Political Betting - Male Bastionism at its best?

Last night I popped in to the Political Betting 5 year birthday party at the NLC. I dragged along a pal from Northern Ireland, haven't had chance to catch up with her yet to see what she made of it! But - much as I shout the odds about poor representation within our party - last night was truly shocking. Apart from us and Mike Smithson's wife Jackie there were only two other women there. The room was packed - but they were virtually all men, virtually all white and virtually all Tory men at that! One of them helpfully pointed out that the reason was that women generally were not interested in politics or betting............ hmmmmmm........probably far better tucked up at home with their knitting and nothing to worry their pretty little heads eh?!

But it was and is depressing - whilst we have made strides in terms of better representation in parliament, in terms of gender, ethnicity etc., we still have such a hill to climb. Men, God luv'em, still dominate political debate at every level. I was left wondering if we are banging our heads against a titanium wall - or if we just have to content ourselves that progress will likely mirror that of the ambitious stalagmite's quest to reach the roof of the cave.

That said, all credit to Mike for conceiving of and developing such an important and enlightening resource for all those of us who really appreciate his insightful and truly spinfree analysis.

Will the Royal Mail debate damage Cameron and Clegg?

Two interesting articles today one in the Indy and one on Mike Smithson's Political Betting. The Indy points out that this is an issue splitting all the parties. Cameron has a dilemma, the best chance yet to see a Brown defeat and yet he is backing the idea that was an idea too far even for his great hero Margaret Thatcher. There is something totemic about "Royal" Mail in the psyche of our nation. Posties are universally loved (my brother is one so I understand why!), the idea of a universal service, that you can post a letter from anywhere to anywhere in the UK for the same price. But of course the danger with privatisation has to be that we will lose that, or alternatively see huge rises in the cost of the service.

The reason I was so vociferous in our own debate about this issue is very simple. Private companies are not altruistic charitable outfits. They really don't give a fig if Mrs Jack in the Outer Hebrides ends up paying through the nose for their service. In reality she won't have a choice. And secondly, private companies are there to make a profit. At the moment Royal Mail are in debt. So any private company interested in taking on this loss making business will have to include plans to massively hike costs. If you have to find the money just to clear debts that is one thing, but to make a profit too, is quite another.

In all this debate we seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is a public service - in the same vain as other public services that we subsidise through tax. For example, if the Police Service were subject to the same constraints as Royal Mail whatever mess would that be in now?

Nick Clegg has a similar dilemma to Cameron. Our current policy would make it difficult for him not to support Brown and I expect him to, but, as Mike Smithson observes concerning Cameron, it may turn out to be a mistake.

Iain Dale v Political Betting...............no contest!

Iain Dale is very fond of biggin' himself up as the most read political blog in the country. However, the reality is that he is out hit 4:1 by Political Betting. Now, Mike Smithson is a well known Lib Dem, former Councillor and PPC, but his site is probably the most politically neutral in the country. Why? Because its focus is on the betting odds, not the political rhetoric. In contrast Iain (God bless'im) is overtly partisan to, on occasions, the point of hysteria! So I am pleased to see that Mike is taking on Iain's inflated claims by advertising just how popular his site is. Although, having met at a bbq on Saturday, he did slightly blot his copy book (!)- we were discussing the role John Major may have had in Gordon Brown's disastrous decision to abandon plans for an election last year, and for some reason got chatting about IDS. I said how impressed I had been when talking to him at an event last year. Unlike most politicos who talk to you with one eye over your shoulder in the hope of escaping/talking to someone more important (what do you mean it is only me that happens to?!), IDS did nothing of the sort. We must have spoken for at least 20 minutes with no sign of him wanting to escape. Mike pointed out that it may not have been my scintillating conversation, but because no one else would speak to him!