• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Will Gordon Brown survive the year?

Will Gordon Brown survive the year?


  • Total voters
    45
Sigh, again. Darat, it wasn't meant to be snide, and it definitely wasn't aimed at you. It was a response to part of richardm's post, which I didn't bother to quote because it was the one immediately preceding mine.

Rolfe.
 
I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you assume a sufficiently large market exists for this to happen. My guess is that the total amount bet on by-elections is far, far smaller than is the case with most events that bookies deal with and therefore one large bet can make it very difficult for them to balance the book.

If I was running a book, I would want to try and ensure that I made money no matter the outcome of the event. If I take a large bet one way, I need to attract money to the alternative outcome to ensure this is the case. In a highly active, liquid market that is relatively easy and I have a pretty good idea what price I can do that at. In a small, inactive market I may not be able to do so and have no real clarity as to what price I will need to offer to attract that money. Therefore I limit the size of position I am willing to take.

Bookmakers are in the gambling business, but they are not in business to gamble.


That seems to make sense. There has been some mention of how much money has been bet on the by-election so far, but to be honest I didn't pay any real attention. It probably isn't going to rival the Grand National.

There's a lot of Conspiracy Theorising going on, most of which is ludicrous (and the bits that aren't are only the normal political bias of newspapers). Some people are suggesting that the bookies have "inside knowledge" that an SNP win is likely, and are trying to attract a lot of money to Labour by making it look as if they expect them to win. I think they're simply trying to balance their books.

A Labourite was gleefully posting that "SNP insiders" know that Labour is on course to win by 2,500 votes. Why he thinks that SNP insiders would have informed the Labour party of this I have no idea. As I said, I asked an old hand - yes, an SNP insider - yesterday, and he said, "I'll tell you what. The experts don't know which way this is going to go. The newspapers sure as hell don't know which way this is going to go. We could lose by 3,000 votes or we could win by 3,000 votes, or anything in between, and that's as close as anyone can say."

That's likely to be about the extent of the bookies' "inside knowledge" as well.

I love it when the CTers start going on about "inside knowledge from the constituency". I was right inside the SNP rooms and that's as much as I got. The canvassers were coming back looking pretty cheerful, but canvassers are always over-optimistic. Alex Salmond was bullish. And rain is wet.

I was leafletting. I saw no Labour activists, on any day. I came across LibDem and Conservative literature, but only one Labour leaflet (which looked like an own goal to me). There aren't nearly as many Labour posters in the constituency as SNP and LibDem ones. I got sworn at once, but very much in a "a plague on all your houses" way. One guy refused to take the leaflet, saying "vote BNP" (there is no BNP candidate, and that bunch of creeps has little presence in Scotland). Lots of people smiled at me, several said what a good councillor John Mason is, and one family cheerfully announced unprompted that they'd already voted by post so that was three votes in the bag for the SNP.

So what. Most people don't want a confrontation. Means nothing. Inside knowledge says it's too close to call at the moment, end of story.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Sigh, again. Darat, it wasn't meant to be snide, and it definitely wasn't aimed at you. It was a response to part of richardm's post, which I didn't bother to quote because it was the one immediately preceding mine.

Rolfe.

I assumed it was aimed at me. I didn't respond to it partly because I didn't fully understand it, although I gathered it wasn't altogether complimentary, and partly because I don't want to get into an argument.
 
Last edited:
Sigh, again. Darat, it wasn't meant to be snide, and it definitely wasn't aimed at you. It was a response to part of richardm's post, which I didn't bother to quote because it was the one immediately preceding mine.

Rolfe.

I apologise for my accusation of snideness.
 
I assumed it was aimed at me. I didn't respond to it partly because I didn't fully understand it, although I gathered it wasn't altogether complimentary, and partly because I don't want to get into an argument.


I suspect we've had this argument, and if not, we can have it somewhere else. I imagine the subject isn't going away, but it's not really on-topic for this thread.

I'm sorry, I'm just rather fed up with the accusation that desiring the (in every other context absolutely normal) status of independence for one's country is in some way nasty, xenophobic, nazi, parochial, I'm sure you can fill in the rest. I didn't really mean to "have a go".

Rolfe.
 
Getting back on topic, and hoping hatchets are buried, at least temporarily....

Another post by the same poster as gave the partial explanation of the bookies' odds I quoted above has clarified things a lot further.

Council worker said:
following on from my post re the odds on the by-election.
a full list of all bookies accepting bets on it (currently only five) is available on: www.oddschecker.com
if you look at it you will see that ladbrokes quote the lowest price on labour and the highest price on snp.
reasons for pricing has nothing whatever to do with who the bookie themselves thing will win but by the volume of bets taken for one side or another.
it so happens that when the first shows of betting were given ladbrokes quoted the highest price about labour of all the bookies as they are of the belief that the snp will win. william hill incidentally took the opposite view.
due to the initial high price for labour this gave ladbrokes an unbalanced book and therefore they now have to extend the odds on snp in an effort to balance the books--this is the basics of bookmaking.
ladbrokes are therefore happy to accept bets on snp winning even tho they think the snp will win as it will balance up the book.
however, once this has been achieved, obviously the odds will again swing in snps favour.
william hill however have stopped taking bets as they also have an unbalanced book--but this time by snp.
in order for them to balance their books they would have to ivert their initial prices which would allow those who made a bet at the beginning(on either party) to now bet the opposing party and guarantee a profit.
bookies are not into charitable acts--therefore william hill have suspended betting. they are of the opinion that it is extremely close with everything to play for.
i hope this clarifies.


I think I actually understand him now - especially the bit about not inverting their original odds in order to prevent people from betting both ways and so being in a win-win situation.

You know, I'm not that interested in having a flutter as such, but the maths of this could get quite intriguing.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Before I begin this is not aimed at Richard or Darat.

I have over the years had a number of strange conversations regarding Nationalism. I have heard Unionists decry the SNP as splitters, narrow minded exploiters of history and that the world is too small for such nth degree separation. I have then in turn heard the same Unionist foam at length about the EU and how our very Britishness is at risk and that we must protect our way of life and culture from Brussels and that the Euro is the spawn of Belzebub.

I confess to having never understood this. Friendly unionism is either good or it isn't shirley? :boggled:
 
Sorry to stray from the topic of the SNP in Glasgow but......

Brown will last until the next election because; while labour are so low in the polls no-one wants to put themselves forward to be the leader who lost the party the election.

As soon as the election is over they will be rushing forward.
 
Sorry to stray from the topic of the SNP in Glasgow but......

Brown will last until the next election because; while labour are so low in the polls no-one wants to put themselves forward to be the leader who lost the party the election.

As soon as the election is over they will be rushing forward.

Yup - meant to say he will stay and hope for better weather. There is no one pushing him out (Tory tabloids hardly count).
 
Sorry to stray from the topic of the SNP in Glasgow but......

Brown will last until the next election because; while labour are so low in the polls no-one wants to put themselves forward to be the leader who lost the party the election.

As soon as the election is over they will be rushing forward.


Are you sure about that last bit?

Maybe, but I have a feeling they need at least one caretaker leader before the One Who Is To Come emerges to lead the party back to an electable state. How many was it last time? Foot, Kinnock, Smith (I was never convinced he would have won in 1997)? And for the Tories, Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard?

Look at Labour in Scotland, too. Wendy is an Awful Warning. And I very much doubt that whichever of the lightweights now jockeying for position gets the job, they will actually become FM.

Politics is all about seizing the moment. For an older politician who feels he hasn't much time left, or a younger who realises his talents only extend to caretaker status, this may be the moment. But it isn't the moment for anyone with serious prime ministerial ambitions.

Rolfe.
 
By the way, have a read at this. It's the most impartial bit of journalism I've read so far on this subject. (Maybe I need to change my paper. Three times recently the paperboy has delivered the Torygraph by mistake - is he trying to tell me something?)

Rolfe.
 
Crikey! Get a load of this!

"They would have employed a monkey"
"SNP says it will win in Glasgow east"

Walking through the door, I met with a sea of rickety tables, dirty plastic cups and piles of promotional leaflets covering every available surface. On one wall a supposedly motivational plea penned by Curran smacks of desperation. It is flanked by two more posters, reminding activists that “Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance” and “Team Work Makes Dream Work.” Some chance!

Charts covering the dingy off-white walls showed every registered voter in the constituency for the purposes of voter ID planning and leaflet drops. On the wall next to them was a list of the areas covered — only a few paltry ticks at this stage.

I learn that canvassing now all has to be done manually after it was discovered that the English computer system, which produces printouts of constituents who have voted Labour in the past, doesn’t work in Scottish constituencies with tenements because it doesn’t recognise the slashed, double-digit addresses.

This was hardly the Mandleson-esque efficiency I had come to expect from the party’s early years in power, when it was at the cutting edge of election technology and organisation, spin and rebuttal were elevated to art forms. I was handed a large bunch of flyers and a map and despatched out onto the streets to save Brown’s skin.

The mood among my fellow, largely inexperienced canvassers, dressed in hoodies and grubby jumpers — most of whom have been drafted from constituencies south of the border — was defeatist and downbeat. Of the three staff I went out with, the eldest was just a year out of university, their only taste of a by-election before this being the disastrous Crewe and Nantwich contest of last May, when the Conservatives snatched the seat from Labour in a by-election, overturning a 7,000 majority.

There is little Braveheart spirit on this side of the political divide. One of our first tasks is going into a “difficult” area of the east end, which a previous team gave up on. The young volunteer plotting our course through the tenements and former council houses describes the experience as “a living hell” and seems hopelessly out of her depth. A young twenty-something leading another expedition simply gave up on whole streets after being unable to make sense of the map issued by headquarters. [....]

I went back on the campaign trail with two staffers from England who had worked in Crewe and Nantwich. On my travels I came across an SNP canvasser. They vastly outnumber Labour volunteers on the street — they have a team of almost 1,000, compared with 200 on a good day for Curran — and they are rewarded with free food and drink. I’d walked about 10 miles a day, knocking at doors, delivering flyers, posting letters, and had never been offered so much as a biscuit. When I sat down in the campaign HQ for five minutes to eat a lunch I’d bought from a nearby bakery, I was handed another bunch of flyers and told to hurry along. I’d also spent £100 on petrol driving party members around the constituency in my own car, but when I asked if I would be reimbursed, I was told Labour didn’t do that. [....]


I suspect that, if the Sunday Times reporter had showed up at the SNP campaign rooms he'd also have been accepted. I just showed up and walked in, and I didn't see anyone asking "where goest thou?" However, someone recognised me almost immediately so I don't know for sure. It might have been difficult for a complete outsider to successfully feign the cameraderie and shared experiences though.

Apart from that, chalk and cheese. Yes, free food. Someone is making (tinned) salmon sandwiches on an industrial scale. And yes, you can just walk in and start munching. But there is a collection box and most people put in a contribution. The second day I went, I asked them what they were short of and went out and bought it. Nobody is asking for expenses, indeed people are contributing money as well as time, and some are driving themselves to the constituency from 150 miles away.

The computer system works - the SNP have had a programme called "Activate" for quite some time, and it was being used and updated constantly. There are people all over the place, all in the best of spirits, all knowing what they're supposed to be doing. Nobody tries to "motivate" anyone, all that's on the wall is press clippings and some photos of the campaign - oh yes and sign-up lists for people to volunteer their help on Wednesday and Thursday, already overflowing. And you choose when and how often you go out, come and go as you please, and have a rest if you want. When you're ready for another run, you have to find Fiona to get an assignment - she won't chase you.

The temporary rooms are offices attached to a garage, and although it's basic, it's decent enough and someone has hoisted cheerful yellow banners along the road frontage. Labour are using their own premises in the constituency - a bit of a shocker to hear their place is in such a state. Each day I've been out I've seen both the candidate and Alex Salmond, and other politicos including Nicola Sturgeon, Andrew Welsh and Alyn Smith (who is a personal friend from London Branch days). Sounds as if the Labour volunteers are on their own.

SNP-ville is organised. The maps are correct, and anyway there are enough local people to provide "native guides" for teams that need them. A couple of times we ran out of leaflets before quite completing a run, either because we had a better score rate of getting past security entry systems than predicted, or someone just didn't realise how many flats were in some of the blocks. So we reported back and Fiona took a note of which streets or flats hadn't been done, and said, don't worry, they'll get done.

The second time I was there, they were on the third or fourth different leafleting pass. All the telephone canvassing had been completed, and Fiona was now "targeting". The whole thing works. And by the way, I don't believe for a moment that the SNP are contacting Labour to send their activists on wild goose chases, or wrapping their cars in duct tape. The first sounds to me like a backfired attempt by someone on the Labour side to get more proxy votes, and the second sounds like pure vandalism.

They do sound very stretched though. Now I know why I saw no Labour canvassers, and only one single solitary Labour leaflet. There are even markedly fewer Labour posters on the lamp standards.

But most of all, the difference is in the attitude. We were all having a ball. It's fun!

Of course, the SNP have little to lose, and a loss will be little more than a temporary minor embarrassment. It's the third-safest Labour seat in Scotland. We don't need to win it, ever. Labour in contrast have everything to lose. If they can't hold this, they're history.

But still. I never thought I'd see the day when the SNP would be out-organising and out-campaigning Labour in one of its heartland seats.

The Sunday Herald has what might be the real deal on the opinion polls, that the SNP are perhaps four points behind at worst, with an awful lot of undecideds. This could go either way, so I plan to go over Wednesday and Thursday evenings and continue having a ball.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I'm just rather fed up with the accusation that desiring the (in every other context absolutely normal) status of independence for one's country is in some way nasty, xenophobic, nazi, parochial, I'm sure you can fill in the rest.

I hope I'd never accuse you of anything like that. I just disagree with that particular aspect of your politics, is all :)
 
Last edited:
Sorry to stray from the topic of the SNP in Glasgow but......

Brown will last until the next election because; while labour are so low in the polls no-one wants to put themselves forward to be the leader who lost the party the election.

As soon as the election is over they will be rushing forward.

You're probably right. Better to let Brown go down in flames at the next election then step forward to Save the Day, is what wiser minds will be thinking. I would not be in the least surprised to see a John Majoresque end to this government, though, with some lightweight being pushed forwards to see Brown out.

I have over the years had a number of strange conversations regarding Nationalism. I have heard Unionists decry the SNP as splitters, narrow minded exploiters of history and that the world is too small for such nth degree separation. I have then in turn heard the same Unionist foam at length about the EU and how our very Britishness is at risk and that we must protect our way of life and culture from Brussels and that the Euro is the spawn of Belzebub.

I confess to having never understood this. Friendly unionism is either good or it isn't shirley? :boggled:

Not aimed at me, but: You get extremists at both ends. The sort of nutcase Nationalist (which Rolfe is not) who despises the English and the sort of nutcase Unionist (which I am not) who despises everything that's not British (and usually specifically not protestant).
 
Last edited:
I think that the trouble for Unionists of the Daily Torygraph and Mail variety is that the arguments against the EU are actually good arguments for Scottish independence, and they rail at the sauce for the goose scenario.
 
What do y'all reckon to this news about the abolition of incapacity benefit? I don't mean the pros and cons of the policy itself, but the timing and the likely effect on the by-election.

Note that Labour feigned huge outrage when John Mason (SNP candidate) answered an interview question regarding who he'd rather see win the next Westminster election by saying that he didn't see much difference either way. They plastered their outrage all over an election leaflet. Now we have headlines saying that Labour "stole" this policy from the Tories, and Cameron says he will ensure it gets through even if there is a Labour back-bench rebellion.

Rather too many people in Glasgow East seem to be in receipt of incapacity benefit.

Has Brown just shot himself stone dead?

Rolfe.
 
Architect, news flash.

Wendy is gone. Finito. Departed. An ex-leader.

You need a new avatar.

Rolfe.
 
What do y'all reckon to this news about the abolition of incapacity benefit? I don't mean the pros and cons of the policy itself, but the timing and the likely effect on the by-election.

Note that Labour feigned huge outrage when John Mason (SNP candidate) answered an interview question regarding who he'd rather see win the next Westminster election by saying that he didn't see much difference either way. They plastered their outrage all over an election leaflet. Now we have headlines saying that Labour "stole" this policy from the Tories, and Cameron says he will ensure it gets through even if there is a Labour back-bench rebellion.

Rather too many people in Glasgow East seem to be in receipt of incapacity benefit.

Has Brown just shot himself stone dead?

Rolfe.

So few people vote in these areas it is difficult to tell what anyone really thinks.
 
It was noted that at the TUC's Tolpuddle Martyrs festival that New Labour's stand was smaller than that of Respect, and that comedians aimed more jokes at New Labour than at the tories. The Left seems to have abandoned all hope with Gordon.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom