Will Royal Mail still be Royal?

I've just called the Ministry of Justice with a nagging thought.

Royal Mail was created by Royal Charter, I believe by Henry VIII. Presumably, selling off a segment to private ownership would require that the Royal Charter be amended. I looked for previous examples of private sector organisations with Royal Charters, and the only ones I could come up with were incorporated as private organisations with a Royal Charter. Now they tend to be used only for public sector organisations, professional bodies, universities and charities.

Royal Charter is dealt with by the Privy Council.

However, the Royal Charter is not the reason that Royal Mail is called Royal. The RSPCA used to be the SPCA, until it was 'made Royal'. The use of the descriptor 'Royal' in an organisation or company's name is determined by the Department of Constitutional Affairs-as-was, which is now the Royal and Hereditary Branch at the DCA (now subsumed within the Ministry of Justice).

I just called them directly, and they didn't seem to appreciate my call, and told me that I had to speak to the MoJ Press Office. Central Government Departments have very nice people answering the phones in their Press Offices, so they have said they will get back to me.

My questions were:

Should Royal Mail be partially or wholly privatised, will it still be permitted to use the term 'Royal' in its name?

What activities need to be undertaken for this to remain permissable?

What actions have been taken by Government Departments, in particular the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, to address this issue?

The Press Office at the MoJ say they will get back to me.

UPDATE: I've just spoken to a lovely lady at the Privy Council Office, and they assure me that the Royal Mail doesn't have a Royal Charter. Either it never did (though I thought it was established with one), or it was revoked, perhaps when it became a publicly-limited company, limited by guarentee of the Government.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Confirmed: ComRes Tory lead down to 1%

Labour has narrowed the Tories’ poll lead to just one point as the “Brown bounce” continues, according to a ComRes survey for The Independent.

It puts the Tories on 37 per cent (down two points on last month), Labour on 36 per cent (up five points), the Liberal Democrats on 17 per cent (up one point) and other parties on 10 per cent (down four points). If repeated at the next General Election it would give Labour an overall majority of 10 in the House of Commons.

The survey suggests that the measures in last week’s Pre-Budget Report, including a 45p in the pound new top rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000, have bolstered Labour’s support among the party’s core working class supporters. Labour’s ratings among the DE bottom social group have risen from 35 per cent to 51 per cent over the past month . In contrast, Tory support has dropped from 39 per cent to 25 per cent among this group.

There are other signs that Labour “identifiers” are returning to the fold The number of natural Labour supporters who say they will vote for the party has risen from 81 per cent to 87 per cent since last month.

It's time for the Pre-Budget Report

What surprises might Darling have in store?

I have never known a budget or a PBR where so many of the key details were leaked in advance. Already, the papers are full of the news that VAT will be temporarily cut from 17.5% to 15%, and that the top rate of Income Tax will rise to 45% on earnings beyond £150,000 per annum.

I cannot believe that the return of Campbell and Mandelson would allow for these to be leaked accidentally, and so I wonder whether they were merely sending out trial-balloons for the media reaction, or whether there is a greater surprise awaiting us when Mr Darling takes to the Dispatch Box at 15:30 GMT.

Any guesses?

Morus

A picture from the US election night "betting floor"

On US election night I meant to put this picture from the "betting floor" at SportsTraders near Kings Cross in London of some of those who got together for our overnight session together. Alas the shot only includes those who arrived first and I forgot to put it up because of the excitement of the elecxtion itself.

From left to right we have Peter from Putney, David Kendrick, ??, Morus (head only), Paul Maggs, Martin Coxall, Harry McAdam (right at the back and the person who fixed the event) Patrick Rock and half of Peter the Punter.

For me the "stars" of the evening were Nick Palmer MP (not pictured) and Paul Maggs who were both finding and getting data way ahead of the US networks. It was Nick who focused on the voting numbers from "bellweather" county in Indiana very early on that gave us a clear steer as to what was happening.

This was a great way to spend an historic night - thanks again to Harry and Morus who put the thing together.

Labour hold on by 5000?

The BBC is reporting that the SNP have halved Labour's majority in Glenrothes, but that still means that the Government has held the constiteuncy with a majority of about 5,000.

Any and all news welcome.

Morus

Welcome to the War Room

Greetings from the Trading Floor in North London!!

We are happily ensconsed at a trading floor in Islington: the most eager punters on PoliticalBetting.com scouring the interweb for details of value and dismissing exit polls with hardened skepticism.

This is where you should be if the main site goes down temporarily - DO NOT KEEP PRESSING REFRESH ON THE MAIN SITE WHEN IT IS DOWN - we'll let you know when it is back up and running.

This is only the beginning - have a great night all!

Morus

Just this once, might Our Genial Host be wrong?

Only a madman and a fool bets against Mike Smithson. I should know - I've been burned a couple of times, daring to vote against his advice.

My worst political gamble of the year was Crewe and Nantwich - I thought Labour would hold (this was before Tamsin Dunwoody was announced), and I lost £40 to Peter from Putney, Peter the Punter, David Herdson, and Double Carpet on the back of it. Mike won a holiday.

By-elections not being my specialty, I was skeptical that Labour would actually lose their deposit at Henley. Mike insisted that this was one of the surest things he had bet on this year, and his money was heavily where his mouth was, taking good odds on Labour not reaching 5%. They came fifth, and lost their deposit - I didn't lose money, but I learnt a lesson. Mike won enought to go on holiday again.

So, two cosmic laws we know to be true - Morus shouldn't be allowed to bet independently on by-elections (I've followed Mike's advice on Glasgow East and Glenrothes), and Mike Smithson rarely makes the wrong call on a binary question.

But the impetuousness of youth gives me hope that I might win one bet against Mike this time around - the US Presidential race turnout market. Shadsy at Ladbrokes was (I believe) offering 5/6 on above 60%, and 5/6 on below 60% when the market opened. My money has always been on this being a high-turnout year, but I am adamant that turnout in the US will not reach 60%. Mike Smithson, to my horror, is fairly confident that it will.

The reason I am not yet as fearful as I should be is that the market is based, not on the proportion of Registered Voters who turn-out to vote, but on the percentage of the Voting Age Population. If only 80% of the VAP register to vote, then turnout amongst registered voters would have to exceed 75% for the 60% of VAP threshold to be met. This might seem a perverse way of calculating, but it is well-recognised against firm, federally-agreed data (the constitutionally mandated decennial census ensure's that such mechanisms are in place), whereas the number of registered voters (who either did or didn't vote) is only held at a state level, and with less scrutiny. It is more common, and less arguable, to settle disputes using VAP than the slightly less centralised '% registered voters' measure.

Turnout last crossed the 60% mark in 1968, when Richard Nixon finally won the Presidency against Hubert Humphrey. It had reached 63% in 1960 when nixon lost to a young Jack Kennedy. Even 2004's record number (absolute number that is) of voters for each candidate didn't cross the 60% rubicon, and I remain skeptical that a race that no longer seems tight will actually energise enough *Republicans* to see record turnout yet again.

I have never seen a GOTV operation as slick as Obama's, and the enthusiasm and fundraising are testament to one of the best campaigns perhaps ever waged. We might well see a record number of absolute voters, certainly for a Democratic candidate. but a big part of GW Bush's re-election was on the back of the millions of Rovian footsoldiers from the churches and community centres of the Bible Belt. I would be surprised if they turned-out in equal or greater numbers for John McCain, or even for Sarah Palin on the bottom of the ticket.

So in spite of the adamant cosmic law, I still have faith that I might not lose this one. It's not a UK by-election, which at least means I'm playing on more familiar turf, but that was what I thought about the Democratic VP market too. If I lose this one, you can be sure that I will never again, as long as I live, bet against Mike Smithson.

Morus