On an election

Apparently Ian Paisley’s new best mate is thinking about losing to Gordon Brown at the next General Election, whenever that might be. Incidentally, Guido is backing the Tories, not necessarily to win, but to become the largest party. Worth a flutter?

  • “Apparently Ian Paisley’s new best mate is thinking about losing to Gordon Brown at the next General Election, whenever that might be”

    Unfortunately I wouldn’t put money on him losing. But being principled guy that he is, I’m sure Salmond would resign the seat shortly after he’d proven his point; after all, the days of political multi-tasking in the UK are long gone.

    I wouldn’t waste too much money on that Tory bet either, it looks distinctly dodgy.

  • Michael Shilliday

    I have to say, I agree with Iain Dale’s analysis, it would probably damage a SNP campaign for such a battle to be at the center of it. I also suspect it might be a stretch too far for the SNP.

  • “losing to Gordon Brown” hover over the link to reveal “alex-salmond-to-unseat-gordon-brown.html”

    I laughed anyway…

    Genius Mr. Shilliday!

  • Michael Shilliday

    The question mark is quite important there!

  • Ballygobackwards

    New best mate? At least with Paisley he’s unarmed, unlike Reg and Trible who jumped into bed three times without proper decommissioning.

  • Michael Shilliday

    I’m talking about Alex Salmond, not Martin Chuckle.

  • Was Alex Salmond armed and did David Trimble sleep with him? If anyone can fill me in on these details I’d be more than grateful.

  • Watch out! Salmond’s packing a piece!

    Ah shite. Michael’s nipped in and spoiled my fun.

  • interested

    Michael,
    Do you have a particular problem with the First Minister of Northern Ireland making links with other devolved regions of the United Kingdom?

  • Guido Fawkes has been bashing this one for the last month. His argument is that the betting odds are underestimating the Tory chances.

    He has four arguments for the Tories being the largest party:
    1. Scotland;
    2. boundary changes;
    3. some mythology that Ashcroft’s money and efforts are going to work disproportionately in marginals;
    4. that the next session of Parliament means Gordon Brown’s “gimmicks will be forgotten in that adversarial atmosphere”.

    Notice that none of these arguments actually relates to what ordinary voters might be thinking, who they might be trusting. Fawkes’s approach seems to me to negate one of the basic rules of politics: it isn’t a mechanistic exercise whereby the electorate are pawns for the taking. It’s an art, not a pseudo-science.

    Canvassing one street reveals more about the public mood than all Fawkes’s assumptions. And my impression is that Cameron and his cronies are lambs for the slaughter. Yes, there is some concern about the future of the economy (which translates to my mortgage, my job, my street, my kids). However, I get the impression that is concern rather than fear and despair. In short, it’s:
    Always keep a hold of Nurse
    For fear of finding something worse
    .

    Meanwhile the odds as of today are: Nurse Brown’s Labour 2/1; the something-worse Tories 9/4; LibDems 150/1.

  • Harry Flashman

    *Meanwhile the odds as of today are: Nurse Brown’s Labour 2/1; the something-worse Tories 9/4; LibDems 150/1.*

    Interesting odds, so the bookies say there is only a whisker of a difference between the Tories and Labour, almost a margin of error really, I wonder where they’re getting their info, it can’t be from the polls which are showing Labour well ahead.

  • Michael Shilliday

    Yes Harry, but the polls are showing Labour with more support than in 1997. Which is difficult to believe.

  • nmc

    Those odds look shaky to me. If you put one pound on each of the three of them it would cost three quid. Worst case scenario Labour comes in first place, you get three quid back. You can’t lose.

  • Seriously sorry to the previous contributors, whose betting experience must be greater than mine, but whom I have misled by a grave typo.

    I should have quoted the odds as Labour 1/2, Tories 9/4, LDs 150/1.

    I think that makes a difference to the argument, and better matches the Labour private polling.

  • Harry Flashman

    *I think that makes a difference to the argument*

    Bloody right it does, harumph!