Archive for October, 2007

« Newer Entries
Older Entries »
h1

Updated Head-to-Heads

October 18, 2007

Some updated predictions about likely Presidential match-ups.

Barring Al Gore defying conventional wisdom and finally deciding to enter the race, the contest for the Democratic nomination is now Hillary’s to lose. This simplifies the potential match-ups and allows Clinton/Romney and Clinton/Huckabee contests to be analysed. Polling data, and the fact that none of the Republican candidate have gripped America’s imagination leads me to adjust the probability of Senator Clinton winning upwards. Any predictions that are made below will needed to be adjusted for the possibility of a third party (or independent) candidacy.

Clinton/Thompson – In August I suggested that this would produce a evenly balanced contest with Clinton’s formidable machine and the general unpopularity of the Republican party will being balanced by Thompson’s charisma. However, Thompson seems to have few idea and little charisma. He also consistently polls behind Senator Clinton in the head-to-head polls. Not only will Thompson find the Midwest and the West a difficult area, he might not be able to hold the South. Although a blowout is unlikely the ‘fourth and inches’ contest that I was predicting two months ago isn’t as certain as before. Hillary Clinton has a 60% probability of winning (+5).

Clinton/Giuliani – Clinton/Giuliani – I have to say that I have been quite impressed by Giuliani’s deftness in dodging several political landmines, while still managing to stick to his principles, if this continues I might have to revise his chances against Hillary upwards. However, Giuliani will still have severe problems with his base while struggling to move independents and moderate Democrats into the Republican column.. I am going to stick to my prediction that Giuliani might (just) win New Hampshire but he will struggle to retain states like Ohio, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri and even Virginia. Hillary Clinton has a 60% probability of winning (unchanged).

Clinton/McCain – In August I made the suggestion that McCain would beat Hillary easily if he kept his faith on Iraq and Immigration. Unfortunately while McCain has kept his faith on Iraq he has reversed course on immigration. Although there are tentative signs that he may be moving back to the centre they have been overwhelmed by his decision to adopt more conventionally Republican policies on tax and healthcare. I still think that McCain could pick up New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, but only if he does something radical like selecting Joe Lieberman as his running mate. If he chooses someone like Tim Pawlenty he risks suffering the same fate as Bob Dole. Hillary Clinton has a 45% probability of winning (if McCain chooses Lieberman as his running mate, 55% if he doesn’t).

Clinton/Romney – Although Romney had a moderate record as governor of Massachusetts the fact that he has run away from it in a way that has made him a joke means that he won’t reap any benefits from it. At the same time, even if he gets the support of some of the Evangelical Right, there will always be a section of it who will simply not vote for him. Indeed, although religious bigotry should have no place in the modern world, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we could see a few Evangelicals actually voting for Hillary. Hillary Clinton has a 75% probability of winning.

Clinton/Huckabee – Huckabee may be charismatic and have no problem with getting the Christian Right out on polling day but a soon as the ‘fair tax’ is revealed to be extremely regressive (and probably unworkable) support for him will collapse. Although Hillary would normally guarantee any Republican at least 45% of the vote I would be surprised if Huckabee could get more than 40% and carry any states outside the deep South. Hillary Clinton has a 90% probability of winning.

If you disagree with this article, or agree with it, please leave your comments below.

Posted in Election 2008 | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

h1

Is ‘no plans to run’ really a Shermanesque statement from Gore?

October 17, 2007

Has Gore announced the end of his campaign before it has even begun?

The statement that Al Gore made to a newspaper in Oslo has been seen as a declaration that he has withdrawn from the race. Certainly, the betting markets have taken him at face value with his price on Intrade.com falling to 4.2-4.5. However, as his supporters have pointed out, his suggestion that he had ‘no plans’ to run for President was hardly ‘if nominated I shall not stand, if elected I shall not serve’. Admittedly, much of this is spin, after all I said similar things about the possibility of a David Miliband bid for the Labour leadership earlier this year, and then when that was ruled out, a bid by John Reid. However, I do have to agree that this sounds more like an attempt to affect disinterest gone awry than a genuine withdrawal. After all, why would Gore start to post videos about healthcare and Iraq on the internet if he had no intention to run?

Of course, even if the media has misread this, can Gore reverse himself without losing all credibility? After all, even the nutroots have not been exactly jammed with calls for Gore to run and this could kill the groundswell that he has been relying on to enable him to legitimise his entry into the contest. My point of view is that on balance his chances of running have been severely reduced but I would still rate them as more than one third and possibly as high as evens. In any case I’m going to stay out of the market at the moment and neither sell nor add to my positions.

Posted in Election 2008 | Tagged , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Market Call: LAY Clegg

October 17, 2007

Why I’m betting against Nick Clegg in the Lib Dem Leadership contest

I believe that Nick Clegg is the candidate to bet against at 1.68/1 because I feel that he seems to be unpopular with a certain section of the Liberal Democrat party. I’m more a value better than a market watcher but since the betting exchanges are very illiquid you may want to note that early this morning a single £1,000 order on him was placed on Betfair, so we can expect to see some considerable downward movement when the order is finally filled. It should also be noted that the increased attention that these markets now receive in the press may possibly explain any strange patterns. However, this post comes with the usual disclaimer that I am not a Liberal Democrat so I am not the best judge of internal Liberal politics.

Posted in British Politics | Tagged , , | 4 Comments »

h1

An updated analysis of the Republican contest

October 16, 2007

romneyx-large.jpg

With the exception of the bottom tier, there is little change

The race is still as murky as ever. Giuliani has a clear lead nationally, but there is considerable value in Fred Thompson and still some value left in John McCain.

Rudy Giuliani – I have to admit that Giuliani has performed extremely well. Few people would have thought that he would still be leading in national polls and polling a strong second in New Hampshire and South Carolina. As I said in August, Giuliani has been clever enough to realise that he merely needs to earn acceptance from the right of the party. His prudence in keeping a low profile on his most controversial positions also means that, unlike McCain, he can still advocate moderate policies on immigration and taxation. Giuliani has also benefited from the fact that enthusiasm for Thompson has been limited and that no other credible right-wing candidate has emerged who can pass all the various litmus tests on abortion, gay marriage and other issues. However, the situation might look radically different if the right coalesce behind a candidate or if someone launches an all-out negative assault on him (which Mitt Romney seems to be starting to do). Estimated chances of winning the nomination are around 40%. Price on Intrade.com 40-40.5. FAIRLY PRICED

Fred Thompson – The irrational exuberance of him being the ‘next Reagan’ have been replaced with irrational pessimism. Thompson may have few compelling policies, he may fail some of the litmus tests of the base and he may be a bit stiff but he still remains the most credible conservative in the contest. It should also be noted that in 1980 people were initially making similar complaints about Ronald Reagan. Thompson has been the clear overall winner in the various straw polls that have been held and he is starting to catch up with Giuliani in the national Rasmussen 3 day tracking poll, after his ratings fell in the wake of the Michigan debate. He needs to get the base onside, even if that means pandering on issues such as gay marriage. Estimated chances of winning the nomination are around 35%. Price on Intrade.com 15.8-16.1 UNDERPRICED

John McCain – If Giuliani has provided a master-class in how to gain acceptance from the Republican base without compromising one’s key beliefs McCain has demonstrated the opposite. Unlike Mitt Romney, most people realise that McCain does have sincere beliefs and they are not as unpopular with the Republican rank and file as most commentators believe. However, by pandering to the right and backing down over immigration he gives the impression that he is unable to stand up for them when it counts. Indeed, his one moment of consistency, namely his decision to stand and fight for a continued US presence in Iraq, is what has kept him in this race. He needs to go back to the themes of his 2000 campaign and start appealing to the centre, although he seems to have gotten himself into a pointless fight with Romney instead. McCain supporters need to pray that Giuliani starts to fall off the radar in the next few weeks so that McCain can have the centre all to himself. Estimated chances of winning the nomination are around 10%. Price on Intrade.com 6.7-6.8 UNDERPRICED

Mitt Romney – Romney may be still ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire and third nationally but I still think he is too toxic for either the average Republican voter or America at large. Despite his endorsement from Ann Coulter his chances of being the right’s standard bearer are marginal at best. His best hope is that Giuliani implodes and that he inherits his centrist mantle. His chances of winning the nomination are about 5%. Price on Intrade.com 25-25.6. OVERPRICED

5. Mike Huckabee – Like Thompson, Huckabee would be the logical standard bearer for the right of the party if he didn’t fail several of the litmus tests of that faction. Unfortunatly, for him being an religious conservative, pro-immigration and the supporter of the most regressive tax plan ever divised just don’t make for a coherent candidacy. His under-the-radar campaign might have got him close to McCain, in terms of Rammussen’s tracking polls but elsewhere he barely breaks into double figures, even in Iowa . His chances of winning the nomination are 5%. Price on Intrade.com 2.9-3.2. UNDERPRICED

6. Anyone else – Evidence from straw polls and opinion polling confirm that Brownback, Hunter and Tancredo might as well give up. Although a credible argument could be made that Ron Paul is the strongest of the third tier candidates (in terms of support) such an argument is like saying the Liberal Democrats are more likely than the Green Party to win the next British election. I still believe that betting against him is free money. Although the entry of a candidate like Collin Powell or Chuck Hagel might have had some impact a month ago it is now too late. JUST AVOID.

Posted in Election 2008 | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments »

h1

Trading Journal: Portfolio Summary

October 15, 2007

Because of the activity of the past few days I overlooked 17 additonal Gore contracts that I had placed an order for earlier (and were filled yesterday). My current Intrade portfolio is therefore:

UK.LABOUR – 9 contracts
PRESIDENT.FIELD2008 – 66 contracts
2008DEM.NOM.GORE – 28 contracts
2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN – 18 contracts
2008.GOP.NOM.PAUL – -10 contracts (10 contracts short)

Starting cash : $500
Current cash levels : $291.95

Posted in Betting journal | Tagged | Leave a Comment »

h1

Who will Replace Ming?

October 15, 2007

Where is the value in the Lib Dem leadership contest?

The suddenness of Sir Menzies’s resignation has taken everyone by surprise. However, not being a Liberal Democrat I can’t categorically make a prediction without doing some more research where the value lies in the betting to succeed to him. My preliminary view is that Chris Huhne, who came close to defeating Ming Campbell early last year 2006 should be the favourite but interestingly Betfair.com is putting him as far out as 3.80 (2.8/1) behind Nick Clegg. A bet on Huhne might be worth a punt but I wouldn’t be surprised that Clegg has done some dealmaking behind the scenes.

Posted in British Politics | Tagged , | 2 Comments »

h1

A free lunch courtesy of Dr Paul’s supporters

October 14, 2007

ron-paul.jpg

Is betting against Ron Paul money for nothing?

Fans of the Efficient Market Hypothesis like to say that ‘there’s no such thing as a free lunch’. Of course, I don’t believe this, since if I did I wouldn’t be writing this web-log or betting on Presidential Elections. However, it is always a good idea of be sceptical of bets ‘that cannot lose’ because they have a very nasty habit of biting the wary punter in the behind (although I have to admit that academic studies show the value is generally in shorter odds). The case of Ron Paul is undeniably an exception. Few people anticipated the way in which Rudolph Giuliani has prospered in the battle for the Republican nomination, despite his (relative to the rest of the Republican Party) socially liberal views, flamboyant private life and the fact that he couldn’t beat Hillary Clinton in 2000. However, unless the world really has gone upside down I don’t believe that the Republican Party would ever nominate an antiwar, pro-drug legalisation crackpot who ran as a Libertarian in 1988 and got less than 1% of the vote.

Indeed, I don’t believe that the ‘balance of probabilities’ is against him winning the nomination I just can’t see any scenario whatsoever where he wins the nomination. Of course nothing is an absolute impossibility but I put it up there with the US Government defaulting on its debt, the Liberal Democrats winning the next British election and other such absurdities. However, what I can’t understand is the fact that Paul’s price on Intrade.com is 6.9-7.0. At this price betting against Paul produces a much better interest rate than putting it in a bank account. However, what really intrigues me is the reason for this price, which gives Ron Paul a higher probability of winning the nomination than either John McCain or Mike Hukabee. There have been moments where the betting markets have gone insane, but they tend to be on election nights when punters overestimate the accuracy of opinion polls rather than during the campaign itself. The fact that Ron Paul has a small band of fanatical supporters could be one reason but other fringe candidates aren’t similarly overpriced.

What do you think? If you agree or disagree with this article leave a comment below.

Posted in Election 2008, US Politics | Tagged , , | 3 Comments »

h1

Betting journal update

October 14, 2007

Selling Ron Paul Short

I sold short 10 contracts of Ron Paul to win the GOP nomination, selling the first 5 at 6.8 and the next 5 at 6.7. This has reduced my available trading funds to $291.95. I’ll put the detailed rationale behind this trade will be up shortly.

Posted in Betting journal | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Markets still sceptical about Gore

October 13, 2007

There’s still value in the former Vice President

The reaction to the announcement of Gore’s Nobel victory has prompted the predictable call from the media for him not to enter the race. The logic goes that he can influence the race more by endorsing either Obama or Edwards than by challenging Hillary Clinton. Interestingly, the betting markets seem to have concurred with the price on Gore still only 11.7-12.5 on Intrade.com, compared with highs of 16 yesterday. I have to say that I think that this is a buying opportunity since he realises that an endorsement of either Barak Obama or John Edwards would be wasted and that the only way he can influence the contest is to run himself (although I think that if he really didn’t want to run he would do better to endorse Edwards rather than the Audacity of Hype).

Posted in Election 2008, US Politics | Leave a Comment »

h1

Gore: the evening after

October 12, 2007

How would a Gore candidacy affect the race?

_44173839_gore_getty203.jpg

I believe that Al Gore will run for the Democratic nomination. This is not only because he has the best chance of stopping Hillary Clinton, but because he has left the draft movement go on for too longer. Although I disagree with most things that Gore stands for, and I think that John McCain and Joe Lieberman have done more for the environment, I think Gore would not be so irresponsible that he would let people spend large amounts of money on ads in the New York Times urging him to run if he were not prepared to do so. So how could a Gore entry change things? Firstly, the candidacies of Chris Dodd, Joseph Biden and John Edwards would pretty much be destroyed by Gore’s entry into the race. Their records pale in comparison with Gore’s and they lack the funds to keep running on their own. They are all fishing in the same antiwar pool as Gore, which means that they will lose much of their support overnight. Indeed, I am going to go out on a limb and predict that Biden and Dodd would withdraw within a fortnight and Edwards could bow out within a month of a Gore announcement. Obama will probably stay in the race until the New Year, not least because he raised so much money that he will have to spend it all (probably an extended futile advertising blitz) or face the embarassing prospect of returning it. Richardson will also stay in until Nevada, although he would be better placed to withdraw and concentrate on the New Mexico senate race and the prospect of 2008.

It goes without saying that Hillary will face the fight of her life with an opponent who has experience, support from the ‘nutroots’ that currently dominate the Democrats and the ability to raise large sums from both individuals and corporate donors in the technology sector. Although I think she will triumph, it certainly not the foregone conclusion the contest seems currently. A more interesting question is how will this affect the Republicans. On the one hand they will have some time to regroup, time which candidates like McCain sorely need. However, Gore’s presence could siphon off the independents that McCain, the strongest Republican candidate, will need if he has any chance of gaining the nominaition (or at least doing well enough to make a third party run credible). There is also the possibility that Joe Lieberman, whose prescence on the bottom half of the ticket is vital if the GOP wish to retain the White House, will be unable to run against Gore (though little love has been lost between the two since Gore both failed to endorse him in either 2004 or 2006). In the general election Gore’s prescense slightly move the field back in the GOP direction (although he should still be favourite against any candidate other than McCain) since he is to the left of Hillary and lacks her remorslessness (although the fact he isn’t so polarising increases the possiblity of a Democrat landslide).

Posted in Election 2008, US Politics | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment »

h1

Will Gore Run?

October 11, 2007

Will the former vice-president be able to stop Hillary?

  gore_al.jpg

Until recently, I was very sceptical about Gore’s chances of even joining the Democratic contest. After all, in addition to Hillary, Gore would have to contend with Barak Obama, Bill Richardson, John Edwards and a possible Mark Warner re-entry into the race. Also, I was sceptical about the extent to which he would be able to transcend his single-issue focus on the environment and the fact that he had moved considerably to the left on most issues. However, many of these hurdles have simply disappeared, since even Obama’s most prominent supporters seem to have accepted that the Audacity of Hype simply lacks the experience and qualifications to be President. At the same time neither Edwards’s nor Richardson’s campaign is going anywhere soon (and Warner will now be running for the Senate). Finally, Gore is the only one of the serious candidates who has more experience than Hillary, while his disengagement from current politics gives him a blank slate to define himself on.

Ironically, another deciding factor is that Hillary’s main advantage, that she is very likely to deliver a small victory against Giuliani, Thompson or Romney (McCain is just about likely to beat her while Hukabee would be hard pressed to carry more than 100 EVs), is fast becoming superfluous. Indeed, with a clear plurality of people identifying themselves as Democrats, and the possibility that the Democrats might gain a filibuster proof majority, there is a compelling argument for selecting someone who doesn’t guarantee a minimum Republican turnout on Election Day. Of course it is possible to overstate this case since the Al Gore of 2008 is different from that of 1988, or even 2000 and he will face tremendous pressure to go even further leftwards. It also might be embarrassing for him, if he wins the nomination, to have to face the person who he put on his ticket in 2000 at the bottom of the Republican ticket.

So what are his chances and what should he do to maximise his chances of winning? It goes without saying that Gore will have to get into the race as soon as possible, the fact that he’ll know one way or other about the Nobel Prize tomorrow will mean that could enter it by the week-end. Gore should also take care not to drift too far to the left and find another cause, beyond global warming, to take up. He should remind voters of his previous health care plans from 2000 and he should also emphasise political reform, hoping that the remaining memories of the Clinton-era fundraising scandals attaches to Hillary rather than him. He should also emphasise his experience as vice-president at every opportunity, reminding voters that while Hillary may have shared (or not as the case may be) a bed with Bill Clinton he was a successful vice president.

Of course, Hillary will still be the favourite in this contest. After all, she has the money, the staff and a commanding lead in the polls. She also is a much more skilled operative, while Gore’s long rest from politics may have blunted his political skills. Gore may simply repeat the mistake of Edwards and go too far to the left, after all he endorsed Howard Dean in 2004 and has took a very defeatist line on Iraq. My back of the envelope calculations seem to estimate that there is about a 70% chance that Gore will run and a 30% chance that he could beat Hillary if he did so. This works out to roughly 21% chance that he could win the nomination. Given that contracts on him winning the nomination are trading at 13.0-13.1, Gore seems to be undervalued.

Posted in Election 2008, US Politics | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

h1

GOP Primary Polls: Iowa, New Hampshire & South Carolina

October 8, 2007

The current state of play in Iowa, New Hampshire & and South Carolina

To get an accurate idea of how the state of play is in the three earliest Republican primaries, I put over month’s worth of polling data through Samplemiser. This is what I found out:

Iowa (as of October 3rd)

iowaoct03a.JPG

Mitt Romney 25.04% Rudolph Giuliani 14.99% Fred Thompson 14.61% Mike Huckabee 12.51% John McCain 9.33%

New Hampshire (ditto)

nhoct03a.JPG

Romney 27.29% Giuliani 20.02% John McCain 17.11% Thompson 8% Huckabee 7.85%

South Carolina

scaoct03.JPG

Thompson 20.49% Romney 16.35% Giuliani 16.29% John McCain 15.93% Huckabee 10.65%

Posted in Election 2008, US Politics | Leave a Comment »

h1

Where does Brown go from here?

October 7, 2007

A look at Brown’s options after the decision not to call an election

brown.jpg

The conventional wisdom is that Brown’s actions over the last fortnight have been a huge, possibly terminal, blunder. It is difficult to dispute that Brown has undercut his attempts to gain support from disaffacted conservatives, united the Tories around David Cameron and damaged Labour’s standing in the polls. However, much of the damage is overstated. Most people are not particularly concerned with the ‘inside football’ of political strategy and although they will vaguely remember this for a few months this will be old news by the spring, if not before. It is also important to point out that Brown has not completely closed the door on a 2008 election, only saying that it is ‘extremely unlikely’. Indeed, I fully expect him to go to the country in June 2008, probably in conjunction with a referedum on Europe, although he will not make the schoolboy error of giving the opposition a large amount of advance notice.

Although I admit that I have probably lost money on the contrast I bought at around 66, though this is more to do with the delay in the election, I still think Labour has a very good chance (60%+) to win the next election and I will be putting in an order to buy some more when they fall below 53. I have also placed money on a Jan-Jun 2008 election at 16/1 and a Jul-Dec 2008 election at 17/1 (note: this is not part of my Intrade betting account and so won’t be counted as part of my trading book).

Posted in British Politics | Tagged | Leave a Comment »

h1

What are the seats to watch?

October 6, 2007

The ten seats to watch in the event on a snap election.

Given that British politics is dominated by national, rather than local, events it is always necessary to look at macro trends rather than at individual seats. Indeed, Labour’s polling of marginal seats in 1997 predicted a 50 seat majority, as opposed to the 175 seat majority that they ended up with. However, there are a few seats which will be genuinely affected by local factors and/or are good indicators of how the national trend is going.

1. Bethnel Green and Bow - If there was a contest for the most vicious contest of the 2005 election then Bethnel Green and Bow would have won hands down. On the back of anti-semitism the notorious George Galloway beat sitting Labour MP Oona King, winning the seat for Respect, a coalition of far left activists and Islamists. However, with Galloway standing in another seat, rumours of splits within Respect and with Brown’s announcment about a partial troop drawdown Labour should easily get the needed swing of 1.7%.

2. Finchley and Golders Green - This is the most marginal Labour seat in the country with a notional majority of only 34 for Rudi Vis, the sitting MP. The Conservatives have stated that they are concentrating on a big push in London so it goes without saying that if they fail to gain this seat then they can write off any chances they have in reducing the government’s majority.

3. Stirling – This seat is especially interesting in that it is Scottish (which is less affected by trends in England and Wales), 100th on the Conservatives target list and the sitting Labour MP is dependant on tactical voting by Lib Dems. If the Conservatives are doing well here then the government are in serious trouble.

4. Rochdale – This seat is the most marginal Lib Dem seat in the country (though alternative measures have it a Labour seat after boundary changes). If Paul Rowen manages to hold on, or even remains competitive, then many Lib Dems can breathe a bit more easily (although they will still have to worry about the threat from the Conservatives elsewhere).

5. Romsey and Southampton North – This is the first Conservative target seat that they could take from the Lib Dems. Even if the Conservative don’t increase their vote share the unwinding of the anti-conservative tactical vote could win it for them.

6. Kettering – This is the most marginal of Labour targets that has a sitting Conservative MP (the more marginal seats all have Labour MP). Although the rural nature of the seat could lead to a reduced turnout in the case of bad weather this is an indication of whether Labour can expect to make any gains.

7. Wyre Forest - This seat is currently held by Dr Richard Taylor, of the ‘Save Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern’ party. Although he retained this seat at the last election, he did so with a vastly reduced majority. Interestingly, a deal with the Liberal Democrats for them not to stand has fallen through. Given the strong third place finish of the Conservatives this is a genuine three way marginal.

8. Poplar and Limehouse – This seat would be interesting because, like Stirling, a Conservative gain would indicate that they are on course for a majority. However, the fact that George Galloway, the Jane Fonda of British politics, is standing in this seat will mean that there could be a repeat of 2005 (although the Muslim population is only 33% here as compared to 39% in Bethnel Green). Again this could be a possible three way marginal.

9. Eastleigh - The fact that the sitting MP is Chris Huhne makes this especially significant. Anything other than a gain of a few seats will mean that Menzies Campbell will stand down as Lib Dem leader and Chris Huhne will be a strong favorite to win. However, if the Lib Dems do to badly then Huhne could be in trouble himself.

10. Cambridge – This is 54th on Labour’s list of targets. If they manage to take this seat then the Lib Dems are facing major losses.

Posted in British Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Why Brown should not back down

October 5, 2007

Five reasons why Gordon Brown would be making a mistake if he delayed the election.

1. Brown can win the election - As the last post indicated, if the election were held today Brown would have a majority of about 66. My guess is that the dying down of the effect of Cameron’s speech (which I have to confess that I underestimated) will counter any tendency of voters to vote in a more Conservative fashion than they will admit to pollsters.

2. Lib Dem weakness – The Decimation of the Lib Dems should be secondary only to defeating the Conservatives in Brown’s strategy. Since voting reform is the price that Lib Dems will demand for cooperation in a hung parliament it stands to reason that such an outcome should be avoided at all costs. A Conservative victory would mean that Labour will be back in power within two parliaments (and vice versa) while an outcome where no party had a majority would mean permanant coalition government (and fragmentation of both main political parties). This may be the only chace Labour has to hit them when they are weak.

3. Weather is not as big as factor as everyone thinks – The United States has managed to hold regular elections for over two centuries in Novemeber. Although there is evidence that rain negatively impacts on turnout and that parties of the left are disproportionately hit, this is relatively minor. Indeed, Brad Gomez and George Krause suggest that an inch of rain may reduce turnout by less than 1%. Given that the mean additional rainfall for the month of November is less than 1 inch per day, this is not a major factor. At the same time the relatively short build up will mean that voters have less chance to be bored by the extended campaign that was a feature of the 1997, 2001 and 2005 campaigns – this will boost turnout. In contrast voters will be turned off by the extended speculation if the election is delayed.

4. The government ultimately controls the agenda – Although unexpected events can reduce government popularity there don’t seem to be any on the horizon. In contrast the government can still use the ‘bully pulpit’ of ministerial office to grab the agenda. In an election where both sides are realtively unprepared – this control of the agenda is an immense advantage.

5. An election victory would given him greater freedom to take risks – Brown strategy of trying to appeal to Liberal Democrats and Tories means that his scope for taking stances that are unpopular with sections of the electorate has been reduced. Indeed, it would be fair to say that he has played LBJ to Tony Blair’s JFK. This is by no means a bad thing, after all LBJ might have been a politican who used persuasion and deal making to achieve his ends, but he was able to create the great institutions of US society such as Medicare and a welfare safety net. However, an election victory would allow Brown to push the policymaking envelope and to reconnect with Blair’s take on foreign policy. More concretely, It would also mean that he could stop talking about drawing down troops in Iraq and return to Tony Blair’s stance of staying the course in the region (or at least until the US electorate decides the issues next November).

Posted in British Politics | Leave a Comment »

« Newer Entries
Older Entries »