politicalbetting.com

Ousted leader: “threatening to leave the party”

With the Tories gearing themselves up for an intense autumn when it will be decided whether Michael Howard’s successor should be elected by a ballot of the party membership the man ousted by the parliamentary party in October 2003, Ian Duncan Smith, is reported to be threatening to resign his membership.

According to the Sunday Telegraph this morning IDS has “told colleagues that he will take the extraordinary step if two people he blames particularly for his downfall are allowed to stand as Tories at the next election.”

The report, by the paper’s Political Editor, Patrick Hennessy, says he would leave the party to become an independent if Vanessa Gearson and Mark MacGregor are selected as Tory candidates. The two “played leading roles in the “Betsygate” affair which saw Mr Duncan Smith accused of sanctioning improper payments to his wife. Both fought last May’s election unsuccessfully and are understood to want to stand again next time.”

This latest move might be part of IDS’s campaign to ensure that it is party members and not the party’s MPs that should have the final say in deciding who the next leader should be. It was this system that saw IDS win emphatically in 2001.

Given that the Tory leadership contest is the most active political betting market at the moment the system of choosing could have a huge impact on the final result.

This site, meanwhile, gets a mention in the Atticus column in the Sunday Times today following the discussion on the political impact of baldness.

Mike Smithson

Our featured picture is courtesy of http://www.larrytt.com/celebrities_playing_tt/ which has a round-up of politicians playing table tennis

What happens if the new leader makes no difference?

Although the poll moves away from the Tories have not been as great as after previous General Elections there’ve been few crumbs of comfort in the few surveys that have been carried out.

We have hardly mentioned the post-May 5th polls on the site because this close to the election the question of what respondents might do in four years time is not very relevant. Also the Olympic 2012 decision and the bombings have clearly helped the government. But from Cheadle and the limited data we have the best that can be said is that the Tory ceiling of 33% support is still in place.

Michael Howard’s move to go into an immediate leadership election has not helped as has his desire to change the rules which will ensure an ongoing row for several months. But is there anything that the party can feel positive about?

There is quite a range of bookies accepting bets on the outcome of the next UK General Election which we have hardly featured. The implied probability the prices represent is 65% for Labour. We can see no reason for betting now because of the need to lock your money up for so long.

Mike Smithson

Is it going to be Hilary vs Rudolf or Hilary vs John

Even though George Bush’s second term only began on January 20th would-be seekers after their parties’ nominations are already talking with potential backers and putting visits to New Hampshire into their diaries in preparation for the 2008 race.

And because Bush cannot stand again there’ll will be fierce fights amongst both the Democrats and the Republicans to get the precious nominations.

If the UK betting markets have got this right then it’s going to be between the New York senator and no stranger to the White House, Hilary Clinton, and the former Mayor of New York Rudolf Giuliani. She’s currently at 4/1 while he is second favourite at 8/1.

Other names in the frame for the Democratic nomination are the V-P candidate from last time, John Edwards and Bill Richardson. Behind Giuliani in the betting for the Republican nomination is John McCain who was defeated by Bush in a rough fight in 2000. Last year there was much talk of McCain going on to the Kerry ticket in a bi-partisan approach but the Republican from Arizona kept well away.

Hilary’s strong position is based on the view, put lucidly by WBP on this site on Tuesday, that she has changed her public profile dramatically in the last few years and is pitching herself to the middle of the American political spectrum. She wisely kept out of the 2004 race and looks very strong, for the nomination at least in 2008.

Where the Clintons - Bill and Hilary - have always been brilliant is in developing a policy platform which will appeal and which is robust enough to stand the intense scrutiny of an American election campaign.

At the moment the UK betting markets have the Republicans ahead as the party most like to win the White House in 2008 which does not stand so squarely with the betting that makes Hilary favourite.

NOTE FLOTUS and PROTUS is the “shorthand” used by White House officials to describe the First Lady of the United States and the President of the United States. It is anybody’s guess what term they would give to Bill Clinton if he returned to Washington as the Spouse of the President - SPROTUS?

Mike Smithson

Can a bald leader beat one with hair?

If you aspire to the leadership of your party and are a bit thin on top one of the most depressing political facts is that in modern times a party led by a bald man has never beaten a party led by someone with hair in a UK general election.

The only time the country has had bald man at Number 10 was between 1940 and 1955 when first it was Churchill, then it was Atlee and then it was back to Churchill again. In the General Elections of 1945, 1950, and 1951 it was bald fighting bald.

Recent examples of bald leaders failing are Neil Kinnock in 1987 and 1992 and, of course, William Hague in 2001. Ian Duncan Smith did not stay in the Tory leadership long enough to fight an election.

Of course whoever was Tory leader in 2001 was going to find it a struggle but would the party have done better if Hague had not lost his hair or if he had had the foresight to acquire a hair-piece when he was starting to get a bit thin on top? His baldness became another thing that could be attacked and riduculed and Labour felt so confident about the public attitude to bald men in 2001 that they were happy to feature his lack of hair in a poster campaigns.

Is it any wonder then that ambitious politicians who fear that they might be losing their hair seek a remedy. The Catch-22 is that they might get found out and not only are they seen to be bald but they appear vain as well.

In this the UK is unlike France which has had a number of bald presidents including Chirac, Germany which had Kohl and Italy with Berlesconi. In the US one of the hot tips for the Republican nomination is John McCain who is thinning on top.

Since this first came up in one of our discussions a week or so ago a number of PB.C users have emailed me privately to say that X or Y has a hair-piece. Leading figures in all three parties have been mentioned and we have been provided with interesting photographic evidence. I’m still trying to work out what to do with it.

A SPELL-CHECKER for our discussion forums. The latest version of the Google Toolbar features a spell-checker that works with our discussion feature and allows posting without irritating mistakes. There are versions for the Internet Explorer and Firefox browsers.

Politicalbetting particularly welcomes new users to the discussion forums

Mike Smithson