Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Bookies Close Betting on Another Defection
William Hill have closed their betting on another Conservative MP defecting to the Labour Party following a flurry of bets for the 5/1 they were offering for a Tory MP to break ranks within a year. "Every bet we accepted was for another Conservative MP to cross the floor and gambles such as these are rarely wrong - we fully expect an announcement in the next few days," said Hill’s spokesman. Would you ever bet against a bookie?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Iain
What is the procedure when an MP defects to the opposing side? Why does he not have to resign and seek re-election?
I'd be much more excited, Iain, if you said who you think it will be...
No-one would blame you for an incorrect prediction - it's a prediction, after all - but all this nudge/wink/say-namor stuff does look, you must admit, like you're bluffing with no cards...
"What is the procedure when an MP defects to the opposing side?"
I think it depends how plausible his agent sounds when he threatens to beat him to a pulp unless he stands down.
Why Oh whydo associations not force their candidates to sign a contract to force their candidates to reimburse election expenses (+ maybe supporters time) when a candidate abuses the goodwill and funding of association members by defecting?
Because the MP has been voted in by their constituents, who are (theoretically) voting for the person, not the party.
It's our unfair voting system and outdated constitution. It's not worth the paper it's not written on.
Did the bookies close their books on Johnston being DL before the announcement due to the speculation and rumour that he had it in the bag?
Because we elect people, not parties.
A constituency elects Joe Bloggs to represent them in parliament. Joe Bloggs now has a duty to vote as he sees fit in the best interests of his constituents.
The fact that at the time of his election, Mr Bloggs claimed that his views were largely those held by the Conservative party, and at some later date he claims that his opinions have changed, and are now closer to those held by the Labour party (or alternatively his views have remained constant, but the views of the parties have changed) is pretty irrelevant.
If we follow the line of your argument, we must either treat political parties like football teams, where loyalty to one's party takes precedence over any rational assessment of their actions (aka the reason why there are West Ham supporters), or we should call a general election each time a governing party changes a policy.
Its' surely John Bercow if anyone. There was talk of him walking last year
Newpaper headline
"Tory Party swings to the right - Blair new leader"
Iain wrote:
"Would you ever bet against a bookie?"
Perhaps it might be kind not to pose the above question within the hearing of Guido F. (Nulab Deputy Leadership contest refers)
First it will be his new cabinet, maybe with a surprise addition from our ranks.
Then it will be a few more weeks of defection stunts.
Then it will be policy stuff outflanking us on the right - tough new immigration ideas, rowing with EU over treaty, inheritance tax stuff etc.
Then, with a lead in the polls we will see the unedifying sight of the 'Cameroon project' teenagers running around like headless chickens as Gordon duffs our leader up in Parliament.
October Election - Game Over
All so predictable and unfortunately so likely.
Gordon Brown has spent 10 years planning this - he was never going to be a pushover.
On the plus side if someone vagueky important defects then Quentin Thingy will look even more ridiculous than he does now.
You are really letting us down Iain; but above all you're letting us down. For heavens sake why wont you tell us the gossip or whoyou think it will be. Or are you too nervous that you dont really know?
As a senior Tory exMP said last night: Never heard of rats joining a sinking ship before!
Bercow has been swinging every further leftwards for some years now, so better he leaves now. There is a rumour that Q Davies has been offered an ambassadorial post somewhere near the Eiffel Tower, which would mean another by-election.
I keep asking myself this question:
Why is Blair resigning as an MP today?
He's walking away from £100/k for 2 years - no need even to turn up to work.
+ Broon could still fall under the proverbial bus/donkey from Kabul/unfortunate complications from an ingrowing toe nail operation.
What job can't you do if your an MP?
Funnily enough, Iain, I would bet against a mainstream bookie where politics was concerned. I worked for Ladbrokes for four years in a fairly senior role for several years, and frankly the guys that handled the political side of things were utterly useless.
Bercow Bercow Bercow
Bercow's developing the courage of his LibDem wife's convictions. It would be great to see him go - anyone remember when he was once an ardent Thatcherite? Times change!
anon June 27, 2007 6:52 PM
You may well be right I fear.
I'd be surprised if it was John Bercow. Yes, he was a (or so I thought) I die hard Thatcherite economically, but that wouldn't preclude him from joining another party as 'we are all Thatcherites now'! As Crossland noted in the late 60's, the market was an inevitability - and that socialism could only be brought about through cultural and social measures, not economic (this is actually the foundation of new Labour - accept the market, but change culture and society).
Anyway....where was I. Oh yea, Bercow.
He was very keen to see Cameron as leader, and although he has moved from being a member of The Monday Club (which was certainly fringing on racism and extremism) to being patron of the Tory Reform Group (One nation grandees), I don't think that he will ditch the party. I am sure there is still more in common between Cameron's Tory's and Brown's Labour.
But I may be wrong. What I will say is that I I believe that if he did cross the floor, it would not be because he has done a deal. He has a lot of integrity. Unlike Quentin!
Integrity NO!.Ambition YES!
It's Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Cameron knows. 11am tomorrow. Watch the news...
Blears & Bercow as a double act? Think about it!
What's better than one chipmunk?
Sam said...
"Because we elect people, not parties."
That would be a fair comment if every candidate was an independent and funded their own campaigns and was elected entirely through their own resources.
In being selected for a party a candidate enlists the practical and financial support of hundreds if not thousands of people and ensures that there are no candidates of a similar ilk standing against him and thus diluting his vote. Those supporters support the candidate on the basis that he is the most capable person who has agreed to espouse thir political viewpoint (or a close approximation).
On the one hand an MP who switches party lays himself open to accusations of disloyalty (never a good thing in Conservative circles) but equally he is open to charges of dishonesty (by standing for a set of beliefs that he does not espouse) or just plain arrogance (believing that he has been elected entirely through his own efforts and disregarding the help provided by party supporters).
Any honourable MP would resign rather than switch sides. Sadly few
MPs do.
Post a Comment