politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Big swings to the SNP in the latest local by-elections: Ful

From LabourList

"Tessa Jowell is still ahead of the pack by a rather large margin – she has 36% of the vote. However this has narrowed since the start of July. When we last asked this question Jowell had 35% of the vote but a 17 point lead over Khan her closest rival on 18%.

Now 13 points behind her are Sadiq Khan and Diane Abbott who are both on 23%. This is a shift from last time we asked this question; although Khan was in second place, Abbott was 6 points behind him on 11%. Now she’s 0.2% behind – 6 votes fewer than him (Abbott is on 22.8%, Khan is on 23.0%).

There’s then another big gap between these two and the next contender. Transport expert Christian Wolmar is in fourth place with 9% of the vote (he was on 12% last time) and David Lammy is close behind him on 7% (down from 9%). Gareth Thomas is on 1%."

That's all a bit confusingly presented I know.

The long and the short of it is Jowell is still out in front, and Khan has seemingly missed an opportunity to reel her in with six weeks to go.

Bristol Labour still trying to work out who to put forward for Mayor.

http://www.bristol247.com/channel/news-comment/daily/politics/labour-mayor-candidates-battle-for-support

Rees failed last time round, Bradshaw was working with current Independent Mayor George Ferguson on transport until he was fired 6 weeks ago. I'm unimpressed with both of them.

JEO said:

calum said:

In the private sector I think heads would be rolling left, right and centre - hopefully the FOIs are flying into the Cabinet Office - brutal analysis here:

http://www.capx.co/why-camila-batmanghelidjh-had-access-to-a-prime-ministerial-slush-fund/

" There are many lessons that need to be absorbed in the aftermath of this Kids Company debacle. One surely is that the essential services, provided to our most vulnerable kids in the country should not become dependent on charismatic charity founders seeking support from Prime Ministerial slush funds. Secondly, it is preposterous to have a dedicated department making grant payments to individual charities delivering services that cut right across the work of other government departments. "

The main lesson should be that the Prime Minister should not overrule the work of civil servants because he likes doing photo ops with the charity's owner.

I think the two points are a little bit contradictory.

Having say the DfE responsible for educational charity grants will tend to lead to them seeing charities as a provider of services. If they give say £10m to a charity one week and £10m to a public initiative the next, they're going to start grading using the same criteria and treating them similarly.

DavidL said:

I think that there is an outside chance that the Tories may have more seats than Labour in 2016. Labour are on target to lose almost all their constituency seats and the Greens are indeed nibbling away at the List opportunities for Labour (where the SNP will get almost none given their constituency results).

If the Tories can consolidate the ex Lib Dem vote in the borders and possibly in north east Scotland they have a chance of doing better. The Scottish Lib Dems have 5 seats at the moment, Orkney, Shetland and 3 list MSPs. Don't see them holding onto most of them.

The Greens will probably come 4th, albeit closer to both Labour and the Tories than they are at the moment.

But your Scottish Lib Dem is as much an anti-tory voter as a Scottish Labourite. I don't think there is any consolidating of ex-Lib Dem vote they can do. They can try and look for anti-SNP votes in the South of Scotland but none of them will be permanent Conservative voters.

JEO said:

The main lesson should be that the Prime Minister should not overrule the work of civil servants because he likes doing photo ops with the charity's owner.

The whole idea of using charities (and also 'business partnerships') is to overrule the work of the civil servants, which is why since 2000 the Labour, coalition and this Conservative governments have gone down that route. On a small scale, I actually think it's a good idea: by their nature, government departments and local authorities necessarily act in a bureaucratic and cumbersome way. Small-scale, locally-based, and non-government initiatives, such as Kids Company was originally, can be very useful in getting impetus behind new ideas.

I think the real problem here was that the approach doesn't scale up. Once it becomes a substitute for mainstream provision of services, it's no longer an appropriate model.

Richard_Nabavi said:

JEO said:

The main lesson should be that the Prime Minister should not overrule the work of civil servants because he likes doing photo ops with the charity's owner.

The whole idea of using charities (and also 'business partnerships') is to overrule the work of the civil servants, which is why since 2000 the Labour, coalition and this Conservative governments have gone down that route. On a small scale, I actually think it's a good idea: by their nature, government departments and local authorities necessarily act in a bureaucratic and cumbersome way. Small-scale, locally-based, and non-government initiatives, such as Kids Company was originally, can be very useful in getting impetus behind new ideas.

I think the real problem here was that the approach doesn't scale up. Once it becomes a substitute for mainstream provision of services, it's no longer an appropriate model.

I agree entirely with Richard.

watford30 said:

JEO said:

calum said:

In the private sector I think heads would be rolling left, right and centre - hopefully the FOIs are flying into the Cabinet Office - brutal analysis here:

http://www.capx.co/why-camila-batmanghelidjh-had-access-to-a-prime-ministerial-slush-fund/

" There are many lessons that need to be absorbed in the aftermath of this Kids Company debacle. One surely is that the essential services, provided to our most vulnerable kids in the country should not become dependent on charismatic charity founders seeking support from Prime Ministerial slush funds. Secondly, it is preposterous to have a dedicated department making grant payments to individual charities delivering services that cut right across the work of other government departments. "

The main lesson should be that the Prime Minister should not overrule the work of civil servants because he likes doing photo ops with the charity's owner.

Where's the Opposition? If Labour weren't so busy self destructing, they'd be all over this.

Cameron should be sweating buckets at the despatch box, answering awkward and probing questions.

Someone should certainly be asking the difficult questions and Cameron should certainly have cause to be nervous. However, how can that be Labour? Cameron has merely continued the policy that Labour set in place.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

The long and the short of it is Jowell is still out in front, and Khan has seemingly missed an opportunity to reel her in with six weeks to go.

That might not be the right conclusion. Jowell may well be out in front on first preferences, but the latest move towards Diane Abbott (assuming it's real and is representative of the wider electorate in this contest) could mean that Khan will win this on second prefs.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Plato said:

Howzat

Amazon 'wooed Clarkson, Hammond and May for new 'Top Gear' show with promise of £160MILLION budget'

Numerous broadcasters including Netflix had hoped to secure the team
Former Top Gear producer revealed it was budget that sealed the deal
It is Amazon’s biggest single investment in original content to date

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3187911/Amazon-wooed-Clarkson-Hammond-new-Gear-promise-160MILLION-budget.html#ixzz3i8HI5JVG

For all the bleating about the BBC, this is a reminder that cash is king. The networks with the deepest pockets can buy more rights to sports and films, and pay more to writers, producers and directors, as well as the onscreen talent.
how much do you think is the correct amount they should receive? They currently get 5bn a year.

DecrepitJohnL said:

FPPT re GOP candidates

There is a pb tradition of 50/1 guesses, so it is Kasich for me: 50/1 to reach the White House with Bet 365. Nick Palmer worries on the thread before last that he might be too liberal to be selected but what passes for my reasoning is that he seems to be the most impressive of the candidates who are (or have been) state governors, and that I'd never heard of. I'm thousands of miles away from the action, so if I know Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush or Donald Trump, then so does every American, implying there is not much upside from their current polling positions: everyone already knows whether they want to vote for them or not. As ever, DYOR and remember to save your bus fare home.

The upside comes once candidates start to drop out.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

The long and the short of it is Jowell is still out in front, and Khan has seemingly missed an opportunity to reel her in with six weeks to go.

That might not be the right conclusion. Jowell may well be out in front on first preferences, but the latest move towards Diane Abbott (assuming it's real and is representative of the wider electorate in this contest) could mean that Khan will win this on second prefs.

It's an interesting thought Richard.

I have to say the figures have caught me out.

They've put a squeeze on it where they didn't before.

So Jowell's 1% gain is in fact a loss.

Khan+Abbott have gone from 5% behind to 10% ahead of Jowell.

Plato said:

Diane is apparently a direct beneficiary of the Corbyn Effect? How interesting.

It would certainly seem a reasonable supposition that she will be a beneficiary of the party's leftwards shift and the influx of new affiliates, or at least that Tessa Jowell's chances of diminished. The LabourList polling is likely to underestimate this effect, I think.

Sandpit said:

Ironic cheers from the crowd as Australia pass their first innings total...

England in trouble.

JEO said:

I'm not talking about using charities rather than civil servants. I'm talking about the civil servants assessing the grants, after doing detailed analysis, being overruled by David Cameron on a whim.

Fair enough, although I'd quibble with the phrase 'on a whim'.

I've seen a very similar effect in local politics, where councillors (in this case Tories and LibDems) got terribly excited about a project which a charity put forward and spent a lot of money on it over a period of years, despite it being obviously a no-hoper right from the start. These things take on a momentum of their own.

Plato said:

From what I've seen online - there's a very small % of blaming Cameron, bar those who hate him anyway. The vast majority of ire is aimed squarely at Batman/trustees.

That she duped so many kind hearted celebs seems to be absorbing a lot of it.

HurstLlama said:

watford30 said:

JEO said:

calum said:

In the private sector I think heads would be rolling left, right and centre - hopefully the FOIs are flying into the Cabinet Office - brutal analysis here:

http://www.capx.co/why-camila-batmanghelidjh-had-access-to-a-prime-ministerial-slush-fund/

" There are many lessons that need to be absorbed in the aftermath of this Kids Company debacle. One surely is that the essential services, provided to our most vulnerable kids in the country should not become dependent on charismatic charity founders seeking support from Prime Ministerial slush funds. Secondly, it is preposterous to have a dedicated department making grant payments to individual charities delivering services that cut right across the work of other government departments. "

The main lesson should be that the Prime Minister should not overrule the work of civil servants because he likes doing photo ops with the charity's owner.

Where's the Opposition? If Labour weren't so busy self destructing, they'd be all over this.

Cameron should be sweating buckets at the despatch box, answering awkward and probing questions.

Someone should certainly be asking the difficult questions and Cameron should certainly have cause to be nervous. However, how can that be Labour? Cameron has merely continued the policy that Labour set in place.

To be fair, in the past (say, before 2013), I've heard her talk a lot of sense - more so than many social commentators. It could be that she's well-meaning but a hopeless organiser.

(dons flameproof coat)

Often, the people best set to found an organisation are not those best set to run them in the long term.

Alistair said:

Aus storming this. Piling on them to win now.

It's one of the worst prices I've ever seen.

Richard_Nabavi said:

JEO said:

The main lesson should be that the Prime Minister should not overrule the work of civil servants because he likes doing photo ops with the charity's owner.

The whole idea of using charities (and also 'business partnerships') is to overrule the work of the civil servants, which is why since 2000 the Labour, coalition and this Conservative governments have gone down that route. On a small scale, I actually think it's a good idea: by their nature, government departments and local authorities necessarily act in a bureaucratic and cumbersome way. Small-scale, locally-based, and non-government initiatives, such as Kids Company was originally, can be very useful in getting impetus behind new ideas.

I think the real problem here was that the approach doesn't scale up. Once it becomes a substitute for mainstream provision of services, it's no longer an appropriate model.

Well said. Charities have their place in helping the vulnerable, but when they get too big they act just like a department of bureaucratic civil servants but without the accountability.

Tissue_Price said:

Alistair said:

Aus storming this. Piling on them to win now.

It's one of the worst prices I've ever seen.

England at 1/6 must be close to free money. Even though I'm a hopeless pessimist when it comes to following England in any sport, we surely can't lose from here.

AndyJS said:

"Kids Company closure: David Cameron defends £3m grant to closed charity"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33822035

BBC being rather ambiguous in their reporting, no doubt hoping readers join the dots provided – I just wish they’d spell out clearly that KC went bankrupt when worried backers pulled £6m in funding due to child abuse allegations and stop these silly games.

SimonStClare said:

AndyJS said:

"Kids Company closure: David Cameron defends £3m grant to closed charity"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33822035

BBC being rather ambiguous in their reporting, no doubt hoping readers join the dots provided – I just wish they’d spell out clearly that KC went bankrupt when worried backers pulled £6m in funding due to child abuse allegations and stop these silly games.

Are declaring the interest that a senior manager at the BBC is also chairman of the charity? If not, why not?

Sandpit said:

SimonStClare said:

AndyJS said:

"Kids Company closure: David Cameron defends £3m grant to closed charity"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33822035

BBC being rather ambiguous in their reporting, no doubt hoping readers join the dots provided – I just wish they’d spell out clearly that KC went bankrupt when worried backers pulled £6m in funding due to child abuse allegations and stop these silly games.

Are declaring the interest that a senior manager at the BBC is also chairman of the charity? If not, why not?

D of I? - Alan Yentob should be sacked, his intervention over Newsnight was a disgraceful.

More good economics news, not that it will get reported over kids, cricket and Calais.
Exports up 6.6% last quarter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11789142/UK-exports-enjoy-biggest-rise-in-nearly-a-decade.html

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato said:

Diane is apparently a direct beneficiary of the Corbyn Effect? How interesting.

It would certainly seem a reasonable supposition that she will be a beneficiary of the party's leftwards shift and the influx of new affiliates, or at least that Tessa Jowell's chances of diminished. The LabourList polling is likely to underestimate this effect, I think.

I've seen people on Twitter who are simultaneously supporting Corbyn and Jowell, as counter-intuitive as it seems.

Plato said:

Have there been any BBC intvs with Yentob about this? The other trustees are AWOL.

SimonStClare said:

Sandpit said:

SimonStClare said:

AndyJS said:

"Kids Company closure: David Cameron defends £3m grant to closed charity"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33822035

BBC being rather ambiguous in their reporting, no doubt hoping readers join the dots provided – I just wish they’d spell out clearly that KC went bankrupt when worried backers pulled £6m in funding due to child abuse allegations and stop these silly games.

Are declaring the interest that a senior manager at the BBC is also chairman of the charity? If not, why not?

D of I? - Alan Yentob should be sacked, his intervention over Newsnight was a disgraceful.

If Yentob was working for a FTSE company the size of the BBC, Yentob would already be under investigation and be suspended pending a full report into:-
1. The allegation of meddling in the work of another department related to an outside interest of his.
2. whether his outside interest was in breach of, or incompatible with, his work at the BBC.

Neither of these things seem to be happening. Quite extraordinary.

Plato said:

They'll be the wrong sort of exports, I suspect...

Sandpit said:

More good economics news, not that it will get reported over kids, cricket and Calais.
Exports up 6.6% last quarter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11789142/UK-exports-enjoy-biggest-rise-in-nearly-a-decade.html

Something about the Olympics?

3 wickets we've let aussie off, how fair minded can you get...

watford30 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Plato said:

Have there been any BBC intvs with Yentob about this? The other trustees are AWOL.

SimonStClare said:

Sandpit said:

SimonStClare said:

AndyJS said:

"Kids Company closure: David Cameron defends £3m grant to closed charity"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33822035

BBC being rather ambiguous in their reporting, no doubt hoping readers join the dots provided – I just wish they’d spell out clearly that KC went bankrupt when worried backers pulled £6m in funding due to child abuse allegations and stop these silly games.

Are declaring the interest that a senior manager at the BBC is also chairman of the charity? If not, why not?

D of I? - Alan Yentob should be sacked, his intervention over Newsnight was a disgraceful.

If Yentob was working for a FTSE company the size of the BBC, Yentob would already be under investigation and be suspended pending a full report into:-
1. The allegation of meddling in the work of another department related to an outside interest of his.
2. whether his outside interest was in breach of, or incompatible with, his work at the BBC.

Neither of these things seem to be happening. Quite extraordinary.

Nothing will happen. Patten went native a long time ago, and everyone else will close ranks to protect one of their own.

Sad but true. Patten stopped being a Conservative in the 1980s. RHINO.

watford30 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Plato said:

Have there been any BBC intvs with Yentob about this? The other trustees are AWOL.

SimonStClare said:

Sandpit said:

SimonStClare said:

AndyJS said:

"Kids Company closure: David Cameron defends £3m grant to closed charity"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33822035

BBC being rather ambiguous in their reporting, no doubt hoping readers join the dots provided – I just wish they’d spell out clearly that KC went bankrupt when worried backers pulled £6m in funding due to child abuse allegations and stop these silly games.

Are declaring the interest that a senior manager at the BBC is also chairman of the charity? If not, why not?

D of I? - Alan Yentob should be sacked, his intervention over Newsnight was a disgraceful.

If Yentob was working for a FTSE company the size of the BBC, Yentob would already be under investigation and be suspended pending a full report into:-
1. The allegation of meddling in the work of another department related to an outside interest of his.
2. whether his outside interest was in breach of, or incompatible with, his work at the BBC.

Neither of these things seem to be happening. Quite extraordinary.

Nothing will happen. Patten went native a long time ago, and everyone else will close ranks to protect one of their own.

Hasn't Patten gone? In any case, there seems once more to be an awful lot of "look squirrel" about how it is all the BBC's fault the Prime Minister gave KC some money.

WE'RE INTO THE TAIL

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JEO said:

SimonStClare said:

@Plato - Have there been any BBC intvs with Yentob about this? The other trustees are AWOL.

I don't think so - they just keep repeating "Alan Yentob, chairman of Kids Company, told Channel 4 News that suggestions of financial mismanagement were "complete rubbish"."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

That is jaw-dropping to report that quote without clarifying the BBC's conflict of interest in Yentob. It goes against basic journalistic practice.

It is ok. The BBC have 8,000 journalists but none are really brave enough to go after Yentob.
Last night on Newsnight I do not recall Newsnight saying anything about the allegations in newspapers that Yentob had tried to interefere with KC investigations. Clearly watching 7pm C4 News is not a requirement for any Newsnight people.

They have some brave enough. But others who don't want to rock the boat.

So we have Lucy Manning being critical and few other parts of the BBC reporting it...

There are reports of Yentob verbally attacking her but I have not seen , heard or read any direct quotes from her.

Mind you it is odd that Yentob is accused of "bullying" a female trying to do their job and the feministas at the Guardian/beeb/indie seem to be very very quiet. Did R4 Womens Hour cover it?

rullko said:

Looks like we're heading for re-crossover with Burnham and Corbyn.

I can't fathom why any Labour supporter would want Burnham to win. If you want someone completely bland, why not just go for Cooper, who at least isn't associated with a major hospital scandal?

The polls have consistently shown Burnham is more popular than Cooper with the general public.

(Plus, I'm still not convinced anyone in the real world really knows/cares about Mid-Staffs -- in my experience, Burnham is best known for campaigning on Hillsborough, although that might just be with scousers admittedly.)

Danny565 said:

rullko said:

Looks like we're heading for re-crossover with Burnham and Corbyn.

I can't fathom why any Labour supporter would want Burnham to win. If you want someone completely bland, why not just go for Cooper, who at least isn't associated with a major hospital scandal?

The polls have consistently shown Burnham is more popular than Cooper with the general public.

I think that's a very foolish way to decide one's vote. As far as the general public are concerned, Cooper, Burnham & Kendall are all pretty equally blank canvasses. The question is - how will they be painted post-election? And do they have the nous to paint themselves?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

How come Australia aren't so crap today???

The early finishes in the tests are costing the counties and the ECB lots of money.

So England are doing their best to ensure we have a five day test

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

How come Australia aren't so crap today???

The early finishes in the tests are costing the counties and the ECB lots of money.

So England are doing their best to ensure we have a five day test

Keep saying that, please! ;-)

I'm launching a new bond.

It's called the "BetFair English Cricket bond".

It has a price of £100, a yield of 1.07, and matures either today or tomorrow.

You can get it from BetFair, I'm just a PR person.

I'm not FCA regulated though.

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

How come Australia aren't so crap today???

Nice timing, Sunil.

You are aware of my "U-turn" yesterday wrt. Test Cricket?

MarqueeMark said:

They Aussies are upping the crap quotient....

They only scored 60 yesterday! How come they doubled that already today?!

Tim_B said "The clear consensus winner, going away, was Carly Fiorina. Afterwards she went on lefty MsNBC with lefty Chris Matthews and took him apart when he attempted to tangle with her over Hillary."

Wow. From what I can see she is formidable. Trump may be richer than she, but only in money.

Danny565 said:

rullko said:

Looks like we're heading for re-crossover with Burnham and Corbyn.

I can't fathom why any Labour supporter would want Burnham to win. If you want someone completely bland, why not just go for Cooper, who at least isn't associated with a major hospital scandal?

The polls have consistently shown Burnham is more popular than Cooper with the general public.

(Plus, I'm still not convinced anyone in the real world really knows/cares about Mid-Staffs -- in my experience, Burnham is best known for campaigning on Hillsborough, although that might just be with scousers admittedly.)

I think Cooper is, however unfairly, seen as Ed Miliband Mark II among those who have only a passing interest in politics. Posh, rather arrogant, not charismatic, not decisive, not terribly self-aware and not exactly a high-powered figure in government. She is also of course best know to the public as Mrs Balls, which whatever Nick Robinson's suggestions 'we will come to love him' is hardly a boost for her at the moment.

Burnham, on the other hand, is seen as more ordinary and therefore the man who has a back story to compete with Osborne. Speaking as someone who lives in the Mid Staffs area, I think the episode raised questions about his judgement, but it's also six years ago and if the Tories are tempted into going on that all the time, they might well simply not be listened to if he has anything to say people want to hear. Also, as Danny notes, his Hillsborough campaign went across pretty well.

The key point is of course that neither have articulated a decent policy platform, neither are charismatic and neither have taken any risks or tried to inspire anybody. Meanwhile Corbyn, who has a clear if wildly inaccurate message, has simply been showing both of them up.

If I were a member of the Labour party - not forgetting I voted for Labour in the local elections this year - I would be panicking about this leadership campaign. Not one of the candidates has given any sign of being the answers to Labour's problems, and none have even given any sign they can unite the party. Troubling times.

Danny565 said:

Tissue_Price said:

Danny565 said:

rullko said:

Looks like we're heading for re-crossover with Burnham and Corbyn.

I can't fathom why any Labour supporter would want Burnham to win. If you want someone completely bland, why not just go for Cooper, who at least isn't associated with a major hospital scandal?

The polls have consistently shown Burnham is more popular than Cooper with the general public.

I think that's a very foolish way to decide one's vote. As far as the general public are concerned, Cooper, Burnham & Kendall are all pretty equally blank canvasses. The question is - how will they be painted post-election? And do they have the nous to paint themselves?

I would agree if it was just one or two polls. But there's been a whole host of polls now which have consistently shown Burnham a fair bit ahead - that has to mean something.

You're right that both will be blank canvasses to most of the public, but even so, the people who are aware of them surely make up a decent sample size, and there's no reason to think that sample wouldn't be representative of what the whole public would think if/when they become more known.

I completely disagree with your final conclusion. Burnham will be painted into the continuity-Ed corner (only with added NHS deaths!) without much trouble at all. Not sure how Cooper will be painted - continuity Balls, perhaps, but at least that's a change of direction.

As the election showed us, we should stop simply accepting polls as a substitute for political thought.

Corbyn / Kendall = won't be able to hold the party together. Doesn't mean Corbyn can't win, of course.

Burnham / Cooper = will both be able to hold the party together. But Burnham has been busy (desperately?) offering hostages to fortune during this campaign and has shown poor judgment in the past (threatening to sue Hunt, for example). Whereas Cooper has been extremely noncommittal and dull - not exciting, but surely the most intelligent approach to leave herself some freedom of manoeuvre if she wins.