Is Brown staying now free money?
November 21st, 2009
Is this the best value odds-on bet?
Odds-on betting isn‘t always particularly attractive, especially when the bet lasts over several months. A lot can happen in the meantime to upset expectations, it ties up a lot in comparison to the anticipated return and even if it does come in, there’s no great sense of elation, as when picking a long-odds winner - and of course, nothing like the returns either.
Even so, that’s not to say there isn’t any value in these sort of bets. Of the current odds-on options, the stand-out value would look to me to be in the Next GE - Party Leaders market and Next PM markets. These are both Betfair markets and as is often the case there, that means that there is limited money available - but what is is at prices well in excess of online Bookies.
The Brown/Cameron option for which party leaders will still be in place at the election was priced at 1.3 to 1.32 at the time of writing (by contrast, Brown not to be Labour leader at the election is 1/7 with Ladbrokes, giving about half the return). To me, Ladbrokes’ price looks far more sensible.
Since the subject of whether Brown might step down was last seriously visited, two things of significance have happened: the clock has kept ticking and the Glasgow NE by-election has taken place, bolstering Brown’s position.
The clock matters because the window is now closed on a change before the Christmas recess. Of more importance though is that the subject is simply not under discussion any more: without debate there will be no change (actually, even with discussion it’s always been likely that there’d be no change).
The last genuine opportunity for Labour to replace Brown is early in the New Year. After that, there’ll simply be too many things that would get in the way, not least election preparations. However, even attempting such a manoeuvre is highly risky (if it fails, it’s wasted time, effort and made the party look petty and insular; if it succeeds, the outcome is at best uncertain). I get no sense that there’s any inclination to even consider it. The die looks cast - and to that end, a 30% return in six months looks attractive. The downside is the opportunity cost: what can’t be done with the same money.
Looking at it another way, 
On a similar theme, Brown would have to survive until April 22 for a buy on Sporting Index’s Brown and Out market to pay out. Given the (admittedly small) possibility of a March election, that indicates that they’re very confident about his internal survival chances.
The other obvious market as an alternative is Overall Majority, where the Tories can be backed as high as 1/3 with the bookies and almost 2/5 (before commission) with Betfair. I’m much more wary of this and in the context look on it as nowhere near the value. Were the election held today, the Conservatives should win an overall majority but six months is still time for events to intercede and the hundred plus gains needed is far more than the Tories have ever achieved in the post-war party system. Odds-on, yes, but not a formality by any means. Again, the Next PM market builds in something of a buffer here as even if the Tories fall a bit short, Cameron would still be highly likely to become the next PM.
David Herdson
MessageSpace Advertising
Hard to argue with that David - but what boring bet.
3rd paragraph: surely it should say “Brown to be Labour leader at the election is 1/7″ - ie delete “not”.
Anyone know what the date is for Brown’s Afghanistan Conference in the New Year - it may well be that will effectively block any possible window for him to go in January / February.
“Again, the Next PM market builds in something of a buffer here as even if the Tories fall a bit short, Cameron would still be highly likely to become the next PM.”
That’s true, because the Lib Dems probably wouldn’t actively prop up Labour in those circumstances - but on the other hand, I wouldn’t put much money on Cameron surviving as PM for long without a second election.
I just ate a bee larva.
In the market of Phonsavanh. Laos. The nice bee man scraped off the excess wax and bits of hive, and gave me the juiciest larva he had.
I passed on some of the other delights: dried rat, rat, living guinea pig, sparrows, large beetles in vinegar, porcupine, polecat, some kind of flying squirrel, toad, and caterpilar.
The Glasgow NE by-election result was the worst possible thing for those within the Labour party wanting to get rid of Brown because they rightly believe he cannot win the general election.
This one is my party piece. As per my usual I have done everything right to get it wrong.
In short I have taken roughly 20-1 that Brown does NOT lead Labour into the next GE with a small freebie attached.
These have been two difficult markets to trade (Party Leaders and Next PM) because it is not easy to offer large bets against Brown going.You might wake up one morning……or afternoon in my case to find that he had gone and your money with him !
All along David Herdson has been saying that Brown would stay, but OGH has been saying the opposite. I have been sitting on that fence.
Now, Micawber-like, I am waiting for something to turn up in order to make a guaranteed profit. The feature of these markets has been that Brown to stay gets Backed every day and then spasmodically there is a scare of one kind or another and his price drifts alarmingly.
Watching GB in the HoC you get the impression sometimes that he won’t survive until the end of the session and then he rallies and it all turns to dust.
So I am hoping for one more scare,one more rumour, or even one more ramp so I can trade and go nicely green.
Regarding ‘Overall Majority’, here I have taken my biggest genuine one-way gamble that Labour will NOT have an OM. For this I have Layed just over 6-1 and could get out for a lovely profit at any time but don’t want to.
Surely a Hung Parliament is the absolute summit of Labour hopes and even that aspiration is a trifle optimistic. Nonetheless, all the smart money is going on Labour these days and their Spread price has risen ten points on SPIN since Lettergate.
I remain however the second most bullish Tory Backer even on this home of The Blues. With Gordon at the helm, anything bad can happen and probably will.
What is the current betting for number of seats Labour to win, and also their share of the vote?
Having just watched Newsnight from Weds and seeing Peter Hyman (sp?) passionately calling for Gordon to be replaced pre-election and the Fink agreeing but saying it was a market failure as to why no one individual Lab minister could do it I still think this is a live issue.
Abbott on TW this week said GB is safe given the mechanisms of the Labour Party make it hard to remove him but again the leadership issue was/is being discussed as the leftie comedian who did the first piece thought GB should go. She also said there were clusters of Lab MPs who are in near panic as to the likely meltdown they are facing.
The lack of support I suggest is reflected in the empty Lab benches for the QS debate - has NPMP come up with another reason for that?
Also at the back of my mind is Gordon’s own track-record when it comes to elections as Guido always bangs on about.
He’s very likely to lead Labour now at the GE but I don’t think it is free money at all.
1:
Mike, what about a book, or a chapter in a book at least, on “the aesthetics of betting”?
There were always two scenarios for Brown to go: Being forced out by his party and resigning of his own accord.
The first scenario always had all kinds of problems. (Nobody with the incentive to do the dirty work, and no realistic way for them to do it.) It still does, and once Brown got through the conference it went from unlikely to implausible.
The second scenario is the one you have to worry about if you’re thinking about taking this “free money”. If Brown intended to resign in favour of someone who might have a better chance of winning the election, it would make sense for him to do it later, rather than earlier. A new PM’s honeymoon doesn’t last forever, and when people are peeved about the economy, they tend to see everything the PM does in a bad light. The judgement they form then tends to stick, even if the underlying economy gets better. So if Labour had substituted Straw / Harman / Milliband / Johnson 9 months ago, the public would already hate them. If they take over in the New Year and the economy’s looking good, they have a better chance of looking good too.
The other interesting factor here is why Miliband turned down the EU Foreign Minister job. Although I don’t envy the poor sod whose job it is to coordinate all the EU countries’ foreign policies with virtually no power of their own, it’s a historical first and must pay pretty well. After Lady Ashton getting it effectively confirmed the claim that Miliband was offered it, you have to wonder if he’s got something better up his sleeve. The rumours about Brown having agreed with Mandelson to stand down and Miliband being Mandelson’s preferred replacement start to seem quite credible.
At 1.3-1.32, I think the markets have done a decent job of factoring in the available information, as usual.
Interesting reading the Lady Ashton stories today - a coherence to various articles suggests some briefing, unhelpful to Brown, has been going on. I gather, from all but Gabble MacShane, that the intent was Commissioner Hoon in an economic portfolio, possibly directly replacing Lady Ashton as Trade Commissioner but that was thrown out by Brown’s fear of headlines saying he had lost out as a result of his doomed Blair for President campaign.
So a woman who on Wednesday thought she would be returning to the HoL found on Thursday she was Lady Poo Bah and the French got the post they really wanted, to fight the Anglo-Saxon model and the dominance of the City of London (with reason as both contributed to the recession). Brown got the prize he wanted - no loser headlines - but at a cost, Geoff Hoon sacrificed along with UK economic interests. Poor Geoff, his longed for EU job gone for good. Poor Britain perhaps - though it gives Hague an opportunity to stand up for UK interests in an early clash to silence the BOO/Sceptics.
Then of course there is the alternative MacShane version where “Brown waited patiently until the socialists exhausted themselves in their campaign against Blair and then stepped in neatly with the offer of Lady Ashton….Brown emerges as a clear winner in the game of slotting in a solid social democratic British woman in a key European position.”
Wonder who is briefing the Brown out-played stories? Seem to be within Government so is the game still afoot to get him out?
12 Except that reportedly Mandelson was the next choice and considered it but turned it down as he saw his first loyalty being Brown and the election. If Brown was to go anyway why wouldn’t Mandy duck out back to Brussels, a big job and international role?
I suppose Mandy could believe its only himself that could get Miliband crowned - doubt David would have an easy ride through an election.
Anyway if Brown resigns it’s an admission of failure, personal as well as governmental. Hard for Labour to claim “we did the right things” when their leader has been forced out.
Isn’t the point of betting to make money? What’s ‘boring’ about that?
Ted @13: “I suppose Mandy could believe its only himself that could get Miliband crowned”
Well, there’s your answer. He may also think he’s needed to get Labour re-elected.
‘Is Brown staying now free money?’
I wouldn’t risk it myself. A week is a long time in politics, etc.
I don’t mean this to be a smear (although I fully realise it sounds like one) but IMHO Brown’s mental health is poor at the best of times. And it has been at its poorest during the last year or so. I just do not see circumstances in which it is likely to improve in the coming 20 weeks (yes, that’s right folks: only 20 weeks til Kick Off!)
People with poor mental health can be unpredictable.
The largely empty benches at the Queens speech were indicative. I suspect lots of MP’s were back in their constituencies working hard to try and save their seats. I can’t see Brown going now, I think its too late. Miliband and Harman wouldn’t be as bad,(it would be impossible to be as bad as Brown) though both are are hardly stellar, Hattie might try for it as she is 59 or her chance will have gone, Miliband is no doubt looking to after the election.
scrapheap at 10: The Queens’ Speech benches are always very empty after the first day because (a) there are 4 days of one-line whips (b) the speeches are unreported and generally uninteresting and (c) it’s the first time back after a short pause. I was in the House but had scheduled no fewer than eight meetings. I’ve no intention of sitting in on the Monday session either. You might disapprove but it’s a widespread view and not new - in 12 years I don’t think I’ve ever taken part in it except maybe in the first year before I’d seen it.
That said, just as an objective comment, I wouldn’t say that the thread issue is not being discussed.
I’d just like to say once again (… stuck record…) how disappointing PB is when it comes to the Scottish perspective.
Last night some of you were gaily chatting away about the “nominal” results in the new English and Welsh seats, as proposed by R&T, Wells and Baxter.
May I just point out that we in Scotland went through all that experience at the 2005 UK GE, but does anyone ever even think to look at the Scottish experience? Nope. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
I cannot be bothered trawling through all the figures, but certain R&T calculations in Scotland were miles out. For some reason Inverclyde springs to mind, but I’m sure that there are even more extreme examples of wonky R&T, Wells and Baxter “nominal results” in 2005.
The Lib Dems had better hope that headlines like this only last one day:
‘Lib Dems can keep fraudster’s £2½m’
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Lib-Dems-can-keep-fraudster39s.5845650.jp
Is there any way that the Tories, Labour and SNP can keep this ticking over in following news cycles? Unfortunately, this is unlikely.
The contrast between the recent UKIP and yesterday’s Michael Brown judgements stinks to high heaven. The Lib Dems getting away with this is, quite frankly, a scandal.
O/T
Huge evidence of greenies faking warming data
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
20 “just as an objective comment, I wouldn’t say that the thread issue is not being discussed”
Nick, does that mean that MP’s are discussing Gordon staying is free money?
Or (less gnomically) wading through the double negatives, are you confirming that Gordon Brown’s future is again being actively discussed by Labour MP’s? And (very much on thread) will Gordon lead Labour into the election. (And if not - then Miliband senior?)
I heard Mandy speak at a dinner this week. Everyone came away thinking how over rated this man is.
FPT. For Ave It, sorry I missed the fun last night , I was tucked up in bed by then , had a hard week in London and lots to do today.
Friday nights are interesting on pb.
i thought at the time that Peter M extracted a price for his support for GB when h nearly went
peter said to Gordon you have until jan feb to improve - if it still looks bad you have to step down in favour of an agreed successor . Having got through the crisis it will no will time for a time for a new generation - ( or a novice ) . Purnell was not in on the plan but Milliband was and that explains his behaviour now and recently re the EU appointment . I am on Brown staying - but i have hedged my position in the overall majority market
Trouble is the LieBore MP’s who backed down from ditching Brown will have the ditherer tagg attached to them too. Why wait until now? will be the question on the doorstep from voters, and why shouldn’t they?
Gordon Brown has failed to have sole rights as the weakest link within that party, it runs right through the whole Liebore Party make-up.
Another reason for not swopping leaders is, that so close to a G.E. the public won’t stand for more delays, in the main they’d be forced to make Brown resign and a leader selected “whilst campaigning”. Any idea’s that a 2-3 month selection process and then go to the country won’t be tollerated, the opinion polls will see them at 20 - 25% at best.
The public will rightly see them as looking after themselves above the nations needs and the only way is down in this mode.
What are the odds of Brown leaving the election to the very last day he can on a legal basis? Seems to me he is intent on making sure the Tories cannot undo his legacy of turning the UK into a socialist European economy and will need as much time as he can get!
24. Ave It , forgot to add , I was disappointed that you thought I would be drinking “Cooking lager”, I appreciate the finer points of drinking and would only drink it in emergencies, ie if Carling was the only other choice.
Wight Tory @26, the “Brown stands down voluntarily” scenario - with Mandelson as the shadowy string-pulling kingmaker - wouldn’t need a 2-3 month selection process. Brown would stand down, the cabinet would pick a replacement, and the replacement would call an election.
27 more like his legacy of turning the UK into a socialist Eastern European economy…say, just before the fall of the Wall.
27 That’s June 2013 then.
Although the Government will run out of money in April 2011 so maybe that’s the latest date.
The simple truth is that virtually all the real value and certainly the free money has been squeezed out of the GE betting markets over the last 6-9 months as many of us have pored over any number of possible alternatives and combinations and informed our fellow punters about these on PB and elsewhere.
There really were indeed plenty of opportunities in the Spring, especially in relation to individual constituency bets. Often these are set to return only a 25% profit, but short of the bookie in question going bottoms-up, they rank as genuine certainties, far more so in fact than David’s suggestions in this thread.
To be honest therefore it’s probably now too late to make money on so-called certainties or near certainties, except that it’s a certainty that such certainties or near certainties will once again manifest themselves on GE night itself, especially for those very quick off the mark as the exit polls are announced and those very first results start to come in.
Doubtless in the meantime, there will be the occasional aberration by a bookie, which we then have about half an hour to leap upon - a classic example being the 2/5 odds offered by Paddy Power and brilliantly spotted by Richard Nabavi earlier this, since long gone, against Labour winning more votes than the LibDems in the GE, now that really is what I call free money!
re 29 - if Brown did go before the election, this seems to me the only scenario or something roughly similar. There would have to be a relatively quick transition - which means as Edward says, something like the cabinet appointing a temp. Harman? (Would suit me - I have a few quid on her as next labour leader). At best, all she would be expected to do would be hold the line temporarily with a post-election contest for leader flagged up. If whoever stepped in did reasonably well in shoring up the vote - who knows? They might hang on to the party leader’s job in that contest… which would provide somne continuity as the party licks their wounds and regroups. Given Harman’s age, she would fit that bill very nicely. If Gordon goes - it has to be as smooth as possible under the pressing circumstances and thought out as clearly as possible. Ill health being the obvious choice as he would have to save face - any knifing would surely have to provoke a leadership election - which would completely scupper their chances at the GE - time taken, blood on the floor etc. The options narrow every day - and NP’s cryptic comments above display the awareness of this in the party. They have put themselves between a rock and a hard place. What of Gordon? Is he so oblivious to his position that he thinks he can win? That would seem the only reason to hang on… if he was anything like the strategist he is claimed to be, surely getting out as cleanly as possible remains the only way - for his party and himself… but that’s a big if…
Apologies for long ramble…
OT. Do any posters continue reading a post that contains words like ‘Liebore’ or ‘Bliar’? I don’t. I just go straight to the user name and make a mental note that (username) is too dull to read.
G’day, Peter the Punter.Maybe as the value gets sucked from the bookies you can all come and visit me !
Anyway I had a decent bet this morning with Paddy Power on Labour Seats 201-250 at 7-4. It seems like the fashionable thing to do.
Eventually I expect to get roughly EVENS for 201-324 inclusive which now looks fair value.
Some people express concern about the way my bets chop and change.Let me make it clear that I strongly favour the Tories doing very well but I even more strongly favour eating and drinking on a daily basis.
There’s another £1 down the drain !
i noted that a scottish blogger who really annoyed labour by asking very difficult questions has been forced to quit after getting threats from various labour supporting newspapers that they will sue and threaten his place of work to get him sacked, a government teaching facility, for his political views being different to theirs.
whether you agree with him or not, that sort of behaviour goes against the spirit of free speech that we err, used to have but not any more it seems.
i would like to lnow the thoughyts of the usual scottish contributors as to whetehr this ets a precedent, and can this sort of combined attack from the labour supporting media mafia be increasingly used by labour in england as well as they get more desperate.
#33, by Roger November 21st, 2009 at 9:10 am
OT. Do any posters continue reading a post that contains words like ‘Liebore’ or ‘Bliar’? I don’t. I just go straight to the user name and make a mental note that (username) is too dull to read.
Because you are a:
# public-school boy,
# poorly-educated, closed-mind media-mong,
# champagne-socialist tw@t?
You don’t have to agree with everything posted and - if you choose to read comments - are free to ignore other peoples musings. To use a callous method of inclusion/exclusion just about sums up your n@zi tendencies.
Don’t f3cking ever talk-down a PB-poster - ‘Tupac accepted…!
That said, just as an objective comment, I wouldn’t say that the thread issue is not being discussed.
by Nick Palmer MP November 21st, 2009 at 8:05 am
So defenestration is close then, if ‘eat-my-own-feet’ Palmer says it is being discussed.
GB has the reputation and track record of dithering and dithering and dithering and then bottling out at the very last moment, when he decides that he cannot win.
Would the end of April be too late and would that be just after the budget?
Imagine that as expected the economic news shows we are coming out of recession at a dizzying rate and Labour’s position in the polls still doesn’t improve then I’m certain Gordon will step down for the sake of the party.
It is inconceivable that he will knowingly lead Labour to defeat and neither will his very astute wife allow him to face that humiliation.
42. Expected by who ?
42, she can’t be that astute. Look at who she married.
38. Redcliffe , sounds like standard labour tactics, they do not like free speech unless it is their own version. I would put nothing past them either , nasty vindictive bunch.
Had the Lib Dems been forced to pay £2.4 million, and been faced with extinction as a result, I would - although I’m not a member of the party or even a consistent voter for them - have considered a contribution to them.
Why? If the Lib Dems are ever wiped out, then a one-party state gets that much closer.
But I suppose that the partisans here would be more likely to pay good money to establish a one-party state (their own party of course) than to avoid one.
Roger has a point (probably not about Brown). This site is often very similar to the Private Eye Message Board spoof.
“Don’t f3cking ever talk-down a PB-poster - ‘Tupac accepted…!”
Do you mean “excepted”?
Would the end of April be too late and would that be just after the budget?
by Financier November 21st, 2009 at 9:26 am
Ahh, the budget, the really big problem at the centre of the election planning.
Too limp and the storm will start, too harsh and the gaff is blown and Brown’s USP is destroyed, too clever by half and he is sunk in the campaign.
Can it be put off? Yes it can if the election is in early April. With the added benefit of being before the damaged pay packets of the last tax rises hit at the end of that month and the first quarter GDP figures are released.
‘Give me a mandate to continue taking the hard decisions to get us out of the recession painlessly.”
46. Do you think it is acceptable for them to keep stolen money, who in their right mind would vote for an organisation that is so bereft of morals that they are happy to be funded with stolen money. How can anybody take them seriously in future.
46. ‘Had the Lib Dems been forced to pay £2.4 million, and been faced with extinction ‘
That’s why they have been let off. The BNP wouldn’t have been.
If I was going to do a lot of odds on betting at the moment, which I’m not, I’d be tempted to look at the constituencies markets, particularly in the Midlands, rather than this one on Brown.
The Hawke/Mandelson two step is too likely to take 1/3, I’d rather take the 2/5 on Leics NW for example.
46, I find myself agreeing (a rare occurrence) with malcolmG on this.
Why is it acceptable to destroy UKIP because their donor wasn’t on the electoral register but not to do the same to the Lib Dems when they’ve taken stolen money?
It isn’t. It’s unjust.
#48, by Roger November 21st, 2009 at 9:33 am
“Don’t f3cking ever talk-down a PB-poster - ‘Tupac accepted…!”
Do you mean “excepted”?
Yes, thank you roger.
I realised my mistake, but there is no longer an edit facility. :cough: richard :cough:
Sorry for the harshness, but it p1sses-me-off that people think they can judge a user’s input by handle/avatar only. [Oh, and I am still trawling through the last thread (and Mark Senior's myopia). :shakes-head-despondently: ]
53….Or of course Asil Nadir. With interest it would make quite a hole in Tory finances.
53. Morris, Reason is that it is a cartel and UKIP were in danger of upsetting the apple cart and so needed sorting out , LD’s are the fig leaf used to portray that there is a healthy competition , when in reality it is just labour and Conservatives taking turn about on the gravy train.
53 - Two reasons.
1.A party has a clear duty to check the electoral register, and its not exactly difficult, although perhaps if you think Brussels has taken over you just check the Brussels constituencies.
2.How can a party predict who’s going to jail.
Would any cash associated with Lord Archer have to be repaid?
33. I also tend to scroll past deliberate mis-spellings (Bliar, Khamwhatever, EUSSR etc).
42 I think Brown recognises his unpopularity at present but by the time he realises its unrecoverable it will be too late. He also was right in his judgement on the current crop of wannabes - they are less suitable than himself.
There has been a recent (Mandelson inspired?) bigging up of David Miliband but judging on history DM seems as loathe as GB to show courage, he expects, as GB did, that the Party will come begging. On the others even Rentoul has given up on AJ4PM, Balls has been kicked, Harriet is too scary, Straw another ditherer. Ed Miliband won’t stand unless David withdraws.
Morris D and why hasn’t Abrahams been prosecuted? Or Hain? Has the Labour party repaid the donations it got through, to repeat the leader of the Labour party, a process which broke the law?
….and then they have the nerve to bang on about Ashcroft.
54 - You may have a dream that a poster will be judged not by the colour of their emoticon but on the content of their character.
But you’d still fail on both.
@57:
Exactly, tim. I found myself trying to explain this yesterday. The law is very explicit about what duty of care parties have towards their donors.
The LDs did due diligence, UKIP did not. The Electoral Commission can’t expect political parties to be psychic, but it can expect them to read an electoral register.
55 Asil Nadir hasn’t been found guilty of any crime. He didn’t even skip bail as that had lapsed.
What I said was, not that it was unjust for the Lib Dems to be forced to repay, but that I would be prepared to contribute to a fund to help keep them in existence.
#54: richard => robert.
[And yes, I had to many ciders last-night...!
]
#66, to => too.
drunk => ‘Tupac sense-of-humour
On-topic, I would say that Brown will only go now if his health genuinely forces him to.
I’m sceptical about this deal with Mandelson. How would Mandelson enforce it?
59. Ted. I think it would have to be announced by January at the latest. The contest would put a spring in everyone’s step and the diversity of Johnson Harman and Miliband (the elder) would remind people of the many strands within the Labour party.
Miliband would obviously have to win because as you suggest the other two are quite unsuited. If this dream scenario happens I think they have a very good chance of winning.
63 - Following all the climate stuff yesterday ( and it looks like Delingpole has had his Hannan US moment) you might be interested in Nigel Lawsons new venture launched next week, which doesn’t kow tow to the crazy conspiracists.
63. I think UKIP were bang to rights and deserve their sanction. But equally I think the Lib Dems have been let off because they are part of the political establishment. I wonder how the police investigation will end up?
62. Very good!
Roger I’m with you about Bliar etc. ZanuLab - another equally boring “joke”. It shows a mind more interested in appearing a smart a**e than informing the debate. An utter yawn
Good Morning Pudsey Bear Voters For Nick Palmer Worldwide.
Meanwhile …. Not quite sure why in a vibrant liberal democracy one political party would want another effectively removed the scene. But hey ho that’s entertainment !!
How many of the MPs and peers who are likely to get banged up as a result of the expenses issues have made donations to their parties? I guess all of them. Are we saying that all that cash should be repaid?
71 - Would you therefore assume that every bit of cash that Archer touched after pocketing his libel winnings in 1987 was to be paid back by the Tories?
74. Can a democracy really be ‘vibrant’ when some parties are treated preferentially?
FPT, #:by tim November 20th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
349 - Are you sniping at a Tory woman?
I hope she outlives her son.
‘Tupac…,
Are you coming to Fat Steve’s London bash next week…?
I find it amusing that Roger’s view of Brown is that if he’s going to lose..he’ll run away. Effectively a coward. (yes, yes i know…good of the party and all that).
It’s too late. The last, and only time was after the Euro’s and when Purnell resigned, and Brown had that major, major wobble. With Milliband in place then, there could have been time for the fightback. But now….no chance, it would just look desperate. Brown and Labour need to stand up, with honour, and take the hit.
re 77. Are you seriously questioning the Electoral Commission inquiry and judgement or just making cheap party points?
On topic - Harold Wilson got a very good press, at the time at least, when he went very suddenly, seemingly of his own accord. Gordon may well feel that the Party will hold him in higher esteem if he does fall on his sword, and this does matter to him.
However the man is just so chronically insensitive - for example no mention of MP expenses in the Queens Speech was very poor politics - that I suspect he just will not see it.
Edmund in Tokyo - whatever happens there will have to be an election for the leadership. There was in 1976 and justifying not having one would be almost impossible.
80. I think I’ve made my position pretty clear.
77 runnymede. From my reading of the cases the Electoral Commission has followed the rules explicitly. The only other interpretation is of rampant bias and that is a mighty big leap and if I might say so a potentially damaging libel.
I expect we all have our personal ways of trying to keep the huge mass of posts under control. Mine are, scroll over -
1. any posts longer than OGH’s original
2. any posts to do with Scotland
3. most posts by anyone with a prominent “W” in their name
4. betting posts that contain decimal points (sorry)
51/53 - behave. If the EC’s decision was even remotely suspect then a political foe would no doubt arrange for a judicial review of the decision. The decision may not be welcome in some quarters but it complies with the terms of EC’s remit. Had the decision gone against the LDs, a combination of members’ contributions and the Rowntree Trust would have met the bill.
81: I think we’re in a different and more cynicial time than Harold Wilson’s. In addition he was a Prime minster which had served for 6 years prior to his second period in office. (and of course it wasn’t a few months before a general election.)
80
Runnynose making cheap party points, don’t believe it.
I know you don’t like ‘foreign’ yerself, so I’d better point out to you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229637/Why-havent-MPs-got-normal-English-names-asks-Tory-official-Peter-Hobbins.html
86 Slacky - why does that change the scenario. This is a human issue - Gordon will be thinking “How will history view me?”
Oh and cynicism is not a modern invention. They could be pretty cynical in 1976 - the mp’s vote after Wilson left was riddled with it.
#84, by fr November 21st, 2009 at 10:18 am
I expect we all have our personal ways of trying to keep the huge mass of posts under control. Mine are, scroll over -
1. any posts longer than OGH’s original
2. any posts to do with Scotland
3. most posts by anyone with a prominent “W” in their name [ :claps: ]
4. betting posts that contain decimal points (sorry)
You mean you can decipher redcliffe62’s postings?
[ That said; yes, I have tried to read most of his comments. Spacing and capitalisation would help though. :thumbs: ]
81
I think its pretty much agreed that Wilson’s wife put pressure on Wilson to resign, as he was already showing signs of dementia.
So some of you Tory posters hoping for a career in politics, can’t see why?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/politics-is-a-nice-little-earner-ndash-if-youre-a-tory-1824942.html
Gold Rebounds Near $1,150 Despite Stronger Dollar
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34053779
Also how long has the Brown Bottom had its own Wiki page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_bottom
The Electoral Commission have still to rule on whether the Ashcroft donations to the Conservatives were legal . I must confess I will be highly amused if they announce that the Conservatives have to pay all that money back .
#84, by fr November 21st, 2009 at 10:18 am
I expect we all have our personal ways of trying to keep the huge mass of posts under control. Mine are, scroll over -
1. any posts longer than OGH’s original
2. any posts to do with Scotland
3. most posts by anyone with a prominent “W” in their name [ :claps: ]
4. betting posts that contain decimal points (sorry)
You mean you can decipher redcliffe62’s postings?
[ That said; yes, I have tried to read most of his comments. Spacing and capitalisation would help though. :thumbs: ]
+++ And link… +++
Good-day, and good-luck to “All Ethel voters for Nick Palmer - can’t be @rsed on Monday - MP”. [ © Jack W ]
88: It is a judgement call…but as time goes on, the downside risks get higher…and the upside risks get less.
The Downside risks:
Looks desperate by labour, and a effective admission that they will lose with Brown. Uncertainly about a successor would be deadly.
The upsides: A new leader changes things around policywise, gets a boost, saves a few seats.
I can’t see it. I can’t see anyone wanting the job to lead to a defeat still…unless they think they can force a hung parliment which might be possible, but then any leader will still look weak.
88. John Wheatley November 21st, 2009 at 10:24 am
“Gordon will be thinking “How will history view me?””
I would guess that he’ll be thinking “How can I win this election”? I don’t see why Brown would be anywhere close to giving up hope. The betting markets don’t see a Tory victory as nailed-on, so why would Brown, who is (let’s suppose) many orders of magnitude less objective in such matters?
I don’t see why he’d despair unless and until we get to the final week of the campaign with the Tories far enough ahead that no late, momentary swing to Labour could prevent their winning a majority. Say 13+ points ahead? Then he might privately give up.
Oh dear - only 1030 and we’re already into smeary/grumpy posts
Think I’ll go back to reading about AWG leaks - some highly amusing and embarrassing emails.
This is my favourite extract “…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish. Cheers, Phil [CDU Dir]“
Coldstone - I know - he knew his memory was going and that was one of his strongest characteristics.
If you heard the recent readings on the radio from the history of the secret service he was getting unbelievably paranoid
I’d urgue caution with such low odds. The risk might be low, but health reasons could force him out…
I think, if anything, Brown has recently re-enforced his position. I doubt that the people that matter within the party will be moving against him now.
Everyone can now see the finish line. Realistically, assuming nothing gives this side of xmas, I don’t think Labour now have time to do it even if they wanted to would they?
What will it take for Brown to go?
- major unexpected (and genuine) health event. He has survived huge strain (September-November last year, for example); but he does not look a well man, and the next six months are going to require the constitution of an ox, what with the Budget and General Election and all
- an “engineered” health event - probably sight-related. Requires Gordon to play along. Perhaps tied into scenarios below.
- perhaps - big perhaps - if extensive internal polling showed that he is the difference between the Tories and Labour being the largest party after the election. There have recently been suggestions that this polling exists. If Gordon felt he was what was causing the Tories to get in, then I believe using his utter hatred for the Tories against him is the sole reason he would stand aside. I’m not sure his ego would lightly admit this; he would (with some justification) argue that nobody who replaced him could go to the country without actively distancing themselves from Gordon’s record - and everything Gordon has done “was the right thing to do.” And he has recently dismissed his colleagues as lightweights.
- so, to play along with the old cheerio routine, he would have to be shown an election strategy that showed (a) there was an agreed replacement who (b) would get Labour to a point where they are the largest party after the election and (c) were going to respect his legacy in the process. Now THAT is a high hurdle to clear.
- perhaps linked with the above, the Unions could say “look, we are not going to put millions into the war-chest, just to have it p155ed up against a wall with Gordon as leader. Show us we have a fighting chance under a new leader - and the money will be there. Another piece of the jigsaw is the leaking of information that Labour does not have the funds to fight seats, and is effectively already conceding a swathe of marginals. If the Unions turn on the taps again for them, these MP’s might be less inclined to accept the inevitability of their defeat - and so be more minded to jump on board the moves to “persuade” Gordon to go.
- even if Gordon could be persuaded in the abstract - who replaces him? Miliband withdrew from consideration for the Euro job, presumably for a reason. But he has a reputation for bottling too. We are led to believe that he has suffered a grave knock-back to his reputation within the party as a result; is he really first choice? Johnson seems to further underwhelm with every public appearence. Young Miliband would get a Chinese burn if he tried to stand against his big brother. Harriet is as mad as a box of frogs, but her refusal to think she can be hurt with mortal bullets has given her the brass neck to go onto the media when all others just hid. And Ed Balls is just plain scary. “Caretaker” Jack Straw? He just might fit the bill, you know… And Alistair Darling? In broadly persevering with the economic position of Gordon, he is perhaps least likely to feel the need to rubbish what Gordon has done. But that is not what Britain needs - and he would be exposed in a Genral Election campaign, having to keep one eye on defending his seat (although “sitting PM” would give him a marked boost).
But you can see why Gordon would need some convincing that anyone would do better.
All in all, it still looks like Gordon only goes if he wants to; and there seem really quite limited grounds to convince him to go.
87 ‘I know you don’t like ‘foreign’ yerself, so I’d better point out to you.’
Coldstone, you might want to wind your neck in before making posts like that. It’s only a few months ago that you were referring to ‘Suzie Wongs’ on this very website.
84 fr. One can only wonder why you bother with PB in any respect ??
95 MichaelK. Apologies but I missed your comment on my thread relating to a Labour majority. I’ll lend the matter some thought and have a chat with Mike S about it.
100 Ah! but as yer know I’m rather fond of Chinese Ladies.
p.s.
I’m married to a lady whose father was Italian.
“But you can see why Gordon would need some convincing that anyone would do better.” … is a telling sentence MM
I see Brown has gone to paddle in the floods of Cumbria.
IIRC didn’t Brown, soon after gaining the helm of NuLabour in 2007, gain kudos for paddling in other floods?
Maybe the begining of another Brown bounce?
John Wheatly @81, I don’t know what the Labour Party rules said in 1976, but I don’t think the situations are comparable. The 1976 leadership election wasn’t right before a general election had to be held, was it?
IIRC the Labour Party rules say that if the PM stands down the cabinet picks a “temporary” replacement and a leadership election has to be held as soon as practical (or something like that). With a general election coming right up, that would be after the general election. Presumably if he/she won the general election the “temporary” PM would have no trouble getting the party membership to agree for him/her to stay on.
To the extent that there’s a recent precedent in British politics, it’s Michael Howard replacing IDS, and they didn’t have a contest there either.
There would be some muttering about Labour being undemocratic, and depending who was picked you could imagine some activists being peeved at being locked out of the process again, but it’s hard to see it shifting a lot of votes.
‘Great news guys, when the Tories get in we’re all going to leave Germany and be sent to Afgha…..shit’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6617358/Tories-to-pull-British-forces-out-of-Germany.html
Totally agree with Roger at 33.
Things like “Liebore”, “Lab Dims”, “Khameroneen” (or whatever it is today) is on a par with 12 year olds going on about “Man Ure” or “Tittnumb” in the playground.
Pathetic, in other words.
Meanwhile …. Norfolk’s biggest vegetable - head of the turnip teleban - Sir Jeremy Bagged-A-Brace Duff Pillock has announced his intention of voting Conservative at the general election …. and they say Cameron has all the luck !!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229704/Im-bothered-Turnip-bit-Taliban-does-upset-Sir-Jeremy-Bagge-reveals-thoughts-Tory-groups-nicknames.html
104. I trust that the rain will be easing off or there will be scope for more material for The Jonah Curse on Guido.
101. Jack W November 21st, 2009 at 10:43 am
Oh, excellent. I thought that had got lost in the surrounding noise.
I think it’s a neglected topic. If the momentum were to shift in Labour’s favour, it’s not obvious to me why it must stop in the hung parliament territory.
108 - That is a great photo.
Someone had to speak out and who better than me?’ he says, big voice booming, huge brow thrust forward.
Err, anyone else in the world?
52 Tim - Re Leicester NW.
As it happens, one of my moles is active in that neck of the woods, so I got on some months back at 8/13, but 2/5 is still good value, and a far less risky proposition than trying to buy free money on the Brown Exit market.
The die looks cast - but I find it hard to agree that Gordon facing the electorate is an absolute cast eye-ron certainty. When Lord Mandy is around anything can happen. Gordon looks unwell - he could find over Christmas that he doesn’t have the staying power until the election.
David ‘Banana’ Miliband has just been the recipient of a real love-in by Hillary Clinton no less. Ed Miliband is still looking like a ‘clean-skin’ who speaks Human.
If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. Okay, I think the window of opportunity for a clean transition has gone for good with Purnell’s cockup - but there is still room for the electoral equivalent of the Kobe earthquake to surprise everyone.
104 Yes, the tide could be turning for him.
(I’ll get me coat)
112 - Exactly.
Even if Brown were to stand down theres still a high likelihood of collecting.
108 - The least surprising bit of that piec has to be
It’s nothing short of bullying and I should know - I was bullied at school.
However the method does make cyber bullying look a bit wussy.
‘When I was at my prep I was beaten 32 times by my headmaster and bullied by a young lad who’s father was a brigadier out in Malaya.
‘We used to have to build all our tuck boxes into a wall and he would throw knives at us - pow pow pow pow pow! So I know bullying when I see it.’
90. What a strange story Coldstone. From the article ‘Being a Tory MP is a nice little earner’
“The study, published this month in the American Political Science Review, is thought to be the first to put a figure on the financial benefits of serving as an MP. It found that while the median Conservative member died with an estate worth £483,448, those who failed to win seats died with a total of £250,699, a difference of £232,749″
Aren’t the figures surprisingly low when you can barely buy a house on Sauchiehall St for £250,000? And what a strange way to estimate peoples wealth.
115. “However the method does make cyber bullying look a bit wussy.”
Don’t you think letting them build a wall from their tuck-boxes was a bit, well, soft? Can’t build an empire hiding behind a tuck-box you know.
110 There are just too many people who have given up on Labour - quite often, in a visceral way - for Labour to be largest party at the GE.
The Tories under Cameron are light years ahead of where they were under Howard. And Brown has so reduced the pool of talent available to Labour that six months is not remotely long enough to repair their damage.
The Tories have been winning elections since 2005. Labour has shown it is in deep trouble in those same elections. And that was mostly without the biggest issue of all - the economy has crashed and burned since 2005. Back in 2001 and 2005, there were lots of laissez-faire Conservatives, unable to get sufficiently worked up about a Labour Party delivering a decent standard of living to go out and vote against them. Not so in 2010. They are not happy bunnies…
116. Haven’t read the article, but the part you’ve just quoted seems to be a classic case of assuming cause and effect without evidence. It wouldn’t be surprising to learn that the kind of person who actually secures election is also the kind of person who obtains and retains more money.
116. That sounds like sloppy logic. The differential could equally be explained by the fact that wealthier candidates are more likely to get elected.
Brown the man who puts UK interests before party interests
117 - I found the fact that he’d been beaten by a prep school headmaster 32 times and seems to have kept a count the strangest part of that story.
Even given smaller class sizes the headmaster must’ve had little time for anything other than beating young boys.
108 I thought the funniest part of the article was when Sir J-B said Cameron’s apparachiks threatened him with an an approved shortlist that might be ‘ALL WOMEN!’
122 tim stand inthe corner, or I’ll kick your arse.
90 - It found that while the median Conservative member died with an estate worth £483,448
Given that the Tories say the IHT limit of a million quid helps the middle classes, that means most Tory MPs die working class, and many die in poverty.
118. Marquee Mark November 21st, 2009 at 11:13 am
I agree that an outright Labour victory is highly unlikely. I was commenting on Jack’s Tory Tsunami article though, and suggesting he could look at the long-odds proposition on the other side.
The points you touch on are the reasons why it’s unlikely. I think there is a plausible scenario for a Labour recovery though, and if that happens then each percentage point of swingback becomes critical.
122. tim November 21st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Well, we don’t know how many times the other boys were beaten.
Maybe Bagge Minor was particularly annoying.
FPT: Jeremy Bamber.
Having worked along-side his - then - girlfriend for Lewisham Council’s Youth Services I would doubt his innocence. Maybe John Looney could point me to evidence otherwise/outwith…?
126 MichaelK. Let’s get down to brass tacks and insert a few decimal points….wouldn’t want fr reading this !
A Labour Overall Majority is a very smelly 20.0 chance whereas the Tory Tsunami is an approximate 5.2 chance.
Any article about a Lab Maj needs to be a very short one.
127 - All of Sir Jeremy’s life makes sense if, before attending Eton, he was sent to Tenko Prep School.
130 God, you are so boring. You must get up every day on the farm and shake your fist and scream “I would be the greatest man in the world if it weren’t for those damn tory toffs!!!”
I’m not convinced that a change of leader would now do Labour any good. Labour’s record in office is regarded as too awful by too many people for a new leader to be able to turn that round in under six months. And who would want to take on the task of leading the Party to a heavy defeat?
I still can’t see Gordon going. Ann Treneman has published a book on 2009 “Annus Horribilis”. In a puff piece earlier this month she talked of Gordon Brown’s view of his predicament.
“It is always scary when you get a peek inside the Prime Minister’s brain…..the question put to Gordon Brown was almost gentle. “Prime Minister, you have talked about the tough year that you’ve had. One might almost say an annus horribilis. Are you optimistic that the next 12 months are going to be better?” As he heard the words “annus horribilis”, the PM’s eyes widened and his mouth formed into an instant little rosebud, an almost camp moué of surprise. As an expert on Gordon Brown facial expressions, I knew this was genuine. Clearly the idea that this had been his worst ever year in politics was a new concept. I watched his amazement in amazement. It is bad enough to have lived through an annus horribilis — but to not know you have lived through what you have lived through shows a lack of awareness that is almost as horribilis as the year itself.
The PM now put forward an alternative view, a sort of Not The Annus Horribilis Year. It had been, he allowed, a “difficult” year. “We’ve had to make tough decisions and we’ve had to make tough choices.” He recounted his grand successes, which included increased financial liquidity, social care, low-carbon technology, planning regulations, the White Paper on schools, youth employment and nuclear disarmament.
“And it is a difficult year that I think you can see that we are coming through by Building Britain’s Future, taking the decisions for the long term…..”
The moue of surprise - we’ve all seen that from Gordon - is to me the touchstone of truth, as Ann writes, that Gordon doesn’t see his predicament in same terms as most of us (and perhaps as Nick Palmer indicates as many Labour MPs do).
Thatcher didn’t even after the vote until her Cabinet, her friends and her husband told her. Brown’s Cabinet seems even more supine than Margaret’s, his coterie still ready to quash his internal enemies, his self confidence and self belief unsquashable.
Week last Monday we had tearful Mr Brown, victim, by Tuesday it was Brown Unbound, victor over the Sun.
Roger and others hope for the equivalent of an economic soft landding, a change in power without ructions, without any but good consequences. I just cannot see Gordon Brown, a man who cannot directly say sorry admitting to a greater fault, his unfittness for office, cos that’s what a resignation means.
131 – It is rather pathetic isn’t it, thank god Tim obsesses about a different person each day or else it might get really tedious.
Observing the prose style of the Tory halfwits and lackwits on pb.com, it occurs to me that if any of them had attended an old- fashioned prep school they would probably have been beaten 32 times a month…and that is just by the English master.
Reading between the lines, I think Tim was dumped unwillingly in boarding school at a tender age by his Tory-voting mother. It explains at least three of his principal animadversions.
135. I have to say old boy, that my English master would have been rather unimpressed by your use of an ellipsis.
134 Yes he was obsessing about Hague claiming plenty of opinion poll evidence to prove Hague is unpopular. None has been forthcoming. Funny that, when Hague always tops the Con Home shadow cabinet polls with a rating up in the 80% plus.
O/T, but there’s a lovely quote on Labour Home:-
” With only 5% of prisoners being women, women are vastly under-represented in the prison population. So, even if Harriet Harman is entirely innocent, it would be well worth sending her to prison anyway, just to help reduce the gross under-representation of women in prison… ”
57/63 et al
“1.A party has a clear duty to check the electoral register, and its not exactly difficult”
And how often are they supposed to do that?
Alan Bown was taken off the electoral register for 8 months without his knowledge or permission. Should a party be checking every week or every month to ensure its donors have not been the victim of an error by the local authorities?
Even better, perhaps local councils can identify prominent party donors in their area and remove them from the register if they don’t agree with their politics and then have the electoral commission fine them and drive the parties into bankruptcy. Seems a better way of getting rid of opposition than those boring old elections.
137 AndrewG. How do I get round it ? I like …it seems right to me but I have been criticised for ….ing in the past.
132 “I’m not convinced that a change of leader would now do Labour any good.”
There is a strong risk that it looks like Labour admitting “we’ve been really crap, haven’t we?” And everybody nodding in agreement. Whilst honesty may be the best policy, it’s not the best way to convince people to give you their vote…
136 You are undoubtedly right, and it would explain a lot. Enough about Tim though, I just get really tired of his variation on the theme of I hate toffs because… and it is not like I am remotely a toff, or even have positive feelings towards toffs. I am far more interested though in people who are actually damaging my standard of living, like Gordon and friends.
That Indy article simply proves that Tories have talent and Labour doesn’t.
Winning a seat more than tripled their chances of being offered a job as a company director. Many enjoyed profitable retirements as firms bought them up. However, Labour politicians, who were more likely to take up posts with unions, enjoyed far less lucrative positions.
Can’t get a job except with the union. Shame.
141. No idea, I’ve got no objection to it myself. I think my old English teacher thought that any punctuation other than a comma or full stop was an unnecessary extravagance.
69 - “winning” Roger? - I’m afraid that is beyond them now.
There is a reason for that you see, all the terrible damage they have inflicted on this country cannot be made to dissapear just by axing gordo
Most people seem to be assuming that to remain in office Labour has to emerge as the largest party - should a Hung Parliament come to pass. This,of course, is not so!
147 It would be extremely difficult for them to remain in office if they weren’t the largest party.
129. URW November 21st, 2009 at 11:31 am
I just wonder if the 20.0 shouldn’t be shorter.
Let’s suppose that Labour recover, modestly, to see the polls at something like 37/32/19 at the start of the campaign. Then suppose that the Tory campaign is less effective than some of us expect and the Lab and LD campaigns more effective. It’s then not a big shift to get to something like 34/34/20, which gives Labour 325 seats according to Baxter.
It’s also possible that Labour will finally find an effective line of attack against Cameron, which would move some of the anti-Labour vote into the LD column. The outcome gets very hard to predict if both Con and Lab poll in the low 30s and the LDs in the mid 20s.
Of course, there are many grounds for believing this won’t happen. For me the fundamental point is simply extrapolating from 2005: it’s hard to see the Tories ending up with less than 37% this time as an absolute minimum.
(Btw, I know you’ve said many times on here that Labour Overall is your only major risk. I’m not trying to wish it on you, or, indeed, the country.)
Only teenagers change their spots.
Brown has a life-long habit of not being there when the ordure hits. No matter how deluded he may be much of the time he must know in those waking 3am moments that the electorate are loading up trebuchets full of ordure to fire in his direction.
He will not face the electorate, so way will be found to sleaze him from office so that someone else gets the full load and he can shamble into whatever the future holds for him convincing himself that he was undefeated (if also unelected) and that maybe, maybe, had it not been for the iron filings put into his contact lens case by a Mysterious Hand(elson) everything would have been so much different.
+++ SHOCKING NEWS +++
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/daily-show-brit-gets-own-comedy-series-1824105.html
Getting me’ coat now…. :bye-bye:
Look it,MichaelK @ 149. You can take 40-1 LAB 325-349 with Betfred and 50-1 LAB 350-374 with anyone and everyone and 100-1 LAB 375-399 with Victor Chandler.
Doesn’t that just about sum up their chances ?
Why not just have a bet ?
That was a really good post of yours upthread re the only way Brown would leave office.
I can’t see Brown going of his own choice. I know many people will laugh, but he does enjoy General Election campaigns. He actually seems to have (relatively) a spring in his step. He thought he had got into his stride during the second half of that debate. He seems to think that here comes his moment when he can expose what he believes is his intellectual genius against the opposition’s lack. He won’t go of his own choosing.
Secondly I would have thought that any change in leader would open up a “future of Labour” debate. The left is not going to sit meekly through another coronation. They will want a real say. When Major replaced Maggie he had a target. Replace the Poll Tax and you can drain the venom that in the political system against them. What can a new leader do? What can they do to show a real change between now and the election that there has been a change in Labour? That is the timescale that matters.
148. I disagree. If the election gives us a result of Con 295 Lab 275 LibDem 50ish I see no reason why the latter would decide to put the Tories in if they came to the view that their policy disageements were significantly greater than those with Labour.Moreover, the LibDems would have more leverage over Labour.
SthLondon Nick November 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
In the 2005 campaign Brown ‘took over’ in a dual role with Blair and then was hardly seen again except at ’safe’ events.
So if he really does enjoy campaigns it is not being on the streets and heckled at hustings which he likes. More the lever pulling and crowd adulation, and the odd ice cream.
153 They could do that, in principle, but it would be very damaging for them, politically. Lib Dem voters are evenly divided between preferring a Conservative or Labour government. Those who prefer a Conservative government would be seriously annoyed at the Lib Dems choosing to prop up an unpopular Labour administration, which would probably have finished up a long way behind the Conservatives in the popular vote to achieve such a result.
It is also clear that when you are very much the junior partner in a coalition, you take the flack for that coalition’s unpopular decisions, while the senior partner tends to get the credit for the popular decisions.
In your scenario, I predict that the Lib Dems would support neither party, but allow the Conservatives to form a minority government.
Is Tome heading for the slammer?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1229692/PETER-OBORNE-He-looks-haunted-new-claims-torture-war-lies-hes-got-lot-haunted-by.html
If it were a Nomaj for the Libdems, there would be the make-or-break question, ‘Electoral Reform, support, then a GE after two years’ who’ll be the more likely to accept those conditions?
Justin if the LibDems supported a minority Labour government then their hopes of PR would be dead for a generation as it would demonstrate as clearly as ever possible that PR leads to the party the people want out, staying in.
And it would lead to LibDem rout at the next election.
For proof look at what has happened to them in Scotland propping up Labour in a coalition that arguably the majority of voters did not want.
OT Hard-hitting article by Andrew Bolt re AGW leaks
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_the_australian_link/
He’s been on fire for 24hrs - I think Christmas came early for him.
And a further point is that such a coalition would be hugely damaging to investor confidence, thus damaging its own popularity.
I don’t think the Lib-Dem will support either party. I suspect they will commit to nod through the first Queens speech and budget in return for legislation for voting reform. But beyond that I don’t think they would actually dare go into coalition with any party.
I’m not convinced, the voters are probably tired (I am) of the Buggins turn, they’d like something different.
160
Don’t think having VC as CofE would bother too many.
159. I have to nip out in just a minute, so I probably won’t reply to any response until later. But some of these allegations of “rigging” are ridiculous. This one stands out from your link:
“In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.”
If among thousands of emails, this is one of the main parts of the case for a conspiracy, it’s pretty weak ground. “Beefing up” a section of work just means to cover it in more detail.
It’s a real shame there isn’t any proper coverage of these emails yet. The right-wing blogs are clearly just going into a crazy frenzy with no rhyme or reason to their thinking, and the centre-left outlets are just trying to gloss over it.
162. If 1974 is anything to go by, most people like the idea of a hung parliament until they actually have to experiance one when the novelty very quickly wears off!
158. Witan, the Lib Dems lost 1 MSP at the Scottish elections in 2007. The Tories lost 1 MSP at the Scottish elections in 2007. So being in coalition, or not, doesn’t make much difference.
160 - Storm in teacup shocker.
155. I think it is more likely that a period of negotiations would follow between the LibDems and the two bigger parties to establish a basis of support for an agreed programme.On balance I think they would find it easier to support a Labour minority programme - rather than one drawn up with the Tories.Certainly the LibDems would need to show they has helped to significantly shape it - and force Labour to drop specific proposals - but I still believe that most of their MPs and activists are more instinctively anti-Tory.
I accept that the position is much more mixed with LibDem voters - but a point often overlooked is that whilst most of their seats are found in traditionally Tory areas , in order to win them they need tactical Labour votes which are likely to disappear should they help the Tories take office.
161. I agree that a formal coalition is not very likely.
167 They could keep their voters’ support by not supporting either side.
Historically, the Liberals have not done very well out of propping up minority Labour administrations.
164
They didn’t have the experience of one in ‘74! What later emerged was an agreement between the Labour and Liberal Party, but it was never a coalition as such.
159 - the most shocking thing out of this is the Beeb article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
If ever proof were needed of the BBC failing in its public service broadcasting remit then this is it. I very much hope that one of the Sunday papers should see fit to have this on the front page so that this will not go unreported. The fact that it is now 3 days after the scandal broke, and the mainsteam media (MSM) are trying to keep a lid on this is an absolute outrage.
169 - The role of the NI parties would be interesting.
And the genius of the Tory strategy in ensuring that the UUP are reduced to no seats would be significant.
171 - If the BBC reported every conspiracy theory going round the internet there’d be no room for the news.
Iain Dale has an interesting interview/discussion with Vince Cable for ‘Total Politics’
http://www.totalpolitics.com/magazine_detail.php?id=650
172 - 0 or 1, not much difference.
The slight leverage that the Lib Dems would have in a “hung” parliament depends entirely on the antipathy between Labour and Tory - who could readily, if they chose, form an overwhelming majority between them. This would be the case even a hundred MPs from each side declined to join such a coalition.
175, the odds on the Lib Dems having a choice of who to form a coalition with are pretty long. They’d need the other two parties to be about the same and then to have enough seats to give either a legitimate shot at government.
Still likeliest the Tories will get an outright majority.
I suspect that would not be enough to keep their tactical Labour voters on board.
If Brown attemted to carry on in such a scenario and presented a Queen’s Speech to Parliament , would the LibDems simply abstain leaving the Government’s fate in the hands of the Unionists, SNP and Plaid?
Sorry I meant to refer my last post to 169.
Surprising prominence in today’s press for the English Democrat mayor of Doncaster, complete with reference to last night’s near miss by his party in a local byelection.
A bit more evidence for the idea that Labour could face some big swings in previously safe areas e.g. ex mining areas…
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cc954b8-d606-11de-b80f-00144feabdc0.html
Odds on bets have their own charm. They are probably more often underpriced than odds against bets because more punters want to bet odds against. This bet looks underpriced and if it wins you collect in fairly short order.
173 - absolute rubbish Tim. It’s precisely people like you who do not wish to confront the blinding evidence in front of them on this that are precisely the problem here. They always did say that the first stage of grief is denial - how true.
My advice - get over the denial stage and start confronting the fact that you and a lot of people have been led a merry dance by the powers that be over this. The timing just before the Copenhagen summit couldn’t have been better as far as I’m concerned!
172 The current UUP MP is more likely to support Labour so even if the UUP didn’t win a seat its a reduction of 1 on the side of Labour lobby.
The DUP have shown their votes are for sale and in a hung Parliament with Conservatives largest Party the more pro Nationalist Labour Party would be at a disadvantage buying their votes compared to the Conservatives.
I am of the opinion that Cameron would prefer to be significantly the largest party in a hung parliament, than have a small majority of 0-15 seats.
For a number of reasons:
1) It would change the balance of power with his backbenchers in his favour
2) When the inevitable early election came it could be portrayed as Opposition obstructionism rather than Conservative weakness.
3) He would be able to challenge Lab/LibDems to support Govt legislation under the threat of an election they almost certainly wouldn’t want. If he had a majority then they wouldn’t have to make that decision.
Vince Cable has said that the Lib Dems would look first to support the party with the most seats in a hung Parliament. In practice, if that party had fewer votes than the party that came second, such an approach might need to be modified if the Lib Dems were to keep their campaign for PR credible.
180 - On the contrary IMO, most punters like backing favorites, and the stronger the favorite the better.
One of my favourites now reporting the AGW scam:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
171. We still don’t know if all the emails are genuine. It’s right of a media organisation to verify accuracy first.
Missed Any Questions. Would it be worth listening to it on the iPlayer?
The reason “better” odds are available on odds-on shots are because it is the most competetive part of the market.
OMW Hattie is barking on AQ - we need more wimmin wimmin wimmin, and then more wimmin.
191, OMW?
Everyone knows testicles cause illness, depravity and financial collapse. Only with the cleansing power of ovaries can we achieve true Utopia!
Just because there might be evidence that some of the leading scientists have developed tendencies to be advocates rather than objective judges of scientific evidence, it doesn’t follow that the whole thing is a “scam”.
187 - it’s genuine alright. Even Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia is saying so for goodness sake. The Beeb, Sky and the rest of the MSM don’t want to report it because:
1) it drives a coach and horses through all the nonsense they’ve spouted about the subject over the past 20 years
and
2) I suspect they wish to delay it so it gives all those with big financial stakes in alternative energy companies, and all those with money riding on the AGW propaganda to get out before they get burnt from the ensuing carnage.
And anybody who says that governments don’t waste money on a profligate scale - just think what could have been done with all the grants that governments worldwide have provided over the past 20 years to the “scientists” propagating this myth over that time. They shouldn’t be called scientists at all, they are an absolute and total disgrace, and I for one hope that the full weight of law is brought to bear on those who have knowingly perpetrated this myth for so long.
195 - 187 meant to be 189. this renumbering is so confusing!!
190 - If you like Labour getting a kicking, then yes. Actually the last couple of AQs have been a lot better.
156 - from the link 2 things struck me
” A Human Rights Watch report into British complicity with torture is to be published on Tuesday and will add to the pressure.”
I for one am very interested in seeing what this has to say
“His predecessor, Margaret Thatcher, has only to enter a restaurant and the room will rise to applaud her. Tony Blair, in contrast, is increasingly reviled and insulted.”
Oooh thats gotta smart for the red team
194. Indeed, but it is an enormous blow to attempts to persuade us all that the incorruptible seekers after the truth called the ‘global scientific community’ are united in accepting the GW theory - and that anyone who demurrs is either a crank or in the pay of some nefarious lobby.
151. URW November 21st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
OK. I’ve taken Labour 300-324 and 325-349. I think > 349 really is inconceivable.
(I’m actually very keen for Labour to lose the election, but I worry that that colours my judgement about what is likely to happen, and I probably over-compensate as a result.)
Then I shall lsiten to AQ later. Cheers, Nicholas of London
183 - I think we need more research into what personality types are attracted by conspiracy theories.
Meantime let me know when the smoking email turns up that proves Norwich is twinned with New York and Tel Aviv in the nexus of new world government.
202 - There may be a position in between conspiracy theory and what the climate changers were claiming.
Not that you are interested in truth of course.
198 - I hope Human Rights Watch have ‘cleaned house’ or the report will be ignored in favour of side commentary on Nazis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/15/human-rights-watch-nazi-israel
202 - none of your talents of obfuscation and misrepresentation also known now widely as spin, can hide the fact that your AGW fantasy world has at last come crashing down.
You’ll have to do better than this desperate stuff. Grade E - must try harder.
After a quick look at the e-mails, I’d say the researchers have substantial bias, which has probably affected their work, even if it doesn’t amount to knowing fraud.
On the larger issue, CO2 levels are certainly increasing, and can affect climate, but so can many other factors, natural and artificial. Further, the effect of the stringent auto-CO2 measures proposed, according to the advocates own forecasts, is grossly disproportionate to the costs.
CO2 most likely is causing global warming, and may conceivably even be the dominant factor affecting climate change at the moment, but it is not the only factor. Nor will end CO2 emissions put the climate in stasis.
Therefore, we probably should reduce CO2 emissions, but we shouldn’t panic. Drastic measures are more likely to do harm than good, and can be more easily be afforded by future generation anyway. After all, barring a century long recession, or similar calamity, or descendant will be far richer than us.
Nelson must be spinning in his grave
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229654/A-Navy-vessel-just-50ft-away-pirates-kidnapped-British-yacht-couple-Why-didnt-sailors-stop-Human-rights-course-.html
Talking about spin
“That original MoD briefing had deliberately created the impression that the meeting between Wave Knight and Kota Wajar never happened.
Indeed, MoD spokesmen suggested that Wave Knight had simply come across the yacht empty and adrift on the High Seas; the Chandlers had already been taken hostage and had been whisked away before British forces arrived on the scene to answer their distress signal.
This was very definitely not the case.”
How New Labour
202. I think the AGW sceptics are playing this badly. The idea that the evidence for AGW is entirely fraudulent and the result of a conspiracy is just silly. However, it very probably is true that academic group-think has played a part. Anyone who goes within a mile of academe will have noticed how money, and more importantly prestige, accrue to those who follow the party-line, research the fashionable subjects and support the fashionable view in their papers. It doesn’t automatically mean the party line is wrong. Openness with the data would be good though, given that the case is so fraught with social and political implications.
Also, it’s worth noting that fraudulent evidence can be presented for hypotheses that are nonetheless valid. cf Archaeopteryx.
“it’s genuine alright. Even Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia is saying so for goodness sake.”
Link?
“The Beeb, Sky and the rest of the MSM don’t want to report it because:
1) it drives a coach and horses through all the nonsense they’ve spouted about the subject over the past 20 years”
I’m sorry, but this is complete horsesh*t. I’ve only been reading up on this stuff this morning due to a busy week, but even if we accept the emails, after understanding the full context, are evidence of all the things the critics are saying (manipulation of data, suppression of dissent etc), that only describes those involved. By your logic, the revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib show beyond doubt the Islamists were right about the whole US army are an evil organisation that tortures Muslims.
164 et al
How can anyone who has any belief in the scientific process possibly condone this email between two of the worlds supposed leading climate change specialists:
“From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
[...]
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
So if you write a paper we don’t agree with we will change the peer review process to make sure it doesn’t get accepted.
They have no shame.
203 - And you’ll find Nigel Lawson is launching a think tank to try and fill that gap next week.
Mail reporting the story now
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html
Looks like the e mails are real then
“the email suggesting ‘hiding the decline’ is purported to be from Phil Jones, the unit’s
director.
He denied trying to mislead, telling the TGIF digital newspaper he had no idea what he meant by the phrase.
‘That was an email from ten years ago,’ he said. ‘Can you remember the exact context of an email you wrote ten years ago?’”
206…can you tell me what proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made?
212
And the Washington Post are running with it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.\
html?hpid=sec-nation
And the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
And in the UK as well as the Telegraph there is the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6926325.ece
Interesting
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229630/Police-EVERY-crime-victim-says-Home-Secretary-Alan-Johnson.html
209
I agree with you in principle Socrates but surely it is interesting that all the other news organisations report the substance of the emails and data whilst the BBC makes no mention what so ever and just talks about the fact that Hadley was hacked.
214 - Universal Headline is
“Scientists Over-Egg Pudding”
Hardly the Da Vinci Code
210. Indeed. While I think the emails which show alleged manipulation of data can be explained as quickhand use of language, the suppression of rival perspectives are pretty damning for the individuals involved.
217
“Scientists lie and manipulate data to influence international policies” would be a more realistic interpretation.
216. I do agree the BBC has revealed some of its bias in the omissions of that story.
217 - there you go again ……..
210 That was one of the most egregious IMO. The list of publications covering this has grown substantially - there were 117 articles on Google news this morning, now 171 and counting.
Delingpole sums up the reluctance of the MSM well here
“This is not altogether the MSM’s fault. Partly it is just the way of things that more and more readers prefer their news and opinion served up in snappier, less reverent, more digestible and instant for.
But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?
As Upton Sinclair once said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” ”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
190 - Yes, if you can’t stand Hattie because she does n’t go down well with the audience.
Of course tims attempts to downplay this story have nothing to do with gordo and Labour’s “50 days to save world” nonsense
213. It’s about 27% I believe.
213, the best long term record is the Keeling curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
Looking at that, CO2 levels have risen by roughly 20% since the 60’s, almsot certainly predominantly due to human activity.
Going further back, the typical CO2 level in recent interglacials seems to be around 300 ppm, not the current 380-390 ppm. Again, the most likely cause of the discrepancy is human activity.
Overall, there is little room for doubt that people have significantly increased CO2 levels, but plenty of room for debate over what the long term effects of that will be.
regarding global warming - i think politicians and scientists are not persuading the public because it is difficult to see and you need to be an expert scientist to understand it and even then our predictive capability is probably not more than 50 % and probably less. But if you tell the public that the amazon rainforest is disappearing or mangrove swamps are no more or the tiger will be extinct or closer to home rivers are polluted etc then the public gets very concerned and will take action, money flows and politician win mandates to take action. In the process carbon emissions are cut and the world is saved. But having loads of scientists and politicians going on about warming climates in 50 years with little hard proof ( this is different to predictions and even evidence ) does not get the public going - but the hard facts about man made habitat destruction and pollution are really important to people today
I know the Government needs money but …..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/savings/article6926186.ece
“Graham Beale, the chief executive of Nationwide Building Society, confirmed yesterday that he had lobbied for the product to be pulled as he revealed that his organisation had suffered a £6 billion drain from defecting depositors in the past six months alone.”
And for those who are interested in how the leading AGW scientists sought to marginalise their opponents - my this sounds very familiar tactics…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_its_silencing_of_the_sceptics/
Try this one:
“PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame—he encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter—50+ people.Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work—must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.”
218 - Equally however, you can’t ignore that many of the “rival perspectives” are funded to promote certain agendas.
One can express outrage at apparent “non-neutrality” of some “pro” AGW scientists, but in some respects this is an inevitability.
Probably a large amount of their time has to be sent testing the claims of “research” coming out of the global oil corporations, and it is not totally surprising considering its origin that the first instinct will often be simply to find a way to debunk it quickly, rather than accept it as a valid working hypothesis to be challenged.
222. Is this the same Delingpole that claimed a US war veteran in his 80s was faking his background?
224 - Don’t be silly.
I do find the genesis of conspiracy theories interesting though and the personality types they attract.
Delingpole is playing a blinder.
229 - I don’t really see anything wrong with that at all.
217 If there is a real danger then “scientists over egg pudding and are found out” is a dismal outcome as it gives the “deniers” (as I think they were referred to last week) strength and weakens the work being carried out by good scientists.
At worst we are seeing evidence of massaging figures, keeping data from those you disagree with, closing off publication to scientists with valid theories. Its hard enough without such possible malpractices being involved.
233 Read the others that go with it - replacing anti-AGW scientists with their own, bringing their credentials in disrepute…
Dirty stuff. Win on arguments not taking out your opponents.
229 I’m not sure an email criticising the use of bad science simply to come up with a debate is the marginalising that you are looking for…..
235. If you thought a good journal was publicising bad science, due to having bad scientists on their team, is it not reasonable to collate opinion of other scientists that agree with you and petition the journal?
As there have been lots of posts about the alleged conspiracy on global warming, I read the Mail and New York Times stories linked above. as the NYT says:
“The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. ”
It’s a pity if someone in one research institute tried to manipulate the data, but unless one is already inclined to believe that it’s an example of a global conspiracy, it doesn’t change anything.
For policy-makers, it’s not actually essential to regard the case as proven. Even if it’s merely rather likely, they need to act in case it’s correct. In the worst-case scenario that it’s all a hideous lie by evil scientists, we end up having a cleaner planet and less dependence on fossil fuel imports anyway.
233
Well if you knew anything about the subject you might try asking why two of the scientists listed are Fred Singer who is one of the world’s foremost professors of Atmospheric Physics and Richard Lindzen who Professor of Meteorology at MIT. These are hardly obscure scientists and certainly shouldn’t be suject to the sort of censorship being proposed by CRU scientists just because they have a different view.
238
Really Nick? So it is alright to destroy all those rain forests to plant biofuels and deny industrialisation to third world countries to protect us against climate change even if it turns out not to be true?
You have a very warped view of the world.
240 When science becomes a religion and those who disagree are referred to as ‘deniers’, their professional qualifications [PhDs] are described as ‘crap’, attempts are made to get their work only reviewed by their opponents and on and on…
Whether AGW is accurate - the tactics are appalling.
238. Well, it’s not quite that simple is it Nick? There is a high cost (in particular, an opportunity cost) to many of the measures intended to reduce global warming, so if it isn’t really happening we can’t just shrug and say “no problem, we’ll have a cleaner planet anyway”.
There’s also the question of whether any of the proposed counter-measures would have a significant effect, if AGW is in fact occurring.
239. Singer certainly has a strong scientific background back in the day, but there are question marks about some aspects. He has received thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil, as well as doing paid consultancy work for a string of oil companies. He has also claimed there are no dangers from passive smoking, and doubts the link between the Ozone hole and CFCs - the latter being something that is universally accepted seeing as the problem started getting better when we banned CFCs.
Lindzen reportedly charges thousands of dollars a day in consultant fees for oil and gas companies, and has had research funded by OPEC in the past.
I’m not saying this conflict of interest discredits them and their work by itself, but it certainly counters high-profile scientific positions they have held in the past.
Delingpole.
Meanwhile, the Climategate scandal (and I do apologise for calling it that, but that’s how the internet works: you need obvious, instantly memorable, event-specific search terms) continues to set the Blogosphere ablaze.
As it says under the aticle
A conspiracy of EU proportions
Nick Palmer as you believe that ‘merely rather likely’ is a reason to change the whole basis of society and invest trillions in new technology, surely it is also enough for you to act to remove Gordon Brown as it is rather more than ‘merely likely’ that he is destroying the economy we have at the present and the society we cherish.
234 Ted Absolutely agree with all you say here.
237 Socrates. If you think you see bad science, you attack the science with science, showing either data or method to be wrong. Ad hominem attacks, preventing debate, limiting access to your data only to those who already agree with you is not the way to go.
For anyone interested R4 play on now is Great Tennessee Monkey Trial
For those interested in how the story is spreading in the US, in addition to the usual right wing blogs and Fox News, the story has now made:
Washington Post
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Boston Herald
National Public Radio
Interestingly enough, a couple of Indian media have also picked up on the story - not good for Copenhagen’s prospects
Current prize for hyperbole:
“This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” climatologist Patrick J. Michaels told the New York Times [NYT]
Michaels is not a climatologist, he is a PR man for the oil industry:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels
OT - nice bit of climate change irony from the beeb :-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229695/BBC-dispatches-35-staff-climate-talks–creating-carbon-African-village-does-year.html
Passive smoking is unpleasant but there are no ‘dangers’ from it.
248 - In a July 27, 2006 ABC News report, it was revealed that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000. The report noted that the cooperative has a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps.
Its a conspiracy!
All Govts want climate change to be true, its the best new source of revenue with limitless potential.
Is it safe to turn the central heating up?
251 £100k? Chicken feed.
“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls (Google preview, click)
which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. The major amounts came from HEFCE (6.6 million pounds) and NERC (2.7 million pounds)…”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html
HEFCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England
and
NERC Natural Environment Research Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERC
253 - Its very mild up here, are you in the shandy belt?
We should however do the no brainer stuff first.
1.Move to Nuclear as we should have done in the 70’s
2.Give up driving 4 by 4 fours because they make you look like a dickhead.
3.Use public transport in cities because it goes faster.
Nothing controversial there.
245: yawn, Witan, is there no subject so divorced from British party politics for you not to drag in your view of the Government? Turnip Taliban are one thing, but you risk the label of Tedious Taliban.
249 - would one expect any less from the Beeb!
254 - quite right Plato. Tim never did let an inconvenient fact get in the way.
Was watching Sky News at lunchtime, they advertise as “First for Breaking News” - well wakey wakey over the AGW scare! If this wasn’t so serious it would be laughable.
256 - “1.Move to Nuclear as we should have done in the 70’s” - so Tim you were supporing the building of nuclear power plants in the 1980’s were you?!! The ability you and other lefties have to forget your own history is truly breathtaking!!
251/254 As someone who works in an NGO which survives solely on grant money, depending on the type of work being done, neither $100k nor $1m per annum is huge money (mind you, I’d love $1m pa from just two sources over 20 years!!!). We organise international conferences and cover experts’ travel expenses but no honoraria. Each major conference costs about $500k, a small meeting around $50k. In addition, our overhead (and we are a tiny organization) is around $500k pa.
The money aspects are not the story for me, nor even the pass/fail on global warming. The failure to compartmentalize science and politics and the determination to freeze dissenters out from the data/chance to challenge the science is.
259 - Always supported nuclear and laughed at people in 4 by 4’s.
Long before the science followed me.
256 tim
We should however do the no brainer stuff first.
…
3.Use public transport in cities because it goes faster.
Estonia has a fine public transit system. It runs on time and often. Yet reasons remain for avoiding it.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fElxANhCbJ0
256. Agree that we should move to nuclear. Not sure the idea is uncontroversial though.
Much heat (anthropogenic for sure) and little light on this topic. What matters, as ever, is whether AGW is occurring and what (if anything) we should do about it if it is. These revelations don’t prove or disprove the hypothesis, though they do make some of the scientists involved look ethically different.
260 agreed TimT - I have argued with Richard Tyndall over Global Warming before as I’m generally on the its very probable and we should be taking steps side but have felt the case was often weakened by the “Greenery”, the New Agers etc, and am feeling really concerned by the degree of political advocatism (small p political rather than party politics) that the leaked documents shows.
246. I don’t disagree.
264. I, too, detest much of the political green lobby. The whole ascetism to the movement, combined by many parts of it with a desire to use the issue to get rid of capitalism.
The truth is, we could have some very dramatic action on GHG emissions - enough to probably cap the warming to two degrees celsius - at a relatively small cost. If we do it the right way it would probably be a couple hundred more each year in energy costs (although we will still see rising incomes so people wouldn’t be any poorer than they are now). The idea that to do this we need to start cycling everywhere, never go abroad on holiday and stop using our stereos is rubbish.
263. “Agree that we should move to nuclear. Not sure the idea is uncontroversial though.”
That’s the understatement of the century.
252. “All Govts want climate change to be true, its the best new source of revenue with limitless potential.”
How is it any more limitless than corporation tax, etc?
261. Tim, do you have a 4+4 on the farm? Or do you get round on quad?
266 “The idea that to do this we need to start cycling everywhere, never go abroad on holiday and stop using our stereos is rubbish”
Or even all become vegetarians and eat our pets - clearly a bit of an ideological conflict
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/2987821/Save-the-planet-eat-a-dog
269 Shurely you mean by ruminant?
Oh, perhaps not - they fart too much.
269
I think tim gets around on all fours
272 - Harsh but fair…
263 - I wonder if the Lib Dems will come a cropper over nuclear in the election campaign.
They sound increasingly incoherent and support for nuclear is growing amonst the public.
269 - Sedan Delivery
272 - Back to the dog stuff are you, scooper.
272 No tim, I wasnt thinking dogs at all…
tim
Why do you keep going on about conspiracies? I’ve seen posters castigating the scientists and the organisation. I’ve haven’t seen anyone mention ‘global conspiracy’.
Is this the classic New Labour set up a straw man tactic? Is it so ingrained you do this instinctively?
On AGWgate, the issue is two fold:
1) Those on the side of warming say that the science is settled and we can trust the science as it has been ‘peer-reviewed’. On this basis, Hadley refuse to reveal the source data, only publishing the data after adjustments.
2) Those on the sceptical side don’t believe the data and don’t trust the peer review system. They want methods (ie source code) made available for testing.
What the emails have done is cast doubt on the honesty of those writing the papers and the robustness of the peer review system. Alas, it doesn’t seem that the source code has been leaked. But it might be lurking in there.
This whole issue can be dealt with by making the data available. As it is a public body, in receipt of public funds, it should do so.
If you are interested in numbers rather than rhetoric, the chart at the top of 15/56 in this document is very interesting:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Climate_Change_Business_final_report.pdf
277 - The significance of the hacked material is not in the e-mails themselves, which are damaging enough; it is the documents which require scientific analysis and number crunching, these results will not be known for some time.
Why on earth newly leaked information into the public domain constitutes a ‘conspiracy’ according to Tim, is beyond me.
274. Are they robust enough to drive across fields?
My own view on 4+4’s is that I do think they are acceptable in a farming enviroment, but these people living in towns and cities driving around in these great big vehicles designed for cross fields and streams are just daft.
For those who aren’t interested in wading through acres of comments, but are curious to know more about the key oh-dear-me stuff - The Devil’s Kitchen has turned the BishopsHill finds into something very edible.
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/some-cru-email-summaries-4.html
226 “Overall, there is little room for doubt that people have significantly increased CO2 levels, but plenty of room for debate over what the long term effects of that will be”
Agrre with first part.The debate is largekly around speed and intensity of warming.I cant see anything really serious being done unless there are a few large scale natural disasters.Such disatersare more likley to be around rain events flooding drought than temperature in the short term.
Cameron thinks its a March election..
http://www.expressandstar.com/2009/11/21/cameron-predicts-election-date-at-meeting/
277 - it’s simple why they won’t make the data available, because it doesn’t conform to their predictions. The earth has been cooling since 1998, had to laugh recently when northern China including Beijing had a record amount of snowfall for November, and only a fortnight earlier had made it rain / snow to end a drought.
The classic AGW scare about artic icemelt wasn’t mentioned this year, I wonder why, oh it showed a million sq km more under ice than the previous summer.
But it would be entirely wrong to look at just recent evidence, 450 million years ago we had about 10 times the level of CO2 combined with some of the coldest temperatures ever experienced on earth. But as the AGW crowd have shown, inconvenient facts should never get in the way of a thesis. Such an approach is an abomination of the scientific method, and must be exposed for what its worth.
Wow, R4 prog on savant Derek Paravicini [blind concert pianist] - if this is on iPlayer - can’t recommend it strongly enough.
He can play over 10000 pieces in any style and key spontaneously - jazz, pop, classical - truly amazing.
283.
“Cameron thinks its a March election..”
No he doesn’t. He’s simply picked the first seriously-conceivable date to mention keep his troops alert. Other will do the same but most expect May.
274. tim November 21st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Not sure. The case for nuclear is based on a) maths and b) acceptance of reality. I mean .. do we see a problem with selling this?
And really, the Lib Dem’s USP has never been coherence. (Although that might change at this election, as there’s a fighting chance of their being in a coalition government afterwards. But then again, will anyone be focusing on this before the election. How much time will Labour or the Tories spend attacking the LDs?)
283. The only conclusion I can draw from that prediction is that Cameron actually wants a May rather than a March election. Doesn’t he want to be Prime Minister two months earlier?
282 - I challenge all those people on here who believe in this AGW nonsense to stop flying, give up their cars and voluntarily pay more tax to the government in the form of a carbon levy. Otherwise they’re just being rank hypocrites.
Will they? Do pigs fly?!
283. That would mean the election itself would be called in February. That means in just three months time we could be in a general election campaign! :O
I wonder if the Conservatives are talking up 25th March so they can make it look as though Browns bottled it one last time?
287. “Not sure. The case for nuclear is based on a) maths and b) acceptance of reality.”
Hmmm. Something very similar was said about the case for invading Iraq.
283 This was Wolverhapmton, bear in mind:
“One questioner who criticised Tory plans to scrap inheritance tax provoked a defiant defence from the leader. Mr Cameron said: “I believe inheritance tax should be paid only by millionaires.”
His reply drew some of the loudest applause of the evening.”
Dead Millionaires Tax = v. v. popular…
285 - amazing stuff, thanks for mentioning that - a truly inspirational guy from the YouTube clip I’ve just seen on him.
289. “I challenge all those people on here who believe in this AGW nonsense to stop flying, give up their cars and voluntarily pay more tax to the government in the form of a carbon levy. Otherwise they’re just being rank hypocrites.
Will they? Do pigs fly?!”
The fact that many people still smoke does not preclude them from accepting the overwhelming evidence for there being a health hazard attached to the activity.
290 - clever politics from Cameron. Awfully tempting for Brown to go then in order to avoid the budget and 2010Q1 GDP figures in the election campaign. But would GB voluntarily give up 6 weeks of power like that, I don’t think so.
294 - true, but I don’t have a lot of time for this say one thing, do another mentality.
295. You make it sound like Browns a power-crazed mad man….
Oh wait….
292. Marquee Mark November 21st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“Dead Millionaires Tax = v. v. popular…”
Possibly. I think people sometimes applaud in public meetings if they see someone sticking up for their position while keeping their cool.
I agree that the IHT policy has some popular appeal though. Even if you don’t expect to benefit from it, the suggestion that any tax might be reduced has its appeal.
Dominic Raab selected by the Tories in Esher & Walton
He’s Dominic Grieve’s chief of staff. He has been David Davies chief of staff when he was Shadow Home Secretary and he joined his by election campaign, always as chief of staff
290. Isn’t 25th March the date of the downfall of Sauron
Any Polls tonight
If this long awaited MORI poll is going to appear tonight, keep an eye on The Observer because this is the only paper that MORI seem to be (infrequently) assocaited with now.
296. Well, I don’t have an awful lot of time for people who say to themselves “OK, a scaling back of certain luxuries is just too awful to contemplate, so we’ll have to make damn sure the science isn’t right”. Amusing that the cheerleader for the sceptics on the Telegraph blogs is the proud author of a book entitled “How to Be Right” - says it all about the mentality of these people, really!
292 Did you hear Harriet Harman being booed on Any Questions.?
“But it would be entirely wrong to look at just recent evidence, 450 million years ago we had about 10 times the level of CO2 combined with some of the coldest temperatures ever experienced on earth.”
Do you have a link?
“282 - I challenge all those people on here who believe in this AGW nonsense to stop flying, give up their cars and voluntarily pay more tax to the government in the form of a carbon levy. Otherwise they’re just being rank hypocrites.”
This is particularly stupid point. For a start, as mentioned above I believe that AGW is likely happening, but don’t believe that we all need to stop flying or give up our cars to effectively combat it. Secondly, even if I did believe that, I know full well that as an individual I can not have any noticeable effect on global GHG emissions. Thus I would want regulation for us to collectively reduce the amount of harmful activities, while accepting it would be pointless for me to do it on my own.
284 Up to a point the emails just show scientists doing what scientists do: that is, rejecting the data rather than the theory. There isn’t anything wrong with that if the theory is robust enough: if Hubble sent back some piccies suggesting that gravitational lensing doesn’t happen you would worry about Hubble rather than the general theory of relativity. And the same thing happens often enough on this blog: unexpected polls are treated as rogues/outliers and rejected, which very often (though not always) turns out to have been the right thing to do.
What is funny is that the AGW theorists have been selling a childish version of science which says: we scientists are not troubled by error and uncertainty like you petty earthlings but merely follow the data to the inevitable conclusion. Which bars them from justifying their actions as outlined above.
291. James Kelly November 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“Something very similar was said about the case for invading Iraq.”
I can see a similarity in that I was glibly summarizing the case for something, and that was done quite a lot in the run-up to the invasion. However, they are quite different types of argument, or seem so to me. With nuclear it’s really a matter of how much energy we will consume and what means are available, now, to generate it. The key facts are in the public domain and not really disputed (although people can and do argue that the amount of energy required could be reduced). Iraq was more a matter of smoke and mirrors and half-leaks of non-existent intelligence.
They are different types of decision too.
We have to obtain energy somehow and nuclear is one option, with pros and cons like the others.
We didn’t have to invade Iraq at all. It was entirely elective.
There I go, glibly summarizing again
298. I think Labour misfired with IHT. IHT is one of those taxes that people absolutely loathe. As people get older it occupies their thoughts more and more and becomes a serious concern for them. They hate the fact that the state will get some of their hard-earned rather than their children.
It is also creates a lot of irrationality in people’s thoughts. An elderly relative of mine is absolutely petrified of paying IHT but I know that she will be well below the threshold. More people think they’re going to have to pay it than actually do. But it doesn’t stop them worrying about it.
By putting the threshold at a high, easily recognizable figure of £1m, a lot of people will breathe a sigh of relief and the burden of having to worry about it will lift significantly - especially to those who think they have to pay under the current regime but really won’t have to - “well, I’m definitely not a millionaire!” they’ll say to themselves and it will ease their mind.
I think it’s an immensely strong policy for winning people over. The wisdom of doing it with such a huge deficit is another thing but Labour’s attacks here just sound petty and class-warrior. And people don’t want to go back to the days of class warfare.
305. Socrates November 21st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I guess that CO2 levels must have been higher than now during the Ordovician glaciation?
Not sure what that would prove though, other than that levels of CO2 are not the sole determinant of temperature. But I don’t think anyone would dispute that anyway.
305 - http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=66
So you’re officially a hypocrite then. Didn’t Obama say in his presidenial campaign something like “be the change that you wish to see”. I see that you’re following his words extremely closely!
Now, as I’ve supplied you with a link, perhaps you could supply me a link that shows the earth has been warming up over the past 11 years, in line with what was forecast around 1998 by your favourite AGW crowd. Go on - see if you can do it.
284. “The earth has been cooling since 1998″
Why are the figures never ever mentioned when this subject is reported on TV? We have endless hours of reports and yet nobody ever puts the basic temperature numbers on screen.
Imagine if unemployment was always reported without saying how many people were unemployed.
Or if inflation and interest rates were always reported without saying what they actually are.
Or if there were reports on football matches without saying what the final score was.
From now on, every single time there is a report on TV about “global warming” everyone needs to say, loudly and immediately “before you say another single word put up on screen a graph showing what the temperatures actually are”.
307. But in your post 287 that I was responding to you said that the case for nuclear was based on “maths and acceptance of reality”, which implied to me that the people who do not accept that case are ignoring both maths and reality. That’s rather different from saying that nuclear is one option with pros and cons.
It also reminded me somewhat of some of the rhetoric we heard in 2003, directed at those who doubted the existence or scale of Iraq’s WMDs, ie. “even the French Secret Service and the United Nations agree that Saddam has WMDs. This stuff is beyond dispute.”
Nick Palmer when you come out with spin and nonsense then don’t expect it not to be exposed for what it is. And one of the best ways is to demonstrate its absurdity by applying the same argument to something closer to home for you.
So when you say for policy-makers, it’s not actually essential to regard the case as proven. Even if it’s merely rather likely, they need to act in case it’s correct.
I would rather expect you to follow the same logic in regard other problems we face. If that is appropriate in one instance then surely it gives a guideline for other action which will cost a lot less. Indeed action which might make enormous savings.
Not least of those is the leader of your party who you and your colleagues are failing to keep tethered to the earth let alone remove. This even though you are aware that the damage he is causing your party and the country is beyond ‘merely rather likely’ but is more manifest with every day which passes.
And the damage is obvious to your colleagues too, otherwise why would you say that your fellow MPs are not not discussing his removal? Because he is so successful?
So why not apply the same logic to that issue, and as you say, Even if it’s merely rather likely, they need to act in case it’s correct.
277 Yes very good point. Tim screams “conspiracy theorist” to try and close down debate where his arguments are really weak, in exactly the same way as screaming racist was always an attempt to close down debate about immigration by the loony left.
308 People will pay an awful lot in professional fees to keep IHT bills down, so I would agree that it is hated. Partly because of this, the cost of collection, as a proportion of the tax raised, is the highest of all taxes.
173 That is only likely if (a) the DUP retains all its support from 2005 and (b) Traditional Unionist Voice makes no inroads into DUP support. The European elections suggest otherwise.
Am I alone in being bored by the global warming debate?
We do have a reliable satellite measurement system and it baffles me that it is not referred to more regularly. Its obvious weakness is that it only goes back to 1979. Anyways, the latest chart can be seen here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_09.jpg
And Arsenal are losing
311. The idea that climate has been cooling since 1998 is disputed. 1998 was/is the warmest year on record. But was a mega El Nino year. 2005 came close to 1998 and scientists would say if not for the unfluence of El Nino 2005 would have been/would be the warmest year on record.
I only state the arguement.
173. If you think the DUP wouldnt sign up to backing a Tory government you’d be wrong. They would.
Secondly the Tory role in the UUP’s decline is precisely zero.
315. I don’t think the European elections in NI can be regarded as much of a guide - after all, Ian Paisley used to routinely top the popular vote in the Euros without the DUP making much inroads at subsequent Westminster elections. One thought that occurs to me is that the Tory alliance is bound to alienate some of the UUP’s traditional supporters who might drift off to Alliance, fringe parties or in a few cases even the SDLP - even if that’s only a small percentage of the UUP vote it could partially offset any DUP seepage to Traditional Unionist Voice.
312. James Kelly November 21st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Fair enough. I was being facetious at 287, the point being that maths and “you might not like it but it’s the least bad option” are a hopeless basis for winning people round.
318. Sure. But let’s have the figures up on screen every single time so people can see them.
Anyone looking at the graph in post 317 for the first time would I think conclude that there MAY have been a bit of global warming but it is pretty marginal and certainly not conclusive of a definitive trend.
Everyone needs to be much firmer about this. Next time there is a debate on C4 News or Newsnight first question must be where’s the graph? If Snow / Paxman say they haven’t got one then why not? Would they discuss unemployment without knowing the unemployment numbers?
There is a lot of scope for easily making people look very silly.
320 Yes and no. Even without Paisley on the ballot, the DUP took 32% of the vote in 2004, compared to 19% this time. I accept that TUV won’t take 13% Province-wide in a general election, but they’re bound to poll well in some DUP seats.
The UUP vote held steady this time, despite a fairly good performance for Alliance, so I don’t think there’s much likelihood of slippage in that direction. And some Alliance supporters, who are overwhelmingly upper middle class, might find the party’s link with the Conservatives attractive.
318. Sorry but 1998 isn’t the warmest year on record.
It was originally claimed to be, but an error was pointed out in NASA’s data handling and the prize now goes to 1934 - the big Dustbowl year in the US.
Funnily enough, many pieces on AGW seem to forget about this correction.
http://dreadnaught.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/warmest-year-in-history-1934-according-tocorrected-nasa-climate-data/
306 Constan Treader. I think what has been going on is not so much rejection of outlier data which is, as you say, normal in science, but (correct me if I’m wrong) wholesale substitution of series of data, mixing and matching to ensure that the model produces the right results. Entirely different.
And there are real problems in consistently rejecting outlier data. The hole in the ozone layer was not spotted for quite a while after the data was in, precisely because the computer model collating the inputs from the satellites consistently rejected scads of data as ‘outlier’.
323. Well, if the Tory brand was so appealing in Northern Ireland on its own merits, Alliance supporters (who, from what I can gather, tend to be liberal rather than conservative) and others have had the opportunity to vote Tory since 1989. To a limited extent you might be right, but the point I’m making is that nailing their colours so firmly to the mast must have downsides as well as upsides for the UUP. The previous ambiguity allowed them to attract a coalition of support (including a minority of ’social democrats’) that perhaps won’t be possible in future. Look what happened to the Scottish Tories when they lost their traditional ‘Liberal Unionist’ base.
324 - absolutely right, I was just referring to 1998 in the recent past. But this as yet another inconvenient fact shouldn’t get in the way of the AGW crowd. But equally 1934 wasn’t as warm as the years around 800-1200AD when vines were growing in northern England.
But heck, that’s yet another inconvenient fact for the AGW mongers to contend with!
316 Sean Fear Re - ” West Lancs. Con gain
Worsley and Eccles South Lab hold
Holborn and St. Pancras Lab hold
Eastleigh Lib Dem hold
Brent Central Lab hold
Bristol West Lib Dem hold
Leeds NW Lib Dem hold
Oxford East Lib Dem gain
Rochdale Lib Dem gain
Edinburgh South Con gain
Westmoreland Lib Dem hold
Bedford Con gain
Cheltenham Con gain
Dunfermline Lib Dem hold (gain)
Eastbourne Con hold
Wavertree Lib Dem gain
Edinburgh North Labour hold
Bethnal Green Labour gain
Exeter Con gain
Glasgow NE Labour hold (gain)
Southampton Itchen Lab hold
Glasgow East Labour hold (gain)
Llanelli Lab hold
Brighton Pavilion Green gain”
Caution with Llanelli. If Labour recover to 30% plus then Labour will hold. 28-30% borderline. But if Labour poll anything like what you suggest I cannot see how they will hold. Even if Labour’s % holds up the other parties votes will be under severe pressure if it is thought Labour can be beaten. The lessons of Blaenau Gwent and Cardiff Central at the last election seem particularly instructive with regard to the Tory vote. Far more than in England the party’s support seems far more tactical once the party is out of contention and another party seems able to win. Had others taken advantage to displace the Tories as the default alternative in so many seats at the Tory nadir their situation would probably resemble Scotland. I would say why I think this did not happen if you wish.
325. yes take your point. But they have boxed themselves into an even tighter corner than necessary with all the “we climate scientists are from the planet Vulcan” stuff.
318
Not true Gin. 1998 was the warmest in recent years specifically because of the effect of El Nino. The temperature since then has been steady up and down around 0.3° above the 1979 - 1998 average. Although in the last couple of years it has dropped back again.
Interestingly from the satellite data posted at 317 there was no appreciable trend in warming temperatures from 1979 to 1998.
320. The element of support that the UUP could lose is unlikely to go Alliance or SDLP. That support is actually the urban working class & middle classs left which for a long time simply didnt go DUP. If it goes anywhere it’ll go DUP. The problem is that a lot of has gone already.
Anyone who can see, knows what the Tories are doing. They are camping on Alliance’s patch more than chasing the former UUP voters that have gone DUP. At the end of the day Alliance gets a majority of its votes from middle class guilt unionists in highly unionist areas. Where you have real furnace politics Alliance has been an irrelevance for years in terms of votes. If anything the most interesting sideline of the election will be to see (provding the Tories and UU agree the path forward) what happens to Alliance’s vote.
Paisley’s euro success but failure of his party elsewhere doesnt fit with the emerging situation. The only common factor is that the TUV is a one man dominated front and that is their weakness.
Otherwise the TUV have shown themselves, more than once, of taking DUP votes and also bringing up a disgruntled unionist element thats been staying at home. They are a threat to the DUP vote particularly in South Antrim which is not natural DUP territory anyway and where a pincer movement could cause serious problems for McCrea. Its got a strong Alliance vote some of which could cross deck to the UU’s and definitely to the Tories/UU IF they get approach right.
If I was Cameron and I had to make one NI trip all he has to do is land at the right airport and he’s slap bang where he needs to be, South Antrim.
Allister has an issue. Its likely that the TUV will only run in safe unionist seats for Westminster (or seats where unionists have no chance). His main problem comes at the next assembly election if by getting involved he brings Sinn Fein in as largest party. Unionism has always had a self destructive element but the masses won’t forgive in a hurry. This is TUV’s strategy at this point and its probably the source of their destruction.
331 How does Upper Bann look?
316 - Be careful. Discussion might turn to the medicinal compound (most efficacious in every case) that is STV.
(O/T 299 - I was there along with over 400 others. Raab was by far and away the best performer - and he is equally impressive in private conversation. We’ll be getting an excellent MP. Sajid Javid disappointed on the day, but deserves to be selected somewhere. Butler was pretty ordinary, but all three ladies were, sadly, just dreadful There’s no kind way of saying that.)
“Gordon Brown’s financial delusions will cost Britain dear”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/6617650/Gordon-Browns-financial-delusions-will-cost-Britain-dear.html
“Everyone now accepts that the coming fiscal consolidation has to be big, painful and urgent. Everyone, that is, apart from Mr Brown and his dwindling band of camp followers. Much of the Cabinet still seems to have its head buried in the sand.”
“Not everyone in the Government is as stubbornly resistant to action as Mr Brown. Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, has demonstrated a better grasp of reality than his master. I guess next month’s Pre-Budget Report will tell us who’s won, but don’t hold your breath. The only way to stop Mr Brown from spending is to remove his credit card.”
326 I think the UUP have already been reduced to their core vote. I don’t think that there’s any significant further element that is likely to defect.
When the Conservatives first ran in Northern Ireland, they did actually pick up a fair number of Alliance-type voters, in seats like North Down, Strangford, and South Belfast - and it’s possible that they may do so again. Alliance voters (if not activists) are very largely small u Unionists, and well-heeled.
328 Please continue.
“Is Brown staying now free money?”
Permission to quote Peter Cushing in Star Wars (on right now on ITV1 btw!):
“Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!”
332. Almost certainly a DUP hold, the UUP have fallen too far back. It’s a pity that as the current MP David Simpson is by wide consensus a total and utter moron!
332/4. The question I would put to both you and Yokel is, in that case, where has the left-wing unionist vote been going in recent years? Surely, given the lack of credible alternatives, at least some of it must have stayed with the UUP, in which case the party must have something to lose from a Tory link-up?
339. Surely Alliance mops up the “wet” Unionist vote?
334 Shurely some mistake? He didn’t attack Cameron once in that piece!
If there are no polls tonight that has got to be a bit of a surprise. Not one single poll to see what the effect of the queens speech is.
317 30 years is very short in terms of climate change. Solar cycles are 22 years. I remember seeing a 50-year graph on corn prices which showed a saw-tooth upward progression of prices, then the 300-year graph which showed a larger scale steady step down in prices of which the 50 year upward trends were just themselves saw tooths in the downward trend.
I believe there is global warming and I believe it started before the industrial revolution, and that the greatest contributor is man, but through deforestation and agriculture. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise by good science, but so far I believe these are the greatest drivers of the rise in GHG rather than industrialization. I think there are many other better reasons for controlling the pollutants of industrialisation than so far put forward by the AWG lobby.
test
343. “I believe there is global warming”
So it is a religion after all?
For those who think that AGW is gathering pace - here’s a little graph - the data after the line was removed as it was as they say ‘an inconvenient truth’
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/osborn99.jpg
As someone who was trained as a scientist - I find this whole farce really depressing and almost as crap as cosmetic anti-wrinkle claims on 37 participants
Challen calling for Gordon to go on Yorkshire [BBC].
It will be on the Politics Show tomorrow.
332. Interesting seat and again the UUP have a sniff but I think the DUP are pretty much on to hold in what is a sectarian cockpit seat. The reason why the UUP always have a sniff however is that the Unionist vote there is very very much kept in the family to an extraordinary level by any standards. If you look at the PR returns on the Assembly elections for example the inter unionist trasnfer was massive in Upper Bann.
To that extent its probably quite a mobile vote.
339. to the DUP.
One long term issue for the Tory UUP link is perhaps less obvious. Much has focussed on the middle class, slightly left of centre middle class types within the UUP, exemplified by Sylvia Hermon as the real refusnik element but there is also another, partially overlapping, unit that is more significant, those who believe for Westminster elections the UUP needs to work with the DUP.
I’m not Gordon Browns number one fan (as you might have guessed
) but I thought he came across well when he visited Cumbria today.
Listen, why doesn’t everybody on either side of the climate change debate go and stand out in a field somewhere and fight it out with their thermometers?
“My thermometer says that it’s warmer!”
“No, my thermometer says that it’s cooler!”
You could have a duel to the death between, I don’t know, Jeremy Clarkson and George Monbiot. The winner gets either an SUV or a Dutch bicycle.
339/340 There are two ways of looking at “left wing” in NI terms. Left wing Unionist voters, in economic terms, have largely moved over to the DUP, already (or to a far smaller extent, the PUP).
Those who are constitutionally left wing are likely to vote Alliance or hardly ever vote at all. But that element will contain a lot of “right wingers” in the economic sense.
348 - Wonder if we are going to get another “Father of the Nation” bounce in the polls?
Surely global warming can be expressed - in general terms - as follows:
Does the earth have periods of heating and cooling? - Yes, for example the Ice Ages
Is the earth in a period of increasing temperatures now? - Yes, we think so, but the last decade does not show this.
Is mankind’s activity partly to blame for this happening? - Yes, we think so.
To what extent is mankind’s activity to blame? - We don’t know
What are the processes and methods of mankind’s activities affecting the planet’s temperatures? - We don’t know.
336 First Plaid. Two main issues the biggest being Language. They have belatedly woken up to what their surveys tell them that they are seen as being a party of and for Welsh speakers and that’s it. Generally speaking it is not a good idea of 70% of your in theory target voters thinks even to a tiny degree that you may despise them in reality and doubt their patriotism. They are now frantically running campaigns to say that is not the case party for all whatever your language and so on and senior figures are even daring to make major speeches in English, but as Cameron shows it takes years to change perception and this should have started years ago. Second they lacked the ideological broad front of the SNP. They are very left wing and solidly so and Salmond for instance would never have been elected Leader in PC. As a result Welsh speakers in rural Wales outside their heartlands eg PP and Clwyd West do not support them as you might expect.
The Lib Dems well timing and Leadership. Had they had the Scottish Lib Dem’s leadership of Campbell and Kennedy in the early 90’s the Tories would have been up against it. But until recently their best known symbol was err Lembit who is currently working inadvertently hard to to turn his seat blue. Ironically they have now rising figures in Willott and Williams but it is too late the Tories are now back. The Tories in Wales were most fortunate in their non Labour opponents.
349. Diane, to quote Harry Hill:
“I like the idea of Global Warming, but I also like the idea of being a sceptic, but which is better?
“There’s only one way to find out: FIGHT!!!”
351. I doubt it.
343. If you accept the increase in GHGs from deforestation and agriculture causes global warming, then why not the same GHGs emitted by industry? The same molecules would surely have the same effect..
329 Constan Treader. Absolutely agree. The science may be complex, but it is insulting to the public to say that only scientists from within the discipline can understand it. That is alchemy, not science.
If a scientist/policy-maker has trouble explaining science/policy, it is usually because that scientist/policy-maker does not understand it sufficiently well him/herself, which probably means the science isn’t in yet. While my undergrad was a science degree, I have never been a practicing scientist, but I have no problem reading and understanding even the most complex of science (ok, some math escapes me because I don’t speak the language) in Nature, New Scientist and Scientific American, provided the piece is well-written. I hate the “This is too complex for non-scientists, trust us” crap.
357 That’s it - AGW is an ingot of pure Green! [apols to Percy]
350. Assuming both you and Yokel are right that most of the economic left-wing votes have already gone - completely irrationally, it would have to be said - to the DUP, then there’s still “just one problem, Inspector”. A Tory link-up is hardly going to help the UUP win those types of voter back.
357 - TimT It was hardly helpful when Dr Phil Jones, when asked why he didn’t make the data public in an Australian interview, replied to the effect that he’d spent 25 years of his life constructing it and wasn’t going to hand it over to somebody when all they wanted to do was find something wrong with it.
Hardly the ring of confidence…..
357 In fairness, there are some very able scientists and mathematicians who are incapable of communicating their theories to their own students, let alone the wider public. It doesn’t mean they’re poor scientists or mathematicians; they’re poor teachers.
344 You’re a scientist. You believe in data and the empirical method. What I am saying is that I have yet to be convinced that there is empirical proof of global warming, but that there is, for me, sufficient apocryphal evidence to think that global warming is happening. In the meantime, I am totally agnostic, not religious, about it, and will go wherever the good science takes us. As for policy decisions in the meantime, I have yet to be convinced that we should adopt the Precautionary Principle, as the potential costs to the economy and human well-being of acting before the good science is in are so high.
362. “I have yet to be convinced that we should adopt the Precautionary Principle, as the potential costs to the economy and human well-being of acting before the good science is in are so high.”
And how high do you think the cost is?
352 TimB Wise words.
359 I agree with Yokel, that it’s the Alliance voters, and “garden centre Prods” that the tie-up is aimed at, not the voters who’ve gone over to the DUP.
In economic terms, the DUP are a left wing party, so there’s nothing odd about (economically) left wing Unionists voting for them. But, in any case, the constitutional issue overrides economics for most NI voters.
362. TimT
I think you’re contradicting yourself. Either you can accept empirical evidence or accept apocryphal data. Not sure how can you can do both.
366. I think the DUP are almost like the BNP to a certain degree. Um, I did say almost!
337- Rebel scum…
369.
“New Labour can have a strong influence on the Weak-minded!”
366. “In economic terms, the DUP are a left wing party”
Oh God. Is that in the same sense that the BNP are such a well-known left-wing party?
“But, in any case, the constitutional issue overrides economics for most NI voters.”
That’s undeniably the case, otherwise the vast bulk of an ideologically mixed population would not have voted almost uniformly for two right-of-centre parties for decades. But the point is, if one of those two parties starts to emphasise its right-wing nature at the expense of the constitutional issue, then left-wing unionists are bound to look elsewhere (or continue to look elsewhere) by default - and that, I would suggest, also includes liberal middle-class voters who would lean towards Alliance.
259. The DUP is left wing on social policy, long has been its a perfectly logical place for the votes looked at from that angle.
Secondly the actual reason for the leftist Unionist working class vote shift is very straightforward and the same reason wnhy lots of other votes went DUP. The GFA stank in the eyes of unionist voters when it came to implementation sdo they turfed the Ulster Unionist out all over the place.
Blood is thicker than water..and left-right allegiances. So is hard headed pragmatism.
Secondly I made it clear upthread what the Tory party approach was and it has nothing to do with winning those votes back at this point.
Thirdly, a lot of voters are not fixed by left or right. Put them on a graph and they may be just left of centre but they are not fixed by an ideology. Thats like saying everyone who didnt vote Tory in 1997 and is likely to do in 2010 has had some fundamental political conversion. They havent, they’ve just decided someone is better than the other.
352 TimB Wise words
with my extensive background of specializing in the blindingly obvious, it seems to me that we should define and analyze the problem before attempting to solve it.
With all thy getting, get understanding, as the good book says.
373.
“With all thy getting, get understanding, as the good book says.”
Fell on deaf ears though - the Biblical lot seemed to prefer BEgetting.
This sums up what happens when AGW proponents meet those who disagree
http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg
I hope this works as right click is disabled.
Poll news
I’m expecting the November MORI monitor to be published this evening - probably in the Observer.
The field-work began a week last Friday in the immediate aftermath of Glasgow NE and continued until Sunday.
I’m watching out for it.
Last time MORI had a 17% Tory lead.
372
with the Robinsons on £600k per annum, and the Paisleys and Dodds not far behind it has become a bit of a family business !
Mori poll…must have Mori poll…
274.
” support for nuclear is growing amonst the public.”
It’s the number two comfort blanket of the desperate hoi polloi. After Khamaroen, the number one.
A great method of putting off our problems until they come back tomorrow to hit us in the face with ever-increasing costs.
372. If you think the left-right split isn’t meaningful, what about those unionists, who like Sylvia Hermon, simply say at a gut level “I am not a Tory”? Surely there must be a decent number of working-class unionists who fit into that category as well?
And I note what you say about the Tory strategy, but how is the UUP ever to gain a decent number of seats if it doesn’t win back votes directly from the DUP?
379
like uncontrolled government borrowing then ?
380
since when has Lady Hermon been working class ?
Sylvia Hermon is working class?
382. Alan, snap!
362
But apocryphal evidence has no value in scientific theory. All apocryphal evidence can tell us is whether or not there appears to be warming or cooling occuring. It cannot confirm the cause of that climate change.
355. Yeah! Fight it out!
I am a bit puzzled by the broader implications of the global warming argument. Even if global warming doesn’t exist, reducing pollution from fossil fuels helps reduce disease, and if you’re looking at it from a broadly Western perspective, alternative fuel use lessens dependence on the Middle East/Russia. It may also have the added effect of stopping global warming, if such a thing exists and if the process is reversible at this point.
If you’re willing to trade off these benefits because “Al Gore is a smug douche” then perhaps you are giving Al Gore too much space in your intellectual universe.
381.
Absolutely.
Brown’s uncontrolled borrowing is ALMOST as bad as Khamereon’s failure to acknowledge the need to borrow/print money for a short while in a banking emergency. Only ‘almost’, mind.
3271. Most middle class Prods who would look to Alliance are already there. And I can bet my house on it few are actually there because of some kind of soft-left politics. They are there because they think its some kind of way of suggesting they are above the dirty unionist-nationalist politics of NI.
Just watch what would happen if it came down a forced Unionist Nationalist, be British or be Irish choice, most of them woudl soon be back voting for unionist parties because they know where their bread is buttered.
I’m not sure you get Alliance at all James. Fundamentally its a nothing party copmpared to what it so could have been. At one time the party contested elections strongly is a lot of places. It had respentation on the Republican Falls distruct at council level in the form of the Glendinnings. Put bluntly Alliance as it now has absolutely no relevance to the lives of people in that ward, none.
Nowadays its focussed on entirely East of the Bann in heavily unionist seats (not to say that it is all unionist who vote for it because it isnt) where people can afford to play pretty politics. I have no doubt about the sincerety of many of its veterans who really stepped out there in hellish times. We’ve had over 10 years of ‘peace’ and yet has it really grown? No it hasnt. It needed to actually make it self something other than the party for people who feel they dont want to get their hands dirty. It hasnt.
Secondly, the bastardisation of the term liberal as meaning ‘left wing’ is a nonsense. There are plenty of right wing liberals as well.
380. Because its not how it works.
If votes migrate back to the UUP from DUP it will be because:
1. The DUP are considered failed and the UUP are consdiered an alternative.
2. Many votes arent ideologicially right or left, they are just as capable of voting for a right wing party as much as a left wing one. If people elsewhere in the UK can vote from left to right in any one election, why cant people here? When it comes to left-right this region has some serious mobility of vote.
3. Ulster politics
I’m guessing at a 14%+ Tory lead in the MORI poll. If it showed much more of a movement towards Labour, then I’m taking the view someone would have bought it already… The Observer being in dire straits, they couldn’t have paid too much for it…
“Twitter users show Labour support”
http://www.topnews.in/twitter-users-show-labour-support-2238593
381/2. “since when has Lady Hermon been working class ?”
“since when has Lady Hermon been working class ?”
What? What? What?
Small suggestion - try reading the actual words I used. The key ones were “as well”.
Has anybody asked - if this AGW “cheating” story DOES take off - whither the Green vote next time?
PM Radio 4 5pm sounded like an episode from Yes Minister…
Headlines The Prime Minister has been to visit flood victims in Cockermouth
As you heard in the headlines. The Prime Minister has been to see the flood victims in Cockermouth
As I have already said, Gordon Brown has been to see the flood victims in Cockermouth.
Not sure exacttly how many times they mentioned this, but it became very irritating…
Biased BBC will have a field day.
393 They’re just enjoying the comedy value of linking “Gordon Brown” and “Cockermouth”…
I can imagine the Thick Of It style ranting in The Bunker:
“Why the F**K did it have to be Cockermouth…”
Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first royally take the p155 out of…
389. The point I was making is that even if many voters don’t think in strict ideological terms, they may well think in terms of dislike for a particular party, its internal culture, what it stands for, and so on - in line with Lady Hermon’s “I am not a Tory”. That also explains, for instance, why many people in Scotland who think that Labour have failed would look for any alternative other than the Tories. Such a phenomenon may not be as strong in Ulster, but I’m quite sure it’s present to some degree.
371 In economic terms, the DUP are a left wing party.
They’re obviously right wing in terms of their social conservatism, and stance on the constitution.
I think that Lady Hermon is very much out on a limb.
395. But there isnt any mass or strong dislike of the Tories amongst the Unionists in NI.
Surely the slowest Saturday on PB for many a long month, fewer than 400 posts all day so far!
397. I agree. In fact, I would say there is often something of an affinity.
with jonah gordon having just visited cockermouth then the town can’t have long to survive - and looking at the forecast there’s more rain on the way….
394
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
396
I see the DUP more as a pure pork-barrel party. They have had 40 years of being rewarded to behave themselves and it’s all they know. I suspect that’s why they are struggling in government as they are the eternal opposition party.
re 398. Saturday is usually very slow. Until the Sunday start to appear in the evening there are normally very few political developments. There are no political TV programmes like on Sunday and this is always the quietest day.
In terms of page impressions we’ve had 35,000 so far and will probably end up at about 58,000. Our weekday average is 90 - 100,000
402. Struggling in government how?
Punter [on Wales]
it is too late the Tories are now back
James Kelly
many people in Scotland who think that Labour have failed would look for any alternative other than the Tories.
Yokel
But there isn’t any mass or strong dislike of the Tories amongst the Unionists in NI.
Is it me, or is there not something a little odd about the Scots?
402
they don’t have an agenda ( except to fight with SF ), they are pretty much signed up to the GFA deal done by Trimble ( except they are in the power not the UUP ) and suffering from the TUV as a result, they have no clearcut step what to do next except keep the core vote happy in case they lose votes at the GE. Meanwhile the place goes backward and the DUP’s idea of policy is to ask Brown for more money.
Robinson’s main hope is a Conservative govt. which refuses to send him cash so he can then blame all his problems on the UUP\UCUNF. A typical opposition mentality.
Ouch
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229643/This-isnt-Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html
“hug a hoodie” didnt go down well and as for this government….
“But the truth that emerges from these letters is that the survivors of that war generation have nothing but contempt for his government.
They feel, in a word that leaps out time and time again, ‘betrayed’.
New Labour, said one ex-commando who took part in the disastrous Dieppe raid in which 4,000 men were lost, was ‘more of a shambles than some of the actions I was in during the war, and that’s saying something!’”
367 Sunil. Not a contradiction. When the empirical evidence is inconclusive and you are still required to make decisions, you have to fall back on another decision making model.
Socrates. The costs are obvious - diminished economic growth implied by the costs of implementing environmental policies (higher costs of clean energy, scrubbers, clean up, caps), which translate into lost other public goods such as good nutrition,education and healthcare. These effects will be most sorely felt in the 3rd world, not the cosy environments of the UK and other rich countries. For each incremental cost you incur on the system, you should conduct a cost benefit analysis. This becomes difficult when you don’t know the incremental harm caused by the activity in question. If the bulk of GHG come from agriculture and deforestation, what is the marginal effect of industrially produced GHG and hence its marginal cost. I don’t know.
406. Jesus where do I start.
Tell you what I’ll go with one. Show me a major party in NI that has an agenda other than by shafting who it doesnt like?
Big trouble for AGW jihadis it seems on the back of this “hack/break in” - must have been MI6, Mossad, the CIA and Dick Cheney’s private black ops troops wot did it.
406 - Reading a snippet in the press it sounds as if the NI Executive’s only real policy is to abolish the 11+, and all the schools are ignoring them and doing it anyway!
Diane (383): yes “reducing pollution from fossil fuels helps reduce disease”. But the pollutants are sulphur, particulates, etc. (look at industrial China for example). Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Restrict that and you make energy more expensive and that means that even more already desperately poor people would be unable to access clean water, fresh food, better health care, better education, etc, etc … Almost everything they need would cost more. To allow that, would be irresponsible and cruel.
410. I wonder if the AGW will apply the same arguments to MPs expenses - also a hack job?
What is truly revealing about all this is how all of the MSM is almost utterly silent about how ‘climate scientists’ have been caught basically fiddling the figures.
409
agreed there isn’t one, but there is a question of degree between those who sit on their hands ( UUP\SDLP\Alliance ) and who will co-operate on low-level issues and the outright “let’s screw up the place for for the hell of it ” parties( DUP\SF ).
DUP and SF are mirror images of each other and remind of Gordon Brown - spent years trying to get hold of the reins of power but once they got them didn’t know what to do with them.
395 Look at it another way. Between 1886 and 1974, the UUP were the local branch of the Conservative Party. Did any left-wing Unionist alternative emerge during that period? Hardly.
There were occasionally Labour Unionist candidates, indpendent Unionists who had left wing views (economically), and the Northern Ireland Labour Party, which was pro-Union from 1948. Sometimes, they got people elected to Stormont from working class Unionist areas, but they were never more than an irritant to the UUP.
So, I see no evidence that many Unionist voters would be put off by the link to the Conservatives, because the Conservatives are centre right.
Rivers rising again in Cockermouth
Oh Gord!
441. Thats because we have what can only be described as a very jealously guarded grammar school system here.
Its part myth and part truth that NI has some of the bext secondary level educational results in the UK across both the Catholic maintained and traditional Prod Grammars.
414 I don’t consider that the DUP have proved themselves incompetent in government.
I think that the reason they did so badly in the Euros, was (a) a poor candidate (b) a TUV candidate who was highly articulate and attractive to quite a lot of their voters , and (c) a desire among Protestants to give them a kicking for their arrogance and sense of entitlement.
408. My view on these things is that you need to start putting numbers on things to make a good decision. When I have seen them from sources I trust in the past, the costs of the legislation (as shown in the report I linked earlier) are a tiny fraction of the cost of the effects of business as usual if AGW is true. For this reason the precautionary principle would make sense to me if the chance of AGW being true was only, say, 20%. I actually think the actual likelihood is considerably higher than that (probably higher than 70%).
415. And if you look at the unionist areas where the NILP got itself elected they were solid UUP territory for a long time after the NILP disappeared. Take a look at some of the West Belfast Unionist areas and you have some of the most instinctive deepest dislike for the DUP. That dislike still lingers to some extent.
414. There isnt a single major party in NI that doesnt do the handout attitude. I’ve mentioned it plenty on here over the years.
In fact the only that I can think of that maybe didnt to some degree was the PUP.
418
sorry Sean, I can’t see that many achievements myself.
From ducking out on the water rates issue ( hoping it will go away ), from failing to build any consensus on bread and butter issues ( yes big ask I know, but that’s what leadership is about ) and the continual let’s just stir up the crap because it’s there, the DUP have yet to show they have anything to offer. Is NI a noticeably better place as a result of their period in office - personally I say no.
Evening all, are we expecting polls tonight?
422 - To be fair i can’t see how the rules of Stormont can allow anything to be achieved.
414
yes I agree but it wasn’t always so. The handout mentality basically became the de facto setting in the 70’s, with the Unionists jumping heavily on board in the 80s. Successive UK governments have basically thrown money at NI to buy peace.
The SF\DUP handout mentality would bankrupt the Republic, hence FF sing the songs but run a mile.
At times like this I really miss the Portadown News.
Scotland !!!!
419 Socrates. Yes, but. Decision makers are forced to make decisions with imperfect data, so I have much sympathy with what you say. However, sometimes (eg when you have no confidence in your predictions of either likelihood or impact) numbers mean nothing, even with sensitivity analysis. In short:
1. High confidence in both probability and impact = standard risk analysis, numbers work
2. High confidence in impact/outcome but not in probability = uncertainty = use numbers with caution and sensitivity analysis
3. High confidence in probability but not in outcome/impact = ambiguity = multiple scenario analysis, worst case planning
4. Low confidence in both probability and outcome/impact = ignorance. Don’t use numbers, they’ll give you no knowledge and can lead you down false paths.
Good result for the Scots (even if it did depend on a missed conversion!).
Speaking as someone who works in the NI Civil Service I can honestly say that there large parts of government have ground to a halt. The DUP have been spooked by the Euros so they’re trying to shore up the core vote. Just about every big issue facing the Executive is the subject of wrangling as the DUP and SF score points off each other.
What is really spooking the DUP is the prospect that thanks to their politicking at St Andrews in 2006, Martin McGuinness could well be First Minister after the 2011 elections. I’m no fan of Allister but I’m enjoying seeing the DUP suffer from the same tactics it used for years to prevent political progress.
SCOTLAND!!!!
Going to have one happy boy returning from Murrayfield tonight.
It has’nt been Australia’s year,what with losing the Ashes!
429. So you are a civil servant eh…you know what thats usually parlance for dont you?
429
funnily enough I think McGuinness as FM would be as much a rabbit in the headlights as Robinson. Setting aside the expected gesture politics ( flags and language )to keep the activists happy, he would also be scratching his head on what to do next and then panicking as the critcism and “events” rolled in.
432. I’ve been called worse!!
434. But not down Newry direction…it’d be a cardinal sin down there.
423.
Ipsos for the Observer, although it was carried out a week ago, therefore somewhat outdated!
435 To what extent can money bring votes in Northern Ireland. Clearly the UUP will have potentially greater resources than the DUP now thanks to the tie up. Is it all down to on the ground resources or would a Tory/UUP advertising blitz have any effect?
437 - Rumours flying around of a really good poll for Labour. Cannot think of anything that would lead to a poll boost for them. Will have to wait and see I guess.
437. It might have some effect but like any part of the country, hard to say what and how much.
438. They are due.
439 - Yes but there is absolutely zero basis for a poll boost at this point.
438 What rumours?
439. Quiet Tories, Gordo sympathy sinking in…no real scandals…Christmas is coming…greater certainty of vote…any could see Labour up/Tories down.
441: Cameron’s red cheeks?
442 - Just seen a few tweets and retweets about polls. Could just ramping I guess.
“Really good poll” could be Mori with Con Lead of 12 with Labour up 4. So not really that good.
“Really good” may be relative to really bad.
I think its from a tweet by a man at The Mirror:
“Hearing there is a v good poll for Lab (well bad for Tories) coming out tonight”
448 - That would suggest a fall for the Tories much more than a gain for Labour.
Sixty votes for the US health care plan. It’s going into debate.
The MORI poll boost was predicted by me in a thread last Sunday - see
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/11/16/will-labour-get-an-icm-and-a-mori-boost/
The fieldwork started a week last Friday just after the by election news from Glasgow.
448 - So not a very good poll at all.
Does anyone else think that there are a few Labour people going to wake up the morning after the election thinking they’ve had a great victory, only to realise the “victory” is that the Conservatives haven’t got a majority, but Labour have lost most of their seats.
Calm down dears, it is only MORI.
We should be grateful it is not Comedy Results.
As pointed out earlier, I think if it is a really good/bad poll (as opposed to just a fairly large shift from Mori’s last 17% lead poll) another newspaper would have bought it before now.
451. Toally agree, Mike.
If the week-old Mori is showing a narrowing in the lead, it will be on the back of lettergate and the GNE by-election.
The way Mori calculate the headline figures (only 100% likely to vote) makes it far more volatile.
Relax herdies, any big improvement in Labour’s position will be short lived. The really decisive swing-back will be on the eve-of-poll.
Or rather it might be slightly better if it were Comedy Results. But not a lot.
452 Not withstanding the fact the Labour Party are going to probably lose the general election next spring,I will make one firm prediction:
They will NOT lose the same proportion of their MPs that the Tories did in 1997-from a notional 343 (up from 336 after the 2995 Boundary Commission) ,down to 165-a fall of 52% to the nearest percentage point
2995 should obviously have been 1995
454.
It could be one of those polls that looks good on paper, but delve into the figures and it will have Labour on 50% in Scotland and Wales or some other nonsense.
Last MORI was 43-26. So improvement for Labour could mean 42-29 which would be identical to ICM which also finished polling last Sunday.
Whatever the poll details, why has it been held back for a week?
What is good for Labour > 30%?? Tories < 40%, Con lead in single figures? lets see what Mori gives us first..
446 see 354
That should be for 447.
test.
MTF. The Mori before the last had the Tories on 36%.
461 - Mori don’t produce their monthly polls on commission. They do the poll independently, and then tout it around to see if anyone wants to buy it.
Gordon does do pretty well out of floods !
If this poll is good for Labour then there must be some sort of correlation between support for Gordon and water levels. It was during the floods last time he nearly called an election.
Just possible of course that there might be another poll out tonight in addition to MORI. For example, ICM is also commissioned by other papers, including the Sunday Telegraph and NoTW IIRC. What if they showed a Labour advance? Hey ho, not long to wait.
“There will be no decision from the White House on Afghan strategy this coming week. The Obama administration has told Reuters that the decision will not come until after the Thanksgiving weekend.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5559868/the-white-house-pushes-the-afghan-decision-down-the-road-again.thtml
But Gordo told us it was all sorted and announced it in HoC last week saying that Obama would do the same in a few days.
Don’t be silly - this poll finished last Sunday - WELL BEFORE the floods.
468 irrelevant the poll was conducted a week ago..
So this poll is antediluvian.
Does bring an interesting question, his response to the natural disasters seemed to do Gordo well a couple of years ago, could the save the world, scratch, save the UK, as Father of the Nation trick work a second time around? (and I emphasis the trick, as lots of people didn’t get anywhere near the help they were promised or needed).
Is this what it’ll be like in the campaign when Labour get a sudden unexpected boost from MORI or ComRes?
466. Thanks Alex, but it must be worth a lot less after a week, unless the purchaser has a particular angle to push - which paper is it in?
If the poll does not show a big Fall for the Tories it might be prelapsarian.
Oracle the world was younger then. They know him so much better now.
Headline figs are largely irrelevant unless the gap is very small. Its what happens in the marginals that matters.
Is this poll a rogue
475 - It’s an interesting question whether having gone into an election campaign with a large lead, the Conservatives would like the odd “rogue” showing a narrowing of the gap, or not.
I think on balance it would help them in battling complacency, more than cost them by motivating the Labour core (who won’t be critical to the outcome of the election).
Con 39, Lab 29, Libdem 20: so will mirror the GE result.
456. Witan November 21st, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“Or rather it might be slightly better if it were Comedy Results.”
I know Mike has said he’s happy with ComRes’s methodology these days. What problems do you see with it?
YOUR ALL GETTING HYSTERICAL - CALM DOWN !
481. Is that the poll?
478 - You would think so, and you would hope so.
However, if we see a poll boost in Mori, the only reasons would have to be Letter-gate and Glasgow by-election. If people are willing to change their voting intentions based on those two incidents (and ignore all the other c##p), marching around Cockermouth (can’t believe his PR people let him go there) sounding like a leader and pledging money is a certain poll booster.
480 I agree with that.
480 Agree. Complacency is the only way we get a hung parliament, not swing back. I doubt Labour’s core will be sufficient to win the marginals Dave needs, so energizing the Labour core vote as a cost of protecting against complacency should not worry the Tories.
Which must be taken in the light of the simultaneous ICM poll.
re 485. Very few people are changing their minds - the driving force behind polling changes is voting certainty.
481
No its my prediction, so as good as.
486 - It’s fair to say, i think, that they would rather any “rogues” come near the end of the campaign. Don’t want people sounding off from stage right about how they need to change campaigning focus.
I think you will find that the plan to portray Obsorne and Cameron as Jedward is a fantastically cunning plan, underestimated by all and it will see it pay handsome dividends from here on in.
486 So do I. That’s what all the electoral mountain stuff from Eric was about.
483. Irony?
490
BF
ComRes’s methodology these days. What problems do you see with it?
by MichaelK November 21st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Too many methodological changes, too little track record since the last change.
489 - Erh, Mike, I said change their voting intentions. Surely that covers, changing the party they are going to vote for and changing their mind about actually voting.
472. Prehaps a slogan for the next election then - Vote Labour get floods
re 495. K
496. Vote Labour or we’ll flood your county.
Evening all
I see the pb characters in the “Poll to Poll” series are warming up with rehearsals tonight especially Wayne whose idea of calming everyone down is to shout…yeah, right
Re: 475 & 480: Momentum is the key word here. Were Labour to go into the election campaign on a rising poll rating, it would obviously encourage its voters and activists but the Conservatives will leave nothing to chance and nothing that £30m can’t buy in terms of billboards, mailshots etc, etc.
The ‘92 election was a fine example of this. Close polls with a tendency to Labour leads were all wrong and I believe the Tories spent half the campaign budget in the last three or four days swamping the marginals with posters, billboards etc.
Were ‘10 to be as close, the Conservatives have the financial reserves to out-campaign the other parties in the crucial last 72-96 hours.
This time last year the Conservatives had just a 3% lead with MORI;
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention/mori
This poll will have a lot to live up to to reach that kind of narrow lead.
499 - I was referring to isolated “rogue” polls, not a general movement in the trend. The Conservatives obviously wouldn’t welcome a general narrowing in the polls, however much of a motivator it might be!
499
you cynical nerd
501. You mean like the ICM on April 21st 1997 that showed Labour with a 5% lead;
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997
Most elections do have odd polls the seem to turn the narrative on its head. I’m sure 2010 will be no exception.
I dont see any reason why Mori would publish their poll a week late, other than to cause mayhem if Labour got a boost ah la ICM last weekend.
If that is the reason it is not only unproffessional but leaves them open to manipulation by their paymasters, whoevey they may be.
I advise all jittery tories to calm down and all pumped up labour supporters to keep a sense of proportion.
re 503. That ICM 5% Labour lead in 1997 was much more accurate than two MORI polls about the same time that had 24% Labour leads
499.If the Tories poured resources into the marginals late in the 92 campaign it certainly failed to prevent Labour significantly outperforming in those seats!
New thread
504. I suppose The Observer have brought the poll. Thats the only reason its late showing up.
508 even bought
505 Spilt the difference between 5 and 29,and you do come pretty close to the 13% Labour won the popular vote by in ‘97!
BBC dispatches 35 staff to climate talks - creating as much carbon as an African village does in a year
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229695/BBC-dispatches-35-staff-climate-talks–creating-carbon-African-village-does-year.html#ixzz0XWN6ZELH