Showing posts with label Political Betting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Betting. Show all posts

Friday, May 01, 2009

Doomed?

No not a Swine flu story but a question about whether or not Labour are doomed. For the past couple of weeks the news has been relentlessly bad for Gordon Brown and Labour, but today we have a number of stories about impending doom.

The Evening Standard has this story, with a number of Labour MP's being rather less than Optimistic.

But the Guardian is, as usual, more guarded but none the less not particularly optimistic. It points out

I remember the last three years of John Major's premiership and stories about his party losing faith in him became – rightly – a regular feature of political news coverage. These stories often featured on-the-record comments from the "usual suspects" because the people who mattered did not want to be quoted. The same thing is happening again now. Brown doesn't need to worry about Marshall-Andrews, Livingstone or Clarke. But he does need to worry that they are getting airtime because the media has decided they have got a point.
So this could be a long slow death but we at least know we have a final date next year when Labour must go to the country. Hopefully with Labour now in the betting to get less than 20% in the upcoming Euro elections the Men in Grey suits may do their job and get rid Gordon.

The final line in the Guardian article is particularly relevant
There's another type of story that crops up when a leader is in trouble and, from the Press Association news wire, I see that we're getting one of these this evening. Harriet Harman "will call for party unity in a speech in Scotland tonight". This is confirmation that things really are pretty bad; politicians don't appeal for unity when it already exists.
This hits the nail on the head. If there is no unity (and Unite!) then Labour will be doomed.


Is Labour now doomed? | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Monday, October 13, 2008

Black October?

I thought I'd jut pop this comment from Political Betting up on the blog as it is by someone dear to my heart...!

Iain Dale has just posted this on his blog, Cameron Foresaw Liquidity Crisis in March.

I don’t often quote in its entirely a blogpost from another blog, but this one from ConservativeHome’s Tory Diary merits an exception. Over to Tim Montgomerie…

There’s been a lot of criticism of David Cameron recently but this extract of a speech that he gave more than six months ago showed a pretty good understanding of the issues of capital inadequacy and illiquidity at the heart of this crisis:

“As well as the reforms we have outlined for the UK financial system, we need reforms at a global level too. So let me suggest one important reform that needs to take place in light of the recent crisis in world banking.

“The Basel capital accords determine how much capital a bank must set aside for a given amount of lending. This makes good sense, and, for obvious reasons, it is right to set the rules at a global level. But economists have identified some key problems with the current Basel accord.

“First, the rules on liquidity, which has been at the core of the current crisis, are too weak. Banks can operate with enough funding only to survive for a couple of weeks, but still be within the rules. Second, we need to examine which asset classes and which institutions are covered by existing rules. For example, the zero-weighting of some triple A assets has led to distortions in asset allocation. Put simply, some of the debts were kept off balance sheet so they didn’t count as lending under the rules.

“Third, judgements about credit risk were delegated to rating agencies who themselves had incentives to expand the amount of lending that was allowed under the rules. Put simply, because they are paid fees for rating debts, credit rating agencies had an interest in there being as much debt as possible. Finally, market risk was measured by backward looking models which tend to exacerbate the credit cycle, not dampen it. When credit is easy, the models allow more lending. When credit tightens, the models reduce the amount of permitted lending.

“In short, liquidity risk was all but ignored, credit risk was delegated, and market risk was backward looking. And we now know that not only did the regulators not know, but too often the banks themselves didn’t know, the full extent of the risks they were subjected to. But let me say again, any reforms at an international level will need care to ensure that in tackling the past problems they do not create the problems of the future. At the same time, we must all recognise that crises are inevitable, so a prudent Government, as we will be, that is committed tol be, must improve our response to these crises when they appear.”

Thanks to Richard North of EU Referendum blogspot for pointing the extract out to us.

Now, I don’t remember Gordon Brown anticipating the banking crisis in this clear way, do you? And while I am in the mood to nick things from other blogs, take a look at THIS post from Ben Brogan, where he quotes from Gordon Brown’s speech to Reuters this morning…

“In future regulatory systems there will be both greater attention to issues of solvency and liquidity and probably a pro-cyclical attitude where in a period of growth you have got to lay aside more for the possibility that there will be contractions.”

Isn’t that what the Conservatives have been saying for the last 18 months?”

I think that Brown and the PLP misread the mood last week, but I don’t think that Cameron and Osborne did. I suspect that the Conservative Whips worked just as hard as the Labour Whips to make sure that the Conservative benches behaved in exactly the opposite manner to their colleagues across the floor.

Back during the Conservative Conference Cameron was able to articulated the current problems in a much more voter friendly way than Brown, the bipartisan attempt to get the government into the drivers seat and get the engine started was effective.
Brown turned down any offers to share the limelight with Osborne and Cable, but they were offered in this time of economic crisis.

Now its time for a reality check some honesty from our politicians. We are not in a good place to weather this economic downturn, and we are facing years of belt tightening both personally, and in the public finances.

Very tough decisions are going to need to be taken sooner, rather than later. And if this government continue with a Scorched earth policy for short term political gain, rather than longer term fiscal prudence, then they need to be held to account at every point.


Cameron and Osborne need to carry on with their strategy of being honest about the difficulties, and tough medicine which will need to be administered. They need to knock this spin about military wars, this is an economic tsunami.

We had Black Wednesday, this is more like Black October!



Kind of sums up what is happening this month.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Iain Dale makes a boo-boo - Clegg 56% Huhne 44%

Looks like Iain Dale made a Boo-Boo and inadvertently published an embargoed Poll for the Lib Dem leadership race on Blogger and then changed it back to being a draft. Now the details are there for all to see if you search Blogs in Google and type in "Clegg" or similar or just follow the link. Anyway its shows the following.

The poll of 678 Lib Dem members finds Nick Clegg ahead with 56% of the vote among all those naming a candidate. However, the results show that Chris Huhne (44%) is still able to beat the front-runner as half the membership (52%) has not ...
I should know I inadvertently did this on one of my blog entries this week and found it could still be seen on the blog search.

Hat tip to Will on Political Betting

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

HMCR Junior Official Found

I hear they’ve found the “junior” official from HMCR, he was found at Wembley playing in goal for England. Claimed he had got lost in the post.

Another quote from last night from a text message on the BBC. This time from Watson in Aberdeen.

“Without doubt, the defining image of McClaren’s short reign. With their backs against the wall, England need blood, sweat and tears, and yet McClaren stood there helpless, umbrella aloft, not even prepared to get his hair wet! What would Churchill say?”
Next step Home Internationals?

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Brown to Regulate Flexible Working


How can there be a law to require flexibility? It is an oxymoron. Brown had proposed that flexible working is available by law for working parents. This is typical of Brown.

A discussion is ongoing on the Political Betting site on this issue.

Flexible working only really works when everyone can do it. Letting one section of the workforce do it and effectively penalising the rest will only lead to more and greater problems.

The company I work for has had flexible working for a number of years but how it works for individuals is dependent upon type of job and ability to cover so-called “core” hours. There always has to be a bit of give and take between the nature of the job and reality. Some employers would be hard pressed to provide flexible working because of the type of work performed and the actual nature of the business.

Unfortunately most of the people in public sector jobs who are getting smaller rises will be exactly the sort of people whose jobs are difficult to cover with flexible working.Rather than regulation it would be better to push/advertise the benefits of flexible working to all employers with a happier and less stressed workforce.

It doesn’t depend on Union representation, private/public, small/large it just requires common sense from both employers and employees. I repeat how can there be a law to require flexibility?

The main thing about flexible working is it only really works when there is trust between employees and employers. If there is no trust then it will fail at the first hurdle, this would almost certainly be the case if only employees with kids were allowed flexible working. All the other “special” cases like people with elderly parents, invalid partners etc will justifiably feel excluded.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is Gord on to a winner with this?

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Why you should read PoliticalBetting.com

If you have to use only one site to understand Politics then Political Betting should be it. Where else do you get such gems as this comparison of Blair's government to a Porno Flick:

75. Unfortunately, I kind of agree with you. Having read the Campbell diaries, the equivalent of the Redwood stunt - getting, say, Dennis Skinner to talk about the future of coalmining - would have been squashed before it was born by Campbell, Mandelson, et al.

Where I probably depart from you is my overall analysis of the Campbell book and what it means. Yes, it’s very readable - witty and brisk - and an invaluable insight into British politics and New Labour thinking.

But it is deeply, deeply unflattering about New Labour, probably much more than Campbell realised. It is inadvertently revealing.

Blair comes across as psychotically selfish. Campbell glum and punchy. Mandelson seems insecure to the point of hospitalisation. Brown is an unpalatable figure brooding on the edges.

Their entire philosophy is to screw the Tories and make good headlines. Principles are way down the list. The atmosphere is tawdry and bleak, albeit oddly watchable. Like a cheap porn flick.

Indeed, that’s what Blair etc come across as Porno stars in the sordid skinflick of politics.

Blair is Johnny ‘the wad’ Holmes, obsessed with his manhood. Campbell is ‘King Dong’. Mandelson is Tracy Lords, constantly being shafted, and Brown is the bizarre German bloke with the weird haircut who comes in at the end for the money shot.
(SeanT)