Ladbroke’s offering of 33-1. Frankly, I would rather have backed him at half those odds to be Labour’s Mayoral candidate as I feel pretty sure Boris will be re-elected.
2012 - Diamond Jubilee & Olympics year, which could help Boris, though election precedes both celebrations.
Second year of a Cameron government and likely that he would have had to make some tough choices to deal with the disastrous economy inherited from Brown, so maybe a pro-Labour swing?.
Can’t say Lammy has struck me much in terms of talent, but the alternatives listed don’t inspire and he does look the best of the bunch.
Much depends on Boris delivering, especially to the outer suburbs which are his constituency. Most of the visceral Guardian hatred has been shown to be rubbish and I can’t see the same taunts being accepted in Inner London amongst minorities.
6 Morus - maybe Cleverly for the longer term, but certainly not in 2012 (unless Boris should decide not to stand). Ladbrokes’ odds apply to the next election only.
I hear a lot about how close Lammy is to Obama.
From Lammy. Not from Obama.
13 - The Diamond Jubilee may not happen, of course (although HM looks hale and hearty).
BJ may defuse the personal pro-Ken vote to some extent; but an anti-government swing might replace it. More important, I think, will be the effect of Cameron-led government on turnout.
Not Livingstone surely - by 2012 he will really feel like yesterday’s man.
Please, please not Trevor Phillips, far too full of himself IMHO.
Sugar “a lifelong Labour supporter” - I thought I had read that he had once been a Tory contributor?
14 - Oh, no. Not for 2012!
Ken has already declared, is fundraising, has a full-time ‘campaign’ staff and executive office based in a major Trade Union, holds meetings and runs events there, puts out press releases and is effectively running a shadow mayoralty already.
Combine this with a Tory government and the fact that Labour couldn’t keep him off the ballot last time round, I think 10/1 for Ken is good value.
As Ken Livingstone will be 67 in 2012,it is fairly safe to predict he will not be the Labour candidate.Is anyone else on here feeling very ‘electioned out’ after last week-I certainly feel quite drained by it all
18. Will he still be alive in 2012?
Labour will have lots of ex-MPs by 2012 with time on their hands. For example, what about our esteemed nursery nurse - er sorry, Home Secretary, the former MP for Redditch? She would be in with a good shout if she wanted it, I’d suggest….
16. Sugar supports the Party that is best for his business. Seeing as his company has a lot of Govt contracts, that is Labour.
20 Rod Crosby would be the best person to ask the likelihood of a man born on 1945 still be alive in 2012
19 An interesting situation. Livingstone will be on the ballot and split the Labour vote; but will not atrract independents or conservatives who will remember his eight wasted years. Conservative landslide.
Ladbrokes are no longer taking bets on Lammy
25 After suspending Lammy’s price, Ladbrokes now have him at 25-1.
Oh the power of PB (and HenryG) to move markets!
Lammy is hopeless. He bungled getting the ‘Living Will’ bill through parliament and was humiliated by Iain Duncan Smith.
Labour will have a new face next time round and by dint of being Labour will never be at the odds you can get now.
24. Livingstone’s penchant for swigging uisge beatha in the daytime will shorten the standard odds somewhat though.
30 Mind you,there are plenty of 60-somethings (indeed all age groups) who drink far more than the govt’s recommended amount.Did anyone know the 21 units per week for a man deduced in 1987 was more or less plucked out of air-another study has proven a man drinking 63 units per week has exactly the same risk as a teetotaller.I hasten to add I am far too fond of real ale for my own good,but for goodness sake,Winston Churchill smoked like a trooper,drank like a fish,ate a probably unhealthy diet-and lived to 90-good on him!!
Is this the Lammy who seems barely able to condense one coherent thought into half a dozen coherent sentences?
31 It’s not the old ones drinking to much but the under 16’s
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5118537.ece
Sorry to go a tad O/T but Gord seems to be enjoying himself at the moment.
There seems to be no holding him back even “drop in on a dinner” next weekend to meet Barack Obama
Gordon Brown to help Barack Obama lobby EU over troops
Jonathan Oliver and Sarah Baxter
London Times
Sunday, Nov 9, 2008
Gordon Brown is to lobby European leaders on behalf of Barack Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Obama has repeatedly called on Europe to “share the burden” in the conflict and it is expected to be the central theme of his first visit after his inauguration next year.
Whitehall and diplomatic sources have revealed that Brown is to act as Obama’s agent in Europe, calling on other Nato leaders to find more soldiers and resources for the Afghan conflict.
During a telephone conversation last Thursday, Obama and Brown spoke about the growing security problems in Afghanistan, where 122 members of Britain’s armed forces have died since 2001.
A Whitehall source said: “Obama has so much political capital that it will be very hard to be the first European leader to say ‘no’ to him. However, his honeymoon may be brief so we want to help make sure he is in a position to make his move quickly.”
Brown is expected to target France, Germany, Spain and Italy, which have all been accused of not pulling their weight. The US has about 31,000 troops in Afghanistan, while Britain’s deployment is 7,800. France has sent 1,000 troops and Italy has sent 1,700. Germany’s 3,500-strong Afghan force is barred from combat and ministers may be reluctant to increase it beyond the 4,500 already planned.
Brown is expected to raise the issue next month in Brussels at the last gathering of the European Union’s 27 national leaders before Obama takes office. His first official visit to Europe is expected to coincide with a Nato summit in Strasbourg in April.
Brown may meet Obama next weekend at a financial summit hosted by President George W Bush in Washington DC. British sources say he may “drop in on” a dinner.
31. By all accounts the current recommendation that pregnant women should drink no alcohol is based on absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever.
Isn’t David Lammy crap, though?
Dont be stupid! Lammy is the epitimy of turn off politics. Every time he speaks its usually negative, offering nothing but criticism. i’d be amazed if even labours core vote would give him their vote. A non starter.
35 - it keeps things simple, though. It’s easier just to suggest pregnant women don’t drink at all, rather than say they can, but only a small amount, and then put a whole load of caveats on that.
It’s a bit like the weekly units allowance - no one is suggesting that if you srat one unit over, you’re done for, but if you keep within the limits, you’ll live to 120. However, generally if you did keep to those limits, by definition you wouldn’t have a drink problem.
37. Actually by 2012 Labour’s core vote could well consist of people like Lammy and few others
15 - you’d hardly have expected Obama to go mentioning his friendship with a minor foreign politician in his televised speeches and debates would you?
Having said that, it does sound a little far-fetched to me.
38. That would be the ‘good’ lie????
We get the same thing when Global Warming is discussed, we plebs have to be told that the danger is imminent etc and its always getting worse, and its all our fault, because we wouldnt understand the finer details, and the higher level debate about the issue.
‘Emboldened by his friend Barack Obama’s success…’
If Lammy is the sort of person Obama chooses as a mate, I’m starting to get a bit nervous about his forthcoming presidency.
Two years into a possible Cameron government the Libdem candidate could be a strong contender.
41 - We are never “told” that.
15 - you’d hardly have expected Obama to go mentioning his friendship with a minor foreign politician in his televised speeches and debates would you?
Having said that, it does sound a little far-fetched to me.
Now, is it just me, or is this video of monks brawling in Jerusalem hilarious?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm
42 Yeah, he ought to be careful who he pallies around with, Ms Palin-Dawning.
41 - I don’t think there’s any question of lying. It’s just advice. A suggested, safe course of action.
46: ‘…Ms Palin-Dawning…’
You’ve lost me there. Can’t stand the silly woman!
45. Very strange, but then some monasteries take in many young teenage boys, i understand that in Tibet it is pretty much compulsory. I suspect that when you have collections of young men, you get hot heads who are up for a fight.
34 real story -
UK can’t afford to send more troops (see direct message to that effect from head of Army in todays papers) so is desperate for someone else to, the USA has been saying for quite some time it wants more from rest of NATO, Obama has said the same. Blair & Beckett, Brown & Miliband have been pushing for more troops with Europe for ages. It’s not a new initiative or a special mission for GI Gordon Brown. They will not offer them because Brown begs, but will perhaps move when Obama invites them over to the White House post 20th January.
Obama not attending next weeks summit - doesn’t want to be associated with a Bush initiative, hasn’t decided on his Treasury Secretary but might drop into a dinner at which Gordon Brown is one of the many EU & world ministers, heads of Government. That’s a meeting? Will they all line up like PPCs at Conference to get their pictures snapped with The One?
I think I recall Gerald Kaufmann in Parliament saying of Lammy something like “if that is the quality of contribution we can expect from the minister he would do well to remain seated”. The gist is right if not the precise wording.
I’m sorry to say it but Lammy is hopelessly out of his depth and has only reached his current status because of gesture politics. I know that does not look nice but it’s the truth.
45 Disgraceful. A Grade A brawl in Jerusalem and nobody selling tickets for it? Oi gevault, wait till the Rabbi hears.
45. I was reading somewhere, i cant remember if it was here, that all problems somewhere along the line can be blamed on the Armenians, and thus it was in this report….
51. On paper though, he is grade A material, you would pick him out for future things on that alone
52 Evening PtP - Were you around Friday evening to pick up my tip on the McCain+190.5 market?
54 - oop do I detect a none-too subtle hint of something repellent in your post?
48 You’re a good judge there, Stark.
She insinuated he ‘pallied around’ with terrorists because he appeared on the same Trust Board as a former terrorist. The fact that the guy meets hundreds of people during a working week and sometimes has to do business with all sorts of people, some of whom may have pasts, or even presents, that are not as clean and white as the driven snow is neither here nor there with the likes of Ms Palin, or her supporters.
David Lammy should run for London mayor but he will be crushed.
Lammy will not be crushed because he is Black (Indeed this may help him in a diverse city like London). Lammy will be crushed because he is nothing, no charisma - no record of champion a particular strand of thinking. Lammy is not a very good politician either - he may well have known and have pictures of him meeting Obama but this does not suddenly make someone a good politician. Indeed in a couple of years time it may be seen as a hindrence not a boon!
Assuming Boris runs again, Boris will steam roller Lammy because Boris has a personal vote that crosses race, which Lammy can not even compete with.
56. Really? None was intended. It was a compliment, he has a first class CV, you would pick him out for great things.
53 The position regarding the Christian Holy Places in Isreal is so bad that the keys to the main shrines are held by a Muslim family, have been for centuries, because no one sect trusts another with them. Demarcations are such that some sects only get sections of roof space to call their own.
60. It did feel all a bit Monty Python…
I have absolutely no memory of anything Lammy ever did. I know he was around a few years ago, but I can’t remember why. He left no impression on me at all, and hasn’t been spoken of until the Obama campaign got underway. Clearly he’s been in politics for a while, but he hasn’t made any impression. Is he really heavyweight enough for such a role? Think of the personalities - Livingstone, Boris, Paddick, even Dobson had presence. Lammy? Who he?
45, 49 They’ll get their asses whooped though when they get through the group stages and have to meet the Shoalin monks….
55 Thanks Richard
Yes, I saw it, probably a bit too late but I was sated with betting over the previous few days and just not in the mood to chase it up. I had slight reservations because it depended on reliable information from Omaha but on a less active day I would probably have gone for it. Well done on the spot. Hope you capitalised on it and had a great Election.
All a bit dull and quiet now, isn’t it?!
63 PMSL!
64 PtP - Probably just as well things are quiet. I’m spending too much time here! Must go now…
10/1 seem like long odds for someone who has been Mayor twice and who has an avowed intention of standing again. If the next Mayor is going to be anyone other than Boris Johnson, Boris needs to screw up to some extent (and probably quite a bit). In those circumstances, the voice of experience might look more alluring.
62. I agree, Lammy is a nobody with his best days behind him!
The only time Lammy has been taughted as being future potential was in the By-election he fought in Tottenham in 2000 IIRC. There was talk of him being a potential future PM blah blah blah.
It was all bull shit, Lammy has failed to get anywhere in government. He has been an MP for 8 years and still not even in the cabinet. Contrast that to David Milliban (elected 2001) or indeed Ed Miliband (elected 2005). Then you will see where i am comingin from!
57: ‘She insinuated he “pallied around” with terrorists because he appeared on the same Trust Board as a former terrorist.’
Of course, point taken. However, it does appear that Mr Lammy is going around claiming intimacy with Obama though the truth - if the picture at the top is anything to go by - is probably just that the President Elect once asked him directions in a car park. Perhaps Obama should get out some sort of legal injunction ordering Lammy to desist with these damaging and baseless claims.
David Lammy has a good chance of being Labour candidate. It could well come down to him, or Cruddas, or Ken again, and he could well win that contest in 2010/11. My guess is that he does want to do it.
He had a tough time in his first few years in Parliament. There was a lot of “will be Britain’s first black PM” coverage. He struggled as a Health Minister.
He is capable of having a broad appeal in the party. As Henry suggests, he would be able to run as the future vs the past on Ken (and to some extent, appeal on those grounds to some of Ken’s support on the left), as David Lammy has been a New Labour voice who has been arguing for some time now for a less technocratic, more bottom up politics, and this has impressed both party activists and some of the commentators.
This column from Andrew Grice in The Independent was a good example of Lammy’s arguments for a different way of doing politics
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andrew-grice/andrew-grice-the-week-in-politics-860497.html
Further observations on the office of London Mayor. On our current sample of three elections, it appears that mavericks that do not wish to or are incapable of toeing a party line seem to do better than run of the mill politicians. Jon Cruddas might on that basis be worth keeping an eye on.
69 Of course, Lammy could just have been on a Labour Party Photoshop course. He wouldn’t be the first….!!
68. It was the dreadful performance as the Junior Constitutional Affairs minister that did for him. Admittedly he was stuffed by Charlie Falconer (the letter to the bishop- rumoured, but not seen in the Commons), but the performance was so dreadful no one ever saw him as potential cabinet material since.
The fact that people occasionally tout him as a potential leader are a tribute to his CV (which is quite excellent) and the total lack of quality in the present Labour front bench, stuffed as it is with has-beens, never-will bes and who’s hes.
Watch him talking and you realise quickly that he isnt going to be a serious contender for any senior post (wordy, inelegant). I can see why 33/1 might be attractive, but as a candidate I dont think so.
70. I’ll have to take your word for it on his influence within the party, but what antifrank says at 71 seems pertinent. Is he enough of a personality to win a personal contest like the mayoral race?
69 “…The President Elect once asked him directions in a car park.”
69 Body language in that photo indicates Lammy in defensive mode and Obama slightly accusitive but finding Lammy’s excuses amusing - Lammy try to explain why he had stolen Barack’s car park space perhaps?
I don’t think Lammy is bad - he’s no worse than the usual run of mid-ranking ministers, but gets more exposure than them. He’s not, probably, Cabinet material, but then one doesn’t have to be to be Mayor. The actual ability needed for the position is not that huge.
I can see Lammy as Labour’s PC effort to unseat Boris, but he simply isn’t charismatic. He doesn’t have gravitas either. He’s a stereotypical lightweight who happens to be black.
how safe is his seat?
Yes, forget Lammy - a complete dud. In my view, the Labour Party could do no better than ask the actor and long-standing Labour supporter Richard Wilson to run. People admire and identify with his Victor Meldrew character - the solid old chap in suburbia gallantly standing up for the decent things in life against the horrors and inequities of the modern age. I think that would work for Labour, and the campaign slogan could be ‘What the bloody hell!’
For those watching Strictly, you can get Rachel Stevens at 10/1 to win on Betfair.
Why so long odds for someone with the best consistency (together with Austin and Tom)?
Despite scoring 35 or 36 (I forget which) and being in the top 4 yet again, she was in the dance off.
I think this was solely due to people not voting for the top 4 generally, assuming they were safe (3 were tied on 36) and so Rachel happened to get fewest as others voted for middle and low ranking dancers to keep them safe.
80. Boris and Victor? They sound like a pair of cold war henchmen from a james bond film…
81. Keep your money in your pocket. She won’t win. Lisa is looking the best of the women now.
Final: Austin, Tom, Lisa.
As for Lammy, no way.
Now 11/1… I’d planned to just try and lay Lisa Snowdon (been tempted for a while…) but that’s very tempting.
5 dancers right now seem to have a good shot, Austin as favourite, Tom as second, and Lisa, Rachel and Cherie as strong thirds. 11/1 seems bizarre.
50.”Obama not attending next weeks summit - doesn’t want to be associated with a Bush initiative, hasn’t decided on his Treasury Secretary but might drop into a dinner at which Gordon Brown is one of the many EU & world ministers, heads of Government. That’s a meeting? Will they all line up like PPCs at Conference to get their pictures snapped with The One?”
Well spotted Ted, don’t you just love Labour spin, its getting more and more outrageous every day. They are going to trip themselves up.
On topic. Lammy has been a very poor performer in Parliament, he lacks charisma or an individual quirkiness that might make him stand out as his own man rather than a party stodge.
Ken Livingston will not win again, his time has come and gone.
But Cruddas, now he would be a great choice and I would enjoy seeing much more of him on Telly and radio.
81 It’s like X-Factor and Spoty, Morris. The voting tells you more about the viewers than the performers.
79
>13000
85.Oops, stooge rather than stodge. Sorry Stodge.
83, she’s been consistently good throughout. Austin’s very good, but the rumba showed he isn’t perfect.
Hope you’re right about Lisa though. Morris Dancer wins £70 if she triumphs:D
Unfortunately my betting is ludicrously complicated (endless £2-5 bets) but I got her at 21/1 and 15/1 a while back, with some more at 10/1.
Besides, it doesn’t matter if Stevens wins, it matters if she does well enough to shorten her odds to a layable degree.
79 - Tottenham would probably be unlosable by Labour in a 1931-style landslide, let alone a 1997-style one in reverse.
I’ve chatted privately with David Lammy about Obama - they certainly do know each other.
Strictly: go Sergeant! Worth it just to see the steam coming out of the ears of the judges.
176 last thread I have you down as a Patten-esque Tory, Morus (chris not john.) is that wrong?
91 So it’s you that’s keeping him in, Palmer! You scoundrel. ;-(
Sergeant has every chance of making it to the final days, then the glorious British public pick the best.
60 - The conflicts over the control of the Holy Places (including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre where this particular fracas occured) led to the Crimean War.
Still no blog update from Robinson, his last remains a breathless, sweaty, chest-heaving piece of sycophancy at the extraordinary feat of losing thousands from the majority of a safe seat.
93: Wasn’t someone saying upthread that voters always look for candidates like themselves? Well, Sergeant dances like me.
95, it’s quite ironic that a holy site saw a punch up. You won’t catch atheists brawling over their sacred places.
92 - Perhaps in temperament! We would be at complete odds on foreign affairs (I’m a bit more hawkish), Europe (I’m a fairly confirmed Skeptic nowadays), and perhaps tax.
I wonder if a few years ago (when I considered myself solidly centre-left) I would have been surprised by the undeniabile comparison, but I’m probably to the right *and* left of him now.
The problem with such comparisons is that I’m all over the place. On some things I’m pretty far left, on other things I’m fairly solidly right. I find it difficult to find a party because all I can see are bits I could never agree with!
86. There are ‘rumours’ abound of leaked voting figures from The X-Factor which suggest Diana Vickers, Eoghan and JLS have been the top 3 in the public vote every week. The second one is ludicrous, as was last night’s bottom two. It makes me wonder who exactly is watching and what they are thinking.
86. There are ‘rumours’ abound of leaked voting figures from The X-Factor which suggest Diana Vickers, Eoghan and JLS have been the top 3 in the public vote every week. The second one is ludicrous, as was last night’s bottom two. It makes me wonder who exactly is watching and what they are thinking.
Oh, BTW I think Obama and Lammy were friends at Harvard Law School.
102, bloody elitism!
[And yes, this post is 93% sarcasm:p].
79 Tottenham is unloseable for Labour.
I don’t know enough about David Lammy to know if he could win. I think he would be in danger of being pigeon-holed as a candidate for ethnic minorities, and no one else, and thus get hammered.
Cruddas would be more formidable IMHO. He’d appeal to white working class voters, who went strongly for Boris, but they’re not actually that numerous, as a proportion of London’s electorate. He probably wouldn’t appeal to liberal well-heeled voters, who switched heavily to Boris, in places like Richmond, Kingston, and Hampstead, and wouldn’t erode the core Conservative vote, which turned out strongly for Boris, but may be a little bit unhappy at Boris’s centrist stance, next time. Cruddas wouldn’t play the race card in the way Livingstone did, so would probably see his vote fray among ethnic minorities. Overall, he’d probably do about as well as Livingstone, but with increased white working class support (and a slight unwillingness to vote among Conservatives) offset by declining ethnic minority support.
104, Cruddas seems like a decent bloke. I mean, he’s a lefty, but nobody’s perfect. Labour were mugs not to make him their deputy leader.
98. Someone hasnt seen the South Park episode where Cartmen goes forward in time, to a land of athiests, who worship all that is Dawkins…
102 - Though I can’t work out how.
Obama was elected Editor of Harvard Law Review as reporting in the NYT in Feb 1990, meaning that he started Sept 1989 (you cannot start the 3 year JD at Harvard except in Sept) at the latest.
Lammy was born July 1972, so cannot have started at HLS until he had finished his LLB at SOAS in summer 1993.
If Obama was at HLS for three years JD plus a year for HLR editor, he would have been there from Sept 1989 until Sept 1993, so they cannot have been contemporaries. They will have met a few times, but I had always assumed they studied together. Sorry if that was the impression I gave.
98 But Marxists would.
And if atheism were to become dominant, you can be sure that within a few decades, different sects of atheists would be arguing bitterly about which was the true form of atheism.
104 - I think the key is going to be the national vote. If the Conservatives are in power, part of the incentive to vote for them at local level diminishes, even if mid-term unpopularity is not huge. That might be an argument for Ken, or a candidate similar to him: if the Labour core is energised, and the Conservative vote isn’t, there could be enough scope for a narrow victory.
Does this explain the recent YouGov fieldwork or is there more to come?
“Millions retraining to survive the economic crisis…The survey by YouGov questioned more than 2,000 adults”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article5119604.ece
91: ‘I’ve chatted privately with David Lammy about Obama - they certainly do know each other’
Well Nick, I’ve just come off the phone to Barack and he reckons he’s never heard of David Lammy. The way these politicians fabricate associations with the great man really is sickening! Barack sends his regards to all at PB.com, by the way. Says he’s a regular lurker on this site (though hasn’t had much time to do so in recent weeks) but has never posted because he doesn’t know much about betting. I told him that should be no obstacle!
More YouGov activity:
“A Daily Telegraph/YouGov poll commissioned to mark the 60th birthday of the Prince this Friday showed that only 17 per cent wanted the Duchess to become Queen. When the same question was asked on her 60th birthday in July 2007, the number in favour was 28 per cent.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3411051/Public-support-falls-for-Queen-Camilla.html
109 Boris will probably have a considerable personal following if he runs again. Not enough, if the Conservatives are massively unpopular, but probably enough if they’re only as unpopular as Labour were in 1998 or 1999.
109 But will people really want to support Harriet Harman’s Labour Party? Might not the candidate from Huhne’s Liberal Democrats look a better alternative if you don’t want Boris?
111 I thought that who “barry” was?
Stonch, just returned from Zero Degrees - thanks for the tip!
112
Why are the Telegraph running such a poll and asking such questions at this time. Its an irrelevance.
111 Brilliant, Starky! Humour that hits several targets at once.
Livingstone will definitely run with or without Labour and for what it’s worth the Labour AMs have privately agreed to back him. Otherwise, Cruddas strikes me as a good bet and would make a decent job of it although his ambitions have previously been for the Labour leadership first and foremost.
As for Boris, there is a lot of speculation that he will not want to run for a second term. A couple of Conservative MPs have put it about that he will stand down in 2012, with an eye to run for Cameron’s job. With Boris out of the running, it could be anyones.
113 - I’m not sure. I agree that Boris will significantly over-peform the Conservative vote, and will take the lion’s share of the votes of the “right bloc”; but his personal share of the vote on top of the national share might not be that large among swingers. But that depends on a lot of intangibles.
114 - I doubt it’ll be Harman’s - indeed, it could well be Jon Cruddas’ party. The LDs simply don’t have a big enough voting bloc in London to get into the top two, even with a decent candidate.
99. Morus: I find it difficult to find a party because all I can see are bits I could never agree with
Sounds familiar. Maybe we need to start a party for people like us
119 The Mayoral election will be most probably in May 2012, the Olympics start on 27th July. Would Boris stand down a few weeks before being able to appear on a world stage as Mayor of the host city?
I rather think Lammy is only rated by people who have never heard him speak. I’d be interested in a market as to who will be Labour candidate as they might pick a no-hoper like him who should get out the core vote against an easy Boris win but to beat Boris. Naaah.
97. Well be thankful you don’t lok like him as well!
Though it is unkind, when i look at Sergeant I cannot help but think his face looks like a battered trout head!
110.”Does this explain the recent YouGov fieldwork or is there more to come?”
Fitaloon did a YouGov survey on Friday, Politics/Economy.
111 - lol, Dawning
116 - you’re welcome! ZeroDegrees takes a little getting used to - it’s a bit brash in there, and can get noisy - but it’s good to see a microbrewery so bedded down in the local area.
122. It depends on how much he wants the big job. In order to have a chance at it he will need to find a seat and build up a power base in Westminster. That will take years and will take even longer if he is stuck for another four in City Hall.
It is an open secret that he intends to go for it at some point. The question is whether he will be content to wait for eight years, by which point he may have expended too much political capital to bring the party and the public with him.
Risking the obvious result, but I’m going to have to cast a Roger on this:
No.
112 The British Public are realising that Charles & Camilla are becoming quite old and the clamour to “skip a generation” is likely to increase.
The idea of a coronation for say a 70 year old king is frankly a tad embarrassing.
Ouch, ouch and ouch again
More bad news on the economy.
This must hurt Labour surely?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/construction_and_property/article5114363.ece
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5119663.ece
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article5119968.ece
130. If Charles were to succeed after September 2013, he would be the oldest person ever to become British monarch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_monarchy_records#Oldest
In recessions and times of economic disaster, people are often less tolerant towards Monarchys (most of the great revolutions have happened under conditions of tremendous hardship and poverty) and as it is Charles and Camilla have never been very popular with the public to say the least - Not surprising really after the way they behaved towards Lady Diana (although she was as mad a box of frogs it has to be said
)
I guess Charlie and Camilla had better hope we have prosperous economic conditions if/when he comes to take over the Crown. Even then, I doubt the public will ever be happy about having a Queen Camilla.
131, semi-related: heard on the Brown Broadcasting Corporation that the £15bn of borrowing-funded tax rises would be targeted. Some at the less well off and some at old aged pensioners in the winter fuel allowance.
So… nothing for the middle class? And the less well off were the ones clobbered by the 10p tax fiasco.
Tory proposals out on Tuesday, I think. Should be interesting.
Of course, Labour could save £20bn if they scrapped ID cards and £12bn if they scrapped the communications database.
131. I wonder which day this week we’ll see the economic data that had the BoE hitting the panic button and launching into that mad interest cut rate cut. It’ll make for grim reading, I’m sure.
Anyway, I’m off for the night.
Hurrah for Lisa Snowdon!
134. Insane isn’t it? The economy is falling down around our heads and the government still has billions of pounds to splash out on stupid and pointless schemes like ID Cards. Complete madness!
133 You’re right Gin, the “Diana” factor just aint going to disappear, much as Chas & Co. would doubtless hope it would have by now.
117. It’s Charles’ sixtieth birthday some time soon isn’t it? The left-wing media’s looking for some way to tarnish the royals.
137 — You said it, and the opposition parties should too!
For the most part David Cameron has shown good political timing.
Let’s assume he might just know what he is doing.
134.Morris Dancer, that latest briefing from the government to the BBC in time for the news was I suspect more about trying to outsmart the Tories on Tuesday, expect more of this from the government tomorrow.
After briefings in the media yesterday of up to £500 tax cuts to be funded by borrowing, they are now desperately trying to row back in reaction to the soundings coming out of CCHQ.
Will be interesting to see if the Tory proposals, which seem timed to coincide with the upcoming PBR, and a possibility of more media exposure for them will rattle the government further.
Also wondering if this has been smart political timing from the Tories? If the government produce something similar, the proposals will still be freshly associated with the Tories in the minds of the voters.
Just wish some of our more right leaning journalists would start to look at the bigger picture on the Tories strategy here, rather than whinging and criticising the fact that the Tories are trying to win a GE rather than making them look like clever boys and girls at this moment in time by being bounced into delivering their demands.
Its going to be an interesting few weeks ahead.
134. The middle class would save any tax cut - Ricardian equivalence. I sincerely hope that the government will try to take the low paid out of the tax net outright and reduce tax credits.
The only way to get the middle class to spend a tax cut would be if it was being funded by a medium term reduction in government spending - firing lots of public sector workers for example.
I hope that the Tories call for lots of tax cuts funded by spending cuts - it would put Labour on the defensive. Also tax cuts funded by spending cuts would spook gilts and the forex markets far less.
Since Labour cant do the spending cuts they are going to be quite constrained in what they can do. The forex and gilts markets have already been quite badly spooked.
I don’t see what the problem is with putting an old guy on the throne.
As long as he is not ga-ga.
People live longer now and it seems only fair to give William as much time as possible.
135. We dont need any new bad data. The existing numbers are horrendous - just the fall in asset prices and the tightening of credit by the banks.
138. I think people are at the stage now where they are happy for Chas and Cam to be married and have a little bit of happiness out of the misery they caused for themselves, Diana and all their children, but Queen Camilla is a step too far for the public and probably always will be. At best Charles and Camilla are tolerated, but I don’t think relations between Charles and Camilla and the public will ever truely thaw out.
Theres a perception out there that they used this poor, innocent girl as a breeding machine and then when she had completed the role they had allowed for her, they schemed to have her tossed aside while they carried on with their adulterous liason. I don’t think that perception is ever going to really shift now, which is unfortunate in some ways because I don’t actually think they would make a bad King and Queen.
134. Dont confuse Revenue spending with Capital spending.
139 Friday I think - with a hugely expensive party on Saturday that the Mail on Sunday will have fun with.
Camilla’s problem is that she could be a perfectly nice woman but things like finding it too hot and humid on State Visits to West Indies and Indonesia so cutting short visits don’t cut it with press or public when two octogenerians manage to carry off similar things without complaint.
Now the excitement and distraction even of the US elections is out of the way and the IMF has confirmed that the UK economy is indeed the worst placed of all the major economies to withstand a recession, it looks like a long period of unremitting gloom lies ahead.
I’ve gone directly against Mike’s own most recent reported trading by selling Labour GE Seats at between 345-348, which looks just too high to me, bearing in mind that before the recent bounce the spread was around 12 seats lower. It’s very difficult to see what is going to sustain Labour’s support over the coming months as the really difficult times start to impact on people’s lives.
135. GIN - Here is the details:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/3410745/UK-economic-news-for-week-November-10-14.html
133. Quite frankly though, the cost of maintaining the Monarchy doesnt even rate as chicken feed
Hum.
The public wouldn’t have accepted Camilla [too much of a past] so he had to let her go. But they insisted he needed to be married - and to a sweet young thing. They both had their doubts on the day but dare not back out because of public reaction.
And then we it doesn’t work out - the public look for someone to blame.
Hum
145 Ken, might not need it but the BoE saw something they didn’t like in the Quarterly report.
150. is = are! Sorry!
150. Thanks.
I think the killer will be the growth in this quarter, which we’re not going to get until January, but I suspect will be disasterous 1%+ fall in output quite possible, I’m sure.
149 Oops, 5th line should read 245-248 seats
This came to me in email. I look forward to our resident socialists debunking it:
How taxes work:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that”s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner made them an offer. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I”m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20. “Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?” They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody”s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man”s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings) .
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid £50 instead of £59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a pound out of the £20,” declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got £9! “”Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man.
“I only saved a pound, too.. It’s unfair that he got nine times more than I! “”That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man.
“Why should he get £9 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!
“”Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!
“The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man (the richest) didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
152. Thats probbaly the reality of what happened. As I said, the perception the public have and the reality are probably very differant. These things (relationship breakdowns) are never straight forward. But, the reality is the public blamed Chas and Cam for what happened and its gone on for so long that I can’t it ever changing now.
155. Yes, I agree - could be something like 1-3% fall in all likelyhood.
The unemployment will go up by maybe 100,000? Because it is not just those losing the jobs but those not being taken on as well. Though the figures might just read new claimants!
I have noticed the jobcentre filling up recently. To be fair the great unwashed seem to be the main ones in there but more sophisticated sounding people are starting to permeate the place.
146. The way you describe Charles and Diana’s marraige is suprising given how common stories like their’s are these days. You sound very old fashioned. A DM reader, even.
153. No doubt - there is so much raining down on us that something very ugly is probably there. In the US it would be employment (a leading indicator for other stats), I have no idea of what it will be here.
The big problem for the UK is that inflation is low (excluding commodities). That means real cuts in prices are needed rather than allowing inflation to cut prices in real terms. So, even with low rates the real burden of loans will be increasing. For those who think the rate cut is going to save us - the bad news is that it simply ameliorates what is going to be a very nasty experience.
Lammy is a friend of Obama?
Does Obama know that?
Lammy is a pathetic lightweight, like Paul Boeteng who was quickly shuffled off to South Africa, when he got into difficulties.
Lammy makes Bernie Grant look like Martin Luther King.
160. I didn’t say thats what I think happened. I said, that is the perception with the public of what happened (mainly caused by Dianas brilliant, but ultimately deadly manipulation of the press)
Camillas been on the scene for a long time now, but the public show no real sign of warming to her. There is something about the way the public saw her (and Charles) at the time of the break up and they way they still see her that has clearly stuck. If they haven’t managed to decontaminate the brand by now, I doubt they ever will.
As for what paper I read, I actually browse all of them, ONLINE.
157 This piece has been posted on PB before, but remains valid. Of course, for 99% of us there’s no option other than to keep going to the pub and paying up with a smile until, one day, we lose our jobs too.
162 Chet
Those of us who had barely heard of Lammy before today would be interested to know precisely what causes you to think that.
Don’t be shy. Elaborate!
164. PfP. Well, I thought so too. The only failure in analogy that I can see is that in real life, it’s really only the “richest man” who can choose to “drink in a different pub”.
165 PtP - do you and other PBers find Hills’ so-called “statements” very user unfriendly in that they aren’t statements at all - but rather just a list of bets entered into, making it virtually impossible to assess one’s overall outcome? ….. or maybe I’m simply pressing the wrong keys!
163 To prove SeanT’s premise - Diana apparently had some Armenian ancestry, that was obviously the problem.
I don’t live far from Althorp House and when Diana died the hysterics I saw around The House every day when I went to work was astonishing. How people could have gotten themselves so worked up over the mainly self inflicted death of some woman they didn’t know amazed me then and still amazes me now. Grown men and women stood on the dies of roads in a complete state of emotional distress and grief. What with that and the euphoria of the Blair victory, what a crazy summer that was!
167. WH’s debts are catching up with the apparently. Serves them right for restricting me to pennies.
dies should of course be “sides”
157 is an interesting parable - but (for advocates of redistribution, which I am not) it takes no account of the incomes and wealth of the people concerned. The intention of a redistributive system would be to provide a narrower range of incomes - so, if the “tenth man” (standing for the top decile) received less back from a tax cut, the others would receive more. Of course, wealth might flee the land - but one would need another parable to demonstrate that.
167 I do indeed, PfP.
My Obama bet was a good case in point. As you know, I had £50 on Obama at 50/1 over two years ago. It sat in the ‘Open Bets’ menu, where it was listed chronologically. When they settle old bets, they put the credit against the open bet and move the entry to the ‘Statement Page’ but they keep to the chronological order, so an old settled bet appears way back in the Statements. If you don’t know when the bet was struck, you will have a lot of trouble finding it.
In the case of my Obama bet, the settled bet didn’t show at all because the Statement only went back to 2007. You couldn’t retrieve earlier records. The only way I knew the bet had been settled was that my account was suddenly up £2,500. If they have failed to settle correctly, or at all, how would I have argued the case?
You need to keep very accurate records of your Hills bets or you could find yourself out of pocket. They are the only internet firm that have ever made errors on my accounts. They are not cheats but you do have to watch them caefully.
Quiet here tonight (wherre’s that YouGov?) - but our old co-poster snowflake is in good form with several pieces:
http://snowflake5.blogspot.com/
169. It was mental. I think it was the birth pains of the whole therapy/chat show/male hugging poncitude we’ve been suffering other. Very odd. Blair was definitely a creature of his time, his patter would look absurdly dated already.
175 Which fits in with my thought on thread.
Lammy seems like a nice enought bloke, but he speaks politicspeak in that earnest humourless way that has had its day [outside the Labour Party]. I’ve noticed that Blears who was a ‘master’ at it has tried to cut it out recently.
173 PtP - thanks for that and i’m glad it’s not just me. As you suggest I will in future watch them very “caefully” to ensure I don’t get cheesed off.
Oi, it’s the way I tell ‘em!
John Rentoul has an interesting blog post on Open House about an interview that Alastair Campbell gave to the Scotland on Sunday.
Alpha Campbell
169: ‘What with that and the euphoria of the Blair victory, what a crazy summer that was!’
The only ever good article by Libby Purves (in my view) was about that very subject:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article2337295.ece
On thread: Alan Sugar (25/1)
Well known businessman celebrity and a lifelong Labour supporter.
Sugar actually gave money to the tories in the 1980’s! He was a thatcherite in those days!
178. Goodness me, I can’t believe we’ve got these ghastly people back involved with out politics. [face_sick]
Mind you, I do kind of believe Campbell when he says he never described Brown as “psychologically flawed” My view has always been that this quote came from Tony Blair himself.
157. Except, that’s not the case. In many places in the world the richest pay a small percentage of their income than the poorest.
Jamie Lyon’s on the NoW politics blog reports that Gord goes for broke
181.GIN, way back when Iain Dale worked on 18 Doughty Street, he interviewed former Labour press officer Lance Price, who IIRC also thought the quote came from Blair rather than Campbell?
177
Goodnite, Peter.
Goodnite one and all.
180 Martin - that was my recollection too, as per post #17 above.
176. Actually, Lammy’s speech that was linked to above by Labourite at 70 was rather similar to Blears’ recent speech about too many think tankers and insiders in politics. Maybe all the politicspeak robots have been switched to a new wavelength?
184 Goodnight PtP
108. In my experience, atheists, agnostics and deists all tend to get on better than those in any one religion.
182 - I agree. But the absolute amounts paid by higher-income taxpayers are usually higher, even in systems which are regressive on the whole, which is why the parable is misleading.
Timesonline reporting £15bn tax cuts? Don’t bank on it
“The Treasury and No 10 played down suggestions that the value of tax cuts could reach £15 billion - the level some economists say is needed to kickstart the economy - and called weekend briefings unhelpful.”
Weekend briefings unhelpful? Absolutely priceless comment from this government.
test
183. I think I’m caught up in the filter. I posted a couple of comments about that NotW blog. Hopefully they’ll be posted later!
183, 190. It looks like the Tories have a chance at winning the tax cut competition. Although Red Rosa at the Telegraph is spinning it for Labour.
192. Was it on the subject of the ‘I turned Ronaldo on with my Tesco Knickers story’? Cracking read that one.
192.I thought the contrast between David Cameron’s article in the NotW today, and Brown’s hilarious offering in the Observer was an incredible contrast. I am still laughing at some of the comments in that thread about Brown.
193.Her blog posts on the Three Line Whip can be quite funny in tone and style. You sometimes want to tell her that its a good bet that the Telegraph readers can manage a bit more detail than the Mirror readers can.
194. Well now you mention it….
195. Brown is off in a world of his own right now. Its vital the Tories don’t let him take the British people in to the land of denial with him.
Labour to allow peadophiles, child rapists, child murderers to vote at next election:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/09/prisoner-voting-human-rights-eu
Thanks Henry, good piece. Plenty of people have followed you in.
190. ChristinaD, well, well what a surprise. Of course we predicted that right here 24 hours ago!
170: serves them right. Just looked at their serie A lines, they’re trying to take 12.5% hold on them. Pinnacle make a profit on quarter of that (and 1/8th on asians).
198. If it would be necessary for parliament to pass legislation to change these rules, which would seem likely, it will be interesting to see what the Tories do. If they vote against it it could be a sign they are going to tell the EU to shove it.
190. Re Labour’s likely “tax cuts”, I think it will mainly be a case of maintaining cuts already introduced, ie
- Increase in Personal Allowance to offset ending of 10p tax band will be maintained
- Increase in Stamp Duty threshold will be maintained
- Freezing of fuel duty will be maintained
All of the above were previously just announced for a limited period of time. So maintaining them on an ongoing basis is a “tax cut” in the sense that the Inland Revenue will not get expected tax receipts. But they will not be a noticeable cut to the public.
203 - far more likely that they introduce Some ‘new’ cuts and pay for it by not continuing the ones mentioned.
203 Mike L/204 alex
Whichever of you is right, I expect the Tories’ “tax con not tax cut” line to be in full effect again.
It is still very difficult to get over the sheer chutzpah of the Govt responding to an economic crisis caused in the main by banks lending to anybody who wants it, regardless of means, by calling for banks to keep lending to anyone who wants it, regardless of means.
Get real. Nobody’s going to elect an idiot like David Lammy. If Labour thinks that little of the electorate that it selects him they’ll lose by a landslide.
As for the other names you presented = BOOORING..
I admit Gavron might have a chance though that vindictive bitch would be extremely harmful to London, so I hope they take Lammy or Ken and lose.
Re: Cruddas
He has no working class support, he only pretends to.
David Lammy is a [moderated] who is always [moderated] and should be [moderated] otherwise he will [moderated], and there is no chance of him becoming Mayor unless [moderated] decides to [moderated] and everybody else is completely [moderated].
198. Do you sideline as a daily mail headline writer?
‘Oona King is worth a nibble’.. Definitely..
198.
“Labour to allow peadophiles, child rapists, child murderers to vote at next election:”
Plenty of them vote now - the ones who have finished their sentences. And of course the larger number who have never been caught. Both of these types could of course be posting on pb.com, possibly even including those who are very sensitive on the issue.
102.
“I think Obama and Lammy were friends at Harvard Law School.”
I have also spent some time at Harvard but I did not meet Barak O there. Didn’t stop him from sending me an personal e-mail (along with a million and a half others) thanking me personally for my role in his victory!