Archive for the 'General' Category

h1

At this stage in 2010 bullish punters pushed the betting to a CON majority of 36 completely in defiance of the polling

Saturday, February 14th, 2015

Are CON punters being grossly optimistic yet again?

Last night John Rentoul asked me what had happened in the betting at this stage of the 2010 campaign and I dug up the above – an index that I created and reported regularly on here based on the spread betting and Betfair line prices.

At this stage in the last campaign the Tories had begun to falter in the polls and the established firms had them with leads of 5-7% which pointed to them winning most seats but some way back from an overall majority. This was indeed what happened.

    Yet the polling did not arrest the what turned out to be the grossly over-confident blue mood on the betting markets as the above PB Index shows. The money was piling on an overall majority in spite of the ample polling evidence that this wasn’t going to happen.

I think that that is repeating itself now. The betting is strongly suggesting that the Tories will win most seats even though the polls are showing small but consistent LAB leads

Apart from the Ashcroft weekly poll, which hasn’t had Miliband’s party ahead this year, there’s a pretty consistent pattern from the others. Even with LAB’s Scottish problems they’ve got at least a 50-50 chance of beating the Tories on seats.

It appears that the mood is driven by a rock solid conviction that when voters are presented with the possibility of Ed Miliband becoming PM they will shy away.

Maybe they will but there’s nothing in the polling to support that at the moment. I was struck by yesterday’s ComRes finding that just 12% said that the key factor in voting choice is which party leader will make best PM.

Mike Smithson

For 11 years viewing politics from OUTSIDE the Westminster bubble




h1

Betfair punters rate Tory chances of an overall majority as being higher than a LAB but think that Labour will win more seats

Sunday, January 11th, 2015

But LAB to win most seats still marginal favourite

The big conclusion is that it’s going to be very tight



h1

Extraordinary and moving pictures from Paris

Sunday, January 11th, 2015



h1

Forget PMQ reactions – the big story this afternoon is the killing in Paris

Wednesday, January 7th, 2015



h1

For your Christmas Day entertainment – Guess the Constituency

Thursday, December 25th, 2014

Right then folks, as there are no local by-elections today and by the end of today you are all liable to be dozing off not in the middle of Her Majesty’s speech I hope (after all those betting markets were suspended earlier in the month thanks to some unusual betting patterns) it’s time to get those old grey cells into working order ready for the torrent of polls that will flood us from the first week in January onwards.

Here are ten constituency maps (taken from Google Earth using the maps created by the Tally Room website in Australia) which are a combination of 1997 – 2010 and 2010 boundaries. All you have to do is to guess the name of the constituency and which party won that seat at the last election at which it was contested and the MP who won that seat.

To see the maps in greater detail click here.

Harry Hayfield



h1

Austria, Serbia and George W Bush

Saturday, July 26th, 2014

first world war posters   Google Search (2)

The descent into WWI is a 21st Century story

Sepia-toned silent images of black-coated or feather-hatted diplomats lend a reassuring distance to the events that plunged the world into war a hundred years ago this week.  It looks like a world long since vanished and in one sense, it is.  However, like much of that story, it is an illusion; all the more dangerous for the complacency that false reassurance breeds.

    Far from being a different age, the threats posed by rogue governments, state-sponsored (or at least, state-cloaked) terrorism and extremist violence are more relevant now than at just about any time since 1914. 

Indeed, when George W Bush had to respond to the Twin Towers attacks, he was placed in a very similar position to the Austrians after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

Both outrages were direct attacks against not just the soil and people of the respective great power but represented a symbolic attack too.  Equally, both were carried out by terrorist organisations that enjoyed the tacit patronage of their host governments to the extent that the line dividing them was distinctly porous: they shared objectives and beliefs, and not infrequently, personnel.

Understanding that is crucial to understanding both why the Austrian government sent such a harsh ultimatum, demanding that Serbia allow Austria to conduct its own inquiry.  Quite simply, there was no way a Serbian inquiry could be trusted to investigate properly as if it did, it would implicate itself.  Refusing the Austrian demand that Sebia cede its sovereignty might have given the Serbs a little cover under international law but as the initial act could easily be regarded as a casus belli of itself, only a little.

Here, the parallel switches to Iraq.  Most would now agree that the Iraq War was a monumental blunder on any number of levels.  Many thought it would be at the time, though we should distinguish between those who believed in managing the risk Saddam presented and the views of those who would bury their heads in the sand and try to wish the situation away.  Bush’s problem, like the Austrians’, was that the weapons inspectors were being given the run around in exactly the same way that Pasic’s Serbian government would have given the Austrians had they allowed them in.  Just as Saddam was trying to strike a balance between providing no evidence to the West that he had WMD’s and retaining the belief among his local opponents that he had, so Pasic could not afford to give an outright no to Austria but nor could he allow them to find anything incriminating.  Both countries could sustain the contradictory policies only until the terrorism of 1914 and 2001 changed the game.  A that point, both the Austrian and American administrations decided that a government that couldn’t be trusted on such matters was by definition a sufficient threat to justify war.

Of course, one principal difference between Serbia in 1914 and either Iraq or Afghanistan this century is that neither of those two had any meaningful international support whereas Serbia could rely on Russia, and by extension, France and probably Britain.  That, however, is more a distinction of detail than consequence given the breadth of international sympathy and strength of US feeling in the days following 11 September 2001.  Unlike Nicholas II (or more accurately, his ministers), no modern leader is likely to commit to the suicide of their regime and country on behalf of a bunch of fanatics (not that the tsar meant to either, but foresight of the consequences of a major war is clearer now than then).

Where do these lessons leave policy today?  That’s a much more difficult question.  It’s worth noting that after all the slaughter, it was the Serb nationalists who achieved their aim in 1918-9, not the Austrians; that after years of occupation, Afghanistan is by no means free of extremists even if Al Qaida is much reduced; that the downfall of Saddam has merely replaced one uncertainty with others in the Middle East; that Israel’s policy towards Hamas veers between scratching the sore and sticking a plaster on it but that the sore remains all the same.

Even so, it’s only when the fanaticism of terrorists is allied with the resources and prerogatives of a state that there develops a really serious threat.  The ideal solution is to prevent that alliance in the first place but even that asks difficult questions about external interference in sovereign states, ones that can only really be answered if there’s agreement on both principles and practices among the major powers.  If that fails, it follows that regime change should be a legitimate reason for military action in certain circumstance, even before a threat is made real.  Yet that too is dangerous: many initially extreme governments mellow with power, while war brings the chaos and pain in which extremism thrives.

It’s said that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.  The problem is knowing which lessons to learn and heed.

David Herdson

David will not be able to respond to comments today as he’s getting married.



h1

David Herdson says: “Time for Britain’s greatest county to stand up”

Saturday, July 5th, 2014

Yorkshire_Grand_Depart_Official_Cycling_Jersey_Front

Whatever it is that makes a nation, Yorkshire has it

The folk of God’s Own County tend to be a reticent bunch, not much given to singing their own praises (or indeed, anyone else’s), but as cycling’s greatest race speeds spectacularly over the Broad Acres this weekend – an event the locals have greeted with characteristic enthusiasm and humour – it’s a good occasion to ask whether it should be the next nation within the UK to gain devolved powers.

I write ‘nation’ deliberately.  While recognising that few would regard it as their primary nationality, never mind their sole one, we’re not talking about some simple fondness for a mere administrative division but that genuine sense of identity, otherness and shared cultural inheritance that makes a nation.  And while size is not everything – Cornwall could make equivalent claims of self-identity – Yorkshire’s population is well within the range of the other areas of the UK that have devolved powers: less than London, about the same as Scotland, but more than Wales or Northern Ireland.

Does any of that imply a need or demand for a Yorkshire parliament or government?  Not exactly, but if England suffers a democratic deficit via the West Lothian Question, then the areas outside London suffer twice over: to take one example, the government’s national infrastructure plan (for England), allocates sixteen[1] pounds per person for transport spending in London for every one pound per person spent in Yorkshire.  London may have special needs but sixteen times as much?  Wales and Scotland protect their fair share via devolution.  Does Yorkshire deserve any less?  More relevantly, will Yorkshire folk start demanding no less?

As yet, no.  At the European elections, the Yorkshire First party – campaigning for devolved parliament – secured just 1.5% of the vote.  That was its first election and so voter recognition was probably just about nil, particularly as they didn’t distribute their free mail post and they weren’t entitled to a party political broadcast.  That said, the very fact that the party exists is itself telling, though whether it should be a political party, having to work against the existing parties, rather than a campaign group seeking support including from those already active in the system, is a different question.

Critics will argue that we’ve been here before.  John Prescott was keen on assemblies for Yorkshire, the North East and other regions; plans that were dropped after a referendum in the North East kicked the idea out with a 78% No vote.  Those proposals, however, were a pig in a poke.  There was no suggestion as to what the bodies would do, just what they would cost.  It’s unsurprising that they weren’t a hit.  Had they been accompanied by real powers, it might have been a different story.

I do wonder whether the Tour de France Grand Depart this year, and the proposed future Tour of Yorkshire for future ones, might do for England’s largest county what the London marathon did for its largest city, namely to demonstrate what can be achieved by a high profile sporting event when component boroughs work together.  There is a political mirror to that; one that ultimately led to the recreation of a high profile voice for London in its mayor (though rather like the marathon route, it was hardly a direct path).  A well-conducted campaign, building on the experience in Scotland, London and Wales, could deliver a Yorkshire parliament in far less time than it took there.

David Herdson

p.s. A quick note on the Tour itself.  Stage One today shouldn’t present too many difficulties for the riders, except for the narrow, weaving roads and tight turns.  If all goes smoothly, the sprinters should dominate the race to the line and Cavendish has made no secret of how much he wants to win in his mother’s home town, though Peter Sagan stands an excellent chance too.  Stage Two, by contrast, is a real test; a stage that could easily be a Spring Classic in its own right.  The 3000m of climbing is not far off a big mountain stage but rather than three or four huge ascents as in the Alps or Pyrenees, here there’ll be a relentless series of twenty or so climbs (only nine of which are categorised), constantly forcing a change of rhythm.  They’re steep too, passing 10% frequently and the final climb within Sheffield itself hitting in excess of 30% at one point.  This is a stage that could shake up the field and while the race can’t be won on Sunday, it could easily be lost, particularly given the dicey weather forecast.  The stage winner is far harder to predict and is unlikely to be any of the favourites for any jersey.



h1

Multiculturalism was buried this week, un-noticed

Saturday, June 14th, 2014

The reaction to Trojan Horse has major implications for social policy

Most of the reaction and comment to the fallout from the Birmingham schools Trojan Horse affair has centred on the spat between Theresa May and Michael Gove (and their respective departments), on what ‘British values’ means, and on to what extent – if they can be defined – they should be promoted.  That’s all fair enough but it misses the implicit step already taken: that not only are the values that were sought to be imposed in the schools not British but that neither is there a place for them in a parallel system within the country.

That may sound obvious now but not that long ago there would have been a lot of noise both from the left-of-centre and from groups purporting to represent ethnic minorities if a politician asserted that some cultures are better than others, or even if they’d said that some cultures are better in this country than others.  Yet this week cabinet ministers have effectively said precisely that and it’s simply gone practically unchallenged.  Multiculturalism – the idea that many cultures, each of equal value, can and should live side by side, celebrating and retaining their differences – is dead and buried.

The implications run far beyond education; questioning what is acceptable behaviour, what imported traditions and behaviours can be accepted, tolerated or celebrated – and what cannot – in any field of life.  While that could apply to any immigrant community (or, for that matter, any indigenous communities that lead sufficiently different and separate lives), there’s little doubt the majority of the focus will centre on muslim communities.

In some ways, that’s unfair.  Apart from the point about other communities, a culture is as much about secular habits as religious teaching.  However, when culture and religion become deeply intertwined, trying to separate them is both a fruitless and pointless task: the habit reinforces the belief and vice-versa.  This becomes really tricky territory because it then follows that an attack on one (behaviour) is easily seen and/or represented by those criticised as an attack on the other (their religion).

And yet that’s precisely where the British Values debate leads, whether the politicians have realised it or not.  The previous mainstream strategy was to place the divide between ‘extreme’ Islam and ‘conservative’ Islam.  Accepting the British Values premise renders that division irrelevant: it says that the social attitudes of conservative Islam are at best inferior and at worst illegitimate, whether ‘extreme’ or otherwise.  It also says that an honest, devout religious belief is still no justification for rejecting the values on which British society is based.

How all that translates into practical policy is the big question.  It’s all very well to talk in generalities, or ideals, rights, duties, values and traditions but how are schools to promote those values, and what are they, precisely?  For that matter, if schools are to have a duty to promote British values, then why not other parts of the state?  What does it mean for policing policy and priorities, for immigration policy, or for when social services departments should intervene, for example?  Virtually no area of public policy would be untouched.

At its heart the debate is a revised version of an extremely old question about the conflicts of loyalty and values between state and religion and how to handle those who dissent, especially when there is a violent fringe associated with the dissenters.  A community that feels persecuted may be more likely to protect their own, especially if they had little confidence in (or need for) the state to start with, producing a situation that leads all too easily where all sides see ‘them and us’ and the creation of parallel, pseudo-institutions in the state’s place.  Integration is the only real answer but for that to happen there has to be a desire for it on the one side and a welcoming and open acceptance on the other.  What the Trojan Horse episode tells us – and it’s by no means an isolated incident – is that we’re a long way from such a position.

So far, the proposal’s received a remarkable lack of criticism.  Perhaps that’s because it’s difficult to knock the principle without upsetting many other people; far easier to wait for the detail.  Whether that’s sustainable as we head into an election year is another matter.

David Herdson