Back Balls as a good value way of backing Brown
May 14th, 2005
-
Prepare for an early promotion for the former advisor
Before Christmas we were saying that that the 5/1 then available against David Blunkett returning to the cabinet during 2005 was a great value way of betting on Labour to be top party. That proved to be a profitable punt.
Now a similar bet is available on who will be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer. For if Gordon Brown, now just 2/9 to become next Labour leader, does make it to Number 10 then his former advisor Ed Balls will, surely, be appointed Chancellor. These two have been so close in their management of the economy over the past eight years that it is hard to envisage Brown being happy with anybody else in the post.
-
So our strong tip is to take the 4.2/1 that’s currently available on Betfair and back Balls to be Brown’s successor at Number 11.
On the face of it such accelerated promotion for somebody who only became an MP nine days ago seems to lack plausibility. The Westminster way is that you wait for some time as a back-bencher and then get a very junior role as you start your progess up the greasy poll. But Ed Balls, the new MP for Normanton, is different and it is no wonder that he is now second favourite, behind Alistair Darling, to succeed Brown.
The fact that Tony Blair’s desire for an orderly transition seems to be more on track this weekend than last makes Balls’s chances that much great.
LATEST COMMENTS FEATURE RESTORED. We suspended our latest comments feature to help deal with the overwhelming demand on the site’s technical capacity in the final two days before polling. We were being so overwhelmed with traffic at the time that we needed to do something to maintain the service and on just one day, the Wednesday beforehand, we had more demand than in the whole of January. Thanks to my son Robert for everything he did to keep the site open.
-
Thanks to all those who have helped us to keep the site going by using the links to open accounts and/or by making donations. The response has been really good and the funding has gone a long way to defraying our costs. It is also very pleasing to know that so many people value what we do that they are prepared to support us in this way.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I would not take this bet. Balls to Chancellor so quick would infuriate the backbench and the rest of the cabinet. Its one thing to appoint Osborne to shadow, but its only shadow.
Brown’s enemies are set to come out of the woodwork soon…
… Never mind Balls, I think that backing Gordon Brown is a very, very risky bet; especially after Harriet Harman’s laughable performane on Question Time. Well, it would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.
If The English Question really begins …
does Alun Duncan have any chance of improving his standing as a potential next tory leader - currently 0.5 to 2 on IG index binary betting so only a small rise in his prospects could pay off . I dont think he will win it but he may be one of the final runners - any views from those who know the innner workings of the Tory party
Come on Mike, this is a ridiculous bet. The Labour Party would be in uproar.
Alex 4. Since when has Nulab worried about the party being in uproar? A lot depends on timing but who would be Brown’s Chancellor if not Balls? He’ll be one of the first of the new intake to become a minister and by the time of the Brown coronation he’ll be well positioned for Brown to make him Chancellor.
Just look back at how much Balls was used during the election campaign to be the party spokesman. He had more national TV and radio spots than the majority of the cabinet - he was no ordinary PPC.
Thanks for the “Latest Comments” again - and as always thank you for putting so much time and effort into the site (I hope I don’t need to say “and money” any more).
On the post topic I must agree with the other posters. I think once the party has kicked out Blair, Brown will want to be wary of practising such Blairite tactics as installing his favourites regardless of seniority.
It depends on the economy and how quick Blair goes.
Blair is a proud (amd I would say vain) man. He will want to go on a high and appear to go at his choosing. The more his backbencers demand he goes, the more determined he may be to stand. He may want to stay for the referendum on the constitution, if it happens, believing he can win. In other words, I don’t believe Blair wants to leave soon, unless he has a health scare.
But suppose the economy goes pear shape in the mean time. Look at the figures for the past month. High Street sales are the poorest for 12 years. Inflation the highest for 7 years. Unemployment is rising, up 29,000 in a month. Taxes are set to rise. House prices are going backwards in much of Britain. Over half a million will be coming off their fixed-rate mortgages this year. Manufacturing is officially in recession. We are seeing more and more closures of large firms and large lay-offs by the thousands.
If Brown, whose reputation is based on the economy, resides over a recession, which is quite possible, his chances of becoming leader may go down the plughole and Balls would go down with him.
I doubt that Balls would make it so fast, apart from it seeming “unseemly” Balls really needs to cut his teeth in the house before he takes on such a major portfolio as in the past his performances have been shaky and while there is no doubting his incredible intelligence he still seems to lack the charisma and fluency often required of sernior ministers.
As for doubts over Brown becoming PM, I can pretty much say take it to the bank, Brown will succeed Blair sometime in the next 2-3 years and there won’t be much of a fight, he won’t run unopposed as figures from the hard left as well as the more Blair loyalist wing of the party will seek to challenge him, probably Alan Simpson and John Reid respectively but Brown will have a lock on the soft left, centre and right of the party meaning that he will get in excess of 60% of the PLP and in the Trades Unions and CLPs he will win by far more than even that in all likelihood.
“That said” 2-3 years is a very long time in politics and the economy may well be heading for a bumpy patch and at the same time with a majority of 67 the government’s legislative agenda will probably also be going through a bumpy patch… so another figure could emerge and cement a power base which could challenge Brown, but at the moment that seems unlikely.
I think that Brown will probably make Balls First Sectary to the Treasury and at the same time promote a trusted Brown loyalist such as Timms, Darling or perhaps Straw to hold down the post of Chancellor until after the 2009 election, when, if Labour won, Balls would probably be promoted.
The likes of Ed Milliband, Douglas Alexander and Yvette Cooper will all prosper under a Brown leadership, but I would have thought that promotion to the top tier of the cabinet would wait till after Brown’s first general election as Labour Leader.
With Brown as Leader and a more “leftwing tone” against a backdrop of economic gloom while you might see a swing from Labour to the Tories it is also likely that this would be offset by a swing from the LibDems back to Labour making the eventual result fairly unpredictable. “That Said” if 2-3 years is a very long time in politics then 4-5 years is an eternity.
…its amazing how much time you have free to post back on pb.com now that I finally have a Saturday off
I wouldn’t take the bet on Balls. GB first Chancellor will probaby be his ally Alastair Darling. Balls for Chief Secretary though is a good possibility.
BTW, there is an excellent interview with Alastair Campbell in the Times, where he takes people like Robin Cook to task, who in my opinion is incredibly overrated as a politician (though he is a good speaker).
See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1611228,00.html
Changing the subject slightly, now that the election’s over, I’d be interested to hear some reportage from activists about what went right (or wrong) in individual constituencies.
For example, how on earth did the Conservatives not pick up Dorset South? Was it just due to the “doctored photos” row, or were there other factors? Why did the LD “decapitation” strategy work in Westmorland + Lonsdale, but fail everywhere else? Why did Dover, in the forefront of the immigration debate, actually swing AWAY from the Tories?
As someone said previously, this election consisted of 651 by-elections and it would be interesting to hear more about individual contests.
9. So thanks to Campbell Cook, Short and Glenda Jackson are probably now more angry (with Blair and the whole world) than before.
Now we should wait the ID cards vote.
10: in Broxtowe I’d say the result was closer than we’d hoped. There has been a marked trend since 1992 for Broxtowe Labour results to be better than nationally (the seat was Tory by a 14% margin in 1992), but this year they were marginally worse. I think the Tories were also disappointed (their vote only rose 0.5% in what they clearly regarded as a key target). The LibDems never really tried at Parliamentary level but were delighted to gain three County seats. UKIP and Veritas barely failed to trouble the scorers (2% between them). A low-key former Labour independent got 0.4%.
Factors that influenced it were:
a) a big middle-class anti-war vote, part of which was persuaded back during the campaign, but you can’t talk to everyone. The 1% net rise in LibDem votes conceals a larger anti-Iraq vote partly compensated for by former LibDems giving me tactical suport; there was also 2% Green support, most of which was former Labour and would probably have gone LibDem otherwise.
b) a much more intense Conservative effort. We had at one point 13 billboard hoardings advertising the Tories, and although we had quite a few ourselves, they weren’t as numerous or, arguably, as eye-catching. This wasn’t all positive for the Tories as it definitely helped us recover wavering voters but they were much more serious about trying to win and this had to help their turnout. There was lots of direct mail from both sides, getting quite a lot of negative comments in both cases but presumably helping on balance. There were few top-level visits - the Tories had Howard twice and Davis once but nobody else that I noticed; we had Lord Falconer, Caroline Flint, and others who were helpful but not all that well-known, as well as two brief Prescott events. No LibDem visits at all so far as I know, and Kilroy didn’t bother to cross the border from Erewash to help his deputy.
My vote of 20,000 (and majority of 2800) includes 5000 votes which weren’t cast for Labour in local elections. Some of this is personal, some of it tactical, and some of it were Labour-leaning voters who liked a local LibDem candidate. Things that worked well for us were an advert from non-party members in my support, somewhat higher turnout, and a few local initiatives, e.g. a letter from me pointing out to people who’d moved to be close to a popular local school that Tory policy would allow schools to abolish catchment areas so they’d have wasted their time - this produced a pro-Labour swing in that (Toton and Chilwell) County division as well. A Tory effort to campaign against the tram in the same division had no apparent effect. Immigration featured on doorsteps early on in working-class areas but seemed to fade - a common comment was that they liked the Tory line but not enough to actually vote for them, because of recollections of Thatcher and suspicions of their intentions on the NHS etc.
Given the neutral boundary changes and numerous promises by anti-war voters to return next time, I feel reasonably confident that the seat will stay Labour unless ‘events’ intervene - the underlying sentiment still appears to be predominantly non-Tory.
3. Apparenlty Alan Duncan has not support between MPs
My understanding is that Alan Duncan will almost certainly run but has not got the support to get into the later rounds.
Scotland has been dipping in and out of recession for years now, under our thickie Labourite masters. Serves us right for allowing ourselves to become a Labourite fiefdom for the past 40-odd years. But now the Labour Party has managed to tip the Engl…
JB - Thats an interesting question. All the parties internal predictions (the ones that were leaked to the press anyway!) were wrong so it suggests that even high up they didn’t have a clue what was happening on a constituency by constituency basis.
What went right in DC&T was that we had a kind of incumbent MSP who was known throughout the constituency. We fought a very localised campaign on things like rural dentists and afordable housing.
Unquestionably we were helped by a very weak Labour campaign with most of their activists going into D&G. It was also bizarre that they picked a candidate in a spralling rural constituency who couldn’t even drive and who most people had never heard of.
12 - Many thanks Nick for your analysis of the way things went in Broxtowe . In Leicestershire as a whole excluding Leicester itself the Lib Dem vote was over 8% higher in the local elections almost all the difference being Labour votes in the General Election .
The question is are these Liberal voters voting Labour or Labour voters voting Liberal or neither . As an aside , I was in the pub the other night playing Bar Billiards ( the game is still strong down here ) and my opponent said he was a strong Labour voter but then added he had voted Liberal in every election since 1974 because Labour stood no chance in this area . The strange thing is that in his constituency Labour and Lib Dem are close for second but well behind the Conservatives . It is often a false assumption that someone who votes for a party is a natural supporter of that party .
Re:10
John
It wasn’t so much that the election was like 600+ byelections IMHO but more that regional differences really came to the fore with the Tories doing very well in London and the south east while the LDs did far better than commonly expected in the Labour held university seats but less well in their rural Tory targets.
The seat in which I was heavily involved was Leicester South, which is probably a bit of a special case. Unlike everywhere else in the country besides Hartlepool, Brum Hodge Hill and Brent East many voters in Leicester South had already vented their frustration against Tony Blair and as in Brent East had managed to overturn a big labour majority and elect a LibDem MP.
At some point there will be an interesting thesis to be written comparing the LibDem’s fortunes in Brent and Leicester, it must be concluded from what I saw in Leicester South and what I heard from those in Brent that both where LibDem target seats. Towards the end of the campaign while we in the Labour camp where churning out a significant amount of good quality material (much of it not produced through the regional apparatus but locally) the LibDems where turning very negative and putting a great deal of national template material.
The theme of our own campaign was to draw a clear contrast between our own candidates positive record and the disappointing record of the LibDem incumbent, this was a theme which found a lot of resonance on the door step and mid-way through the campaign the LibDems clearly tried to address it by defining their candidate as a hard working MP or as one leaflet put it “the best MP we’ve ever had”, at the time it struck me that they where getting the tone completely wrong and over the top because few believed or where ever going to believe that the LibDem candidate had excelled as an MP. At the same time as hawking a pretty over the top assessment of their candidate the LibDem turned very negatively against our own candidate and aspects of his record but in the end it was far too late and they failed to address the charges which we had already effectively made.
Looking at the boxes as they came in at the count it became clear pretty early on that we had won by a clear enough margin, winning the predominately white estates by far more solid margins and on higher turnouts than in the by-election and at the same time we clawed back a great deal of ground we had lost at the by-election in the predominately Asian inner city wards. Our activists in the inner city ran a very effective election day operation manning polling stations and knocking up the labour promises and at the same time our use of ethnic languages in eve of poll and polling day literature proved very successful.
The Leicester South contest boiled down to anything it was an unpopular incumbent with very little that could be spun positively to his credit against a high profile “love him or hate him” local figure who’s campaign very effectively promoted his positive record and entrenched the perception of the LibDem MP as a failure and a disappointment.
The night was a good night for Labour across Leicester, Vaz’s majority increased (mostly recouping from the losses incurred after the Hinduger affair) and Pat Hewitt’s remained largely unchanged still at 9,000+ with a good turnout and the Tories coming second and the LibDems third despite a surprisingly well financed campaign by the LibDem candidate.
Meanwhile in Brent East, my perception would be a that a very hard working LibDem MP with the same full support from Crawley Street that the LibDem’s in Leicester received (if not more so) faced off against a Labour candidate who completely misjudged the tone her campaign should take.
In Leicester South our candidate was very solidly anti-war and against the continuation of a coalition occupation of Iraq and articulated that stance very well but in Brent East it would seem that the Labour candidate became not simply anti-war but anti-Blair to such an extent that she simply reminded voters of why they might not want to vote Labour in the first place.
Brining up the war and attacking Blair would be things that could be expected from any sensible LibDem campaign but acting essentially to backup the LibDem’s narrative is just plain daft! Despite all Teather’s hard work Labour should have regained this seat, that they did not can largely be blamed at the tone of the campaign which Yasmin Qureshi decided to adopt.
ed balls for chancellor??? hardly brown’s 1st chancellor will be someone he trusts, likes and knows….someone like himself….possibly scottish….darling alastair me thinks
V.interesting posts from Ben and Nick. What are you doing now the campaign is over Ben? The problem Nick will face next time (should have faced last time) is a Tory party that should be polling over 35%. Even if the anti-war votes return (and I am dubious that they will) any improvement in the national Tory position, will put Broxtowe right under the hammer. The key factor over the next Parliament though will be the economy, which is going through a bad patch at the moment. The stronger it is the better labour’s prospects.
As for the two seats I had some involvement in, Stockton South and Richmond Park. In the former, there was a large majority to be overturned. Effectively a strong economy and a good labour performance in the North East meant that despite a small rise in our vote (due to a good candidate), the seat is still hard to take. As for Richmond, the Tories threw the kitchen sink at it, in terms of literature but only narrowly decreased the majority to under 4000. Why? Retiring Lib Dem MP Jenny Tonge was controversial. I think many were glad to see her go. Replacement Susan Kramer, was well known and local. Tory candidate was fine and worked hard, but ultimately a slight improvement in the Tory picture nationwide and a campaign which appealed more to the Cs and Ds than the AB’s, was never going to turn the seat over. However a more centrist Tory campaign and any turn in the economy should herald a Tory return in a seat which has liberal values, but also large amounts of top rate taxpayers.
On another point, there is an article on the BBC Website, saying Ken Clarke is speculating (done so publicly) whether to run again. Could be interesting if he was prepared to rule out the EURO (he might) and the Constitution (I’d be surprised). He would also stand a much better chance under a system where the members did not have the final say. I think he could through an initial members selection (as 2nd candidate) and possibly win amongst MP’s if he was up against David Davis. However this is pure speculation.
Andrew - If we’re serious about winning again then Ken Clarke is easily the best candidate. I don’t think David Davis’s chances have been helped by Alistair Campbell’s endorsment in the Times.
It’ll be interesting to see what they do with the leadership rules. I would be delighted to give up my vote and i don’t know all that many members who would be massively upset if they lost their’s.
Everything went to plan (probably better!) in the seat I was working in - East Dunbartonshire. We delivered a mountain of literature in the hope of getting 35% and ended up with 40% and a 4000 majority.
21.” I don’t think David Davis’s chances have been helped by Alistair Campbell’s endorsment in the Times.”
Number 1 Labour supporter here (John Riley) praised David Davids too. Labour seems to happy to praise DD.
The leadership rules are an interesting conundrum. I think a combination of members and MP’s is still the best bet. Remember it was the MP’s who dumped Mrs Thatcher (debatable decision), who kept Major in 95 (very poor decision) and elected Hague in 97 (not a great one either). The members merely have the election of IDS in 01 on their conscience. I quite like the idea that the membership should vote on the candidates and create a shortlist of two for the MP’s to decide upon. While some might speculate that this could lead to a choice of two right wingers, I would be surprised if this happened. There is still a big enough bloc of young Tories, pragmatic Tories and Europhile Tories (a lot still exist in London) to ensure a moderniser/ popular old hand would get through. Remember 40% voted for Ken Clarke in 2001. Having seen another electoral defeat, that number could rise.
Concur with most points in 18 and 20. There comes a point in slagging off your own party where people say “Well, OK, if they’re as bad as you say then I won’t vote for them”.
Reading Gyles Brandreth’s (former Tory MP) memoirs at the moment - he evidently doesn’t much care for David Davis, calling him “vulpine” (wolf-like) and telling various stories that portray him unflatteringly. But he’s rude about lots of inoffensive people, twice assailing a serious Labour backbencher for the crime of being “boring”. (No, it’s not me.) Not a bad book, though not in the Alan Clark league for sensation nor very reflective on politics. So far (half way through) it gives the strong impression that Gyles didn’t enjoy being an MP, which seems to me very alien - how could anyone not enjoy this fascinating job? But being a Tory MP in 1992-97 probably really was a long day’s journey into night.
20 and 21 ,
Kenneth Clarke in my opinion is the man who could have won the last election if he had been leader . Unfortunately at the time of the next election he will be knocking on 70 and that is really too old to present what must be a progressive modern image which the Conservatives will need to do to have a chance of winning .
Gyles Brandreth’s diaries are infinitely more interesting than Alan Clarke’s even though the prose is not as spectacular. My impression reading them, was that he quite liked being an MP, but was hacked off at having to represent a marginal seat in the North West, at not having a pair in Parliament, being poorly paid and having to spend so long on the back benches. Also remember the grim nature of that Parliament, which meant huge enjoyment for labour, lib dem and the whipless wonders MP’s but little for anyone else. It was like a car crash taking place in slow motion.
12. I think a lot of us would have been knocked down with a feather if you’d been conceding defat at this stage Mr Palmer. Still that sort of Msjority puts you right in the firing line now. As it’s quite reasonable to assume Labour could win but unless it increases it’s majority you will go. You may point to Dorset South but IMHO Ed Matts made that a special case.
On other point what are the odds on Ken Clarke? The “Lost Prime Minister”- but can he andhis party square that Circle that is Europe. Labour would target that from day one. He must be able to find a live and letlive policy that’ll work or there’s no point is trying. Anyone think he can/will be prepared to compromisea?
As in other recent elections , I did not work for any party , but kept my eys and ears open for comments and clues as to what was happening . As far as most members of the public were concerned . the answer was election - what election ? Yes Worthing has 2 pretty safe Conservative seats with the 3 county seats splitting 2 Con 1 Lib but no canvassers seen from any party just 1 piece of literature from each party . I imagine resources had been diverted into the marginal Brighton and Hove seats but it was also noteworthy that the odd passionate and friendly debate at work and on pubs between friends with opposing political views was unlike in previous elections totally absent .
I don’t think age is that big a problem. What I like about Clarke and David Willets is that they see modernity in a broader way than a lot of the other so-called modernisers. Too many see modernising in the narrow terms of ethnicity, sexuality, gender and age (not that these aren’t important) rather than in terms of ideology. There has to be an acceptance that most British people seem to be happy with some degree of state intervention (education and health in particular) and that future policy has to take account of this reality.
Thirty Sppot on. The key political question is would you like to have a pint with this man. Ken Clarke alwaysd gets a positive response. But see my post on Europe at 28? Do you think Ken is prepared to Compromisea?
I don’t know if he would compromise. However the issue of Europe seems to have died down and it may be the case that we won’t even have a referendum depending on how other countries vote. As for the Euro it seems like a distant prospect. I think the party as a whole is a bit more ruthless now and just wants to win rather than having another internal war about Europe.
30/31 - I do agree Ken Clarke would present a more pleasant image than M H and the policies under his leadership would also be more appealing to the floating voter but to replace M H who is resigning because he will be too old to fight the next election with someone who is actually older would give the impression that the Conservative party that they are bereft of young talent . The majority of younger voters would not be attracted to voting for a Prime Minister in his 70’s .
Yes but older voters would be! And as Bob worcester will tell you the over 55’s are four to five times more likely to vote than 18-24. Besides that Pub question is more than just a joke it sums your gut feeling about someone does he seem trustworthy but likeable etc. Ken has it all, but again for me the key question is Europe can Ken Clarke find a formula that will work. You can imagine Nick Palmer and Firnds mischievopusly arranging all sorts of voting divisions in the House to try and generate Consdervative Split Stories in the Press. Would Ken have the sTrategy to blunt such a line of attack?
34 - Not too sure about that , I am over 55 myself and think on balance would prefer a younger or similar age Prime Minister and anyway the Conservatives already have good support amongst older voters but to win the next election they need to improve their support amongst younger voters . Don’t get me wrong , I like and respect the man but feel it will be 5 years too late .
I like Clark, I really do, then again I also read the Guardian watch Channel 4 News and am a member of and work for the Labour Party and there’s the problem! I and fellow left-wingers are not the sort of people who the Tories should or could appeal to, what is more Clark would open up splits over Europe, Public Service reform and the war that have by and large been healed even if all he did was to run for the leadership he would, all be it unintentionally IMHO have a corrosive effect on the Tory party.
As for the other candidates…
Liam Fox, lacks gravitas comes across as smug and self-satisfied what is more his ability has to have been called into question after a somewhat haphazard performance over the last four years.
The younger candidates such as Cameron and Osborne are still far too wet behind the ears and need to gain more experience to look like more credible party leaders while both are exceptionally able and will no doubt do very well having been pushed to the fore of the shadow cabinet both would risk falling into the same trap as Hauge did where they to become Party leader.
Rifkin, is both too old and like Howard another link to the past, he is a good house of commons performer and is very intelligent but his links to the Tory past and his somewhat aloof manner would count against him. Indeed where he elected he could be seen as the second “man in a grey suite” after Howard and could give the impression of a stagnant Tory party bereft of young talent.
Alan Duncan is a very able campaigner, a very likeable and impressive figure both in the house and in the tv studio but the fact that his openly gay as well as coming from the decidedly libertarian wing of the conservative party has to count against him it sad to say. While he might get a fair way in the leadership ballot he would not be able to win and indeed like Clark might serve to open old wounds.
David Davis like Duncan is a good house of commons performer as well as an effective tv and “door step” presence what is more unlike many Tories he comes across as relativity normal and not preppy at all which would appeal to many voters who’s major beef with the Tories is “their all public school t*ats” (or so I’ve been told) he also is fairly well positioned ideologically within the party being fairly comfortable with the solidly rightwing stance staked out under Howard but with a past record as a pragmatic politician that would mean he was able to steer the Tories onto a more centrist course. While ideologically he might not open any fissures within the party he has clashed with others within the party and his supporters have been seen to be overzealous at times to the extent of destabilising the party leadership as a whole in a similar way in which Portilo loyalists where seen as a corrosive force before and immediately after the 2001 election… though it does not seam that Davis’ supporters have incurred the same kind of damage that Portillo’s partisans where perceived to have during the 2001 campaign.
…excuse me now while I draw breath…
25 - “vulpine” actually means fox-like. Perhaps the analogy is with a species Labour wants to protect whilst the Tories are happy to tear apart…
36 Good points right up until the abuse about where people went to School. TB went to Public School presumably he is a tw**t too is he? Oh and Clem Attlee was as well if i recall rightly. Grow up man.
35. Think you’re wrong on that. Remember how the mythic unprecednted youth vote was going to Put John Kerry in the WhiteHouse? It’s morethan just the Guardian Ken appeals too, he really does hit the sweet spot with swing voters, he also instantly Neutralises any attempts by Labour to smear trhem as extremist.
THe Key issue is can he find a europe formula that will stop Labour trying to drive a wedge between him and the Party. If he can find or is preapared to find an answer he is the Man. If not then there is no point his Trying.
I think whether Clarke runs depends on whether the French vote “oui” or “non” in the EU constitution election. If, as seems more likely, they vote “oui”, he’ll be seen as too divisive, but nonetheless he will carry a lot of influence in deciding which of the younger candidates he supports.
Re Ken Clark - I just cannot see him having any chance given his age
I shall combine two element of this thread: constituency campaign reports and Ken Clarke.
The Tory campaign in Rushcliffe, what I saw of it, seemed to be heavily targetted. I only received a freepost and wasn’t canvassed, and should not be on anyone’s radar being a very recent party activist (unless they used my County nomination as identification). However, I saw knock up leaflets being delivered in a Tory area in a targetted fashion; two party workers leaping in and out of cars and going whilst I blanket-delivered. Clarke’s freepost focussed on immigration and law & order, which I was surprised about, and seemed to be a centrally-produced template with some local alteration.
Labour were fairly active, with 3 leaflets in their target areas of Northern West Bridgford and Cotgrave, although some of this was Rose taboid newspaper. They were fighting to keep a County seat in Bridgford but were scuppered by a move to a two-member division. Compared to 2001 the campaign was lower key; in that year they rented an office in Central Avenue.
Coming from third place we were always facing an uphill task but got more literate out to more places than in recent years. Our candidate seemed to get a good reception, often being asked why he’d not been around before (he was only appointed just before the campaign).
The final result showed the Labour vote going partly to Clarke and partly to us, split 40/60 or so in our favour.
41 - I should add I was telephone-canvassed by Labour 2 days before polling day.
@38 - the problem is that there is no reality, only perception.
If the “average voter” has the perception that the Tories are still the party of the rich, run by toffs, and that Labour are run by and for the “average working man” then that’s the political “reality” that they’re up against.
For me, MH’s finest quote was “This grammar school boy is not going to take any lessons from a public school boy…” but did it do much to change the image of the party? Probably not that much.
Stereotypes are very difficult to break, but all too easy to reinforce. Apart from their youth, Cameron & Osborne’s disadvantage could be that they’re mocked as being straight out of Brideshead Revisited. DD certainly couldn’t be accused of that and neither could KC, but KC’s age (coupled with a potentially health-averse lifestyle) and his potential for opening up another Europe split could weigh against him.
I would have thought his health averse lifestyle puts him in touch with most voters. AS for his age it may help him in one way as it did the new Pope younger more ambitious men who cannot realistically get it this time may back him, knowing they will then get another chance sooner than if a younger man took the helm regardless of the next GE Result.
Please choose Ken Clarke.
Yup, Clarke is the man…
Re: 38
P, I was not insulting those who where privately educated just reflecting common misconception I have encountered from many voters that the Tories don’t really have any connection with “people like me”.
Indeed the majority of the Tory gains against Labour where made thanks to the LD vote rising as a result of the “Iraq effect”… so I would argue that the Tories are still as far from redressing that perception as they where in 2001. Indeed I expect their to be some noticeable movement to the Tories from Labour but for the most part it just didn’t transpire.
On the presentation side of the debate as opposed to policy, the Tory campaign was very good in terms of the literature and production however I get the sense that the Tory domination of the news agenda just before the campaign saw them blow their powder a little earlier than they should have as once the campaign began the Tories seemed to have little that was new to say and may have even lost some ground.
As a disclaimer though I should stress that I was involved in a LibDem/Labour fight where the Tories where always going to come third. But if there is any doubt about my opinion of Tories I have to say that compared to the average LibDem I get on with them very well indeed all the Tory candidates in Leicester and “most” of their workers where very pleasant and well humoured… in stark contrast to the more boisterous LibDems.
The reason Liberal strategy of “decapitation” didn’t work here in Maidenhead is that quite frankly it made the Liberals seem vindictive and taking over the “nasty party” mantle that Mrs May had spoken of before. I did not vote for Mrs May in 2001 but I made sure I did this year precisely because the Liberals goaded me to do so.
According to today’s Telegraph, the fact that Liam Fox isn’t married is a problem. So for the tories being married (possibly with 2 and a half kids) is more important than the ideas a politician could offer ?
I find it a bit desolating.
49 - Andrea dont assume that everything the Telegraph says represents the views of the Conservative Party!
For my money at the moment David Davis looks the sensible choice. All this business about right and left is nonsense nowadays. I prefer scales of competence and presentability. David Davis is both competent and presentable. He also doesnt have the slightly smarmy veneer that tarnishes Fox and Duncan. He is also not over the hill like Clarke and Rifkind. Cameron and Osborne are for the next campaign not this one. They should be key figures in the next Shadow Cabinet but not leadership candidates IMHO.
50 - George Osborne’s youngest brother is 20!
Andrea aty 49: when I first stood for Broxtowe in 1997 I was working abroad and unmarried. So some Tory canvassers put it about that I was more or less foreign and probably gay. Not clear which they thought was worse!
The electorate in 1997 didn’t much care what I was, so long as I wasn’t Tory, so it didn’t work. I don’t think that Liam Fox’s merry-bachelor image will do him much harm - having been health spokesman with an unpopular policy is more damaging.
Nick Palmer’s comments re peopel ‘ticket splitting’ is interesting, he says about 5k in Broxtowe, there were 4K for Lab in NW Leics. What it tells us I dont know, except people might like one lot running the council and another the country - I am told the same holds true for Lib Dems in Liverpool.
As for next Tory Leader, I think its a bit harsh to condemnt he members for picking IDS, the MPs gave us a v poor choice. Ken Clarke would undoubtably open old wounds over Europe, he is also a figure of the past, was a high ranking minoster in the Major Gvt - and look what that Gvt did to the party’s fortunes.
I am afraid I dont get the DD appeal at all, would like to see Fox or Duncan with an energetic team that wants to win and works to win around which ever wins.
50 - David Davis is only two years younger than Malcolm Rifkind. So how is Rifkind “over the hill” ?
Since Kenneth Clarke was unwilling to compromise on Europe on either of the two previous occasions he stood, I doubt if he will now - which means he probably won’t run unless the French kill off the EU Constitution (the Constitution is dead if the French vote Non; the issue will run and run if the French vote Oui, but, say, the Dutch and some other country vote No, before our turn comes).
Interestingly, one of his chief lieutenants from last time, Ian Taylor, is now backing David Davis. More than anything else, that convinces me that there is a huge momentum building up behind David Davis, and that the leadership election will actually be something of a coronation.
55 - There is problem with the David Davies is the skeletons in the cupboard (pretty damming stuff if it is true).
It’s looking like Davis. Would there be any chance of Ken Clarke taking on the Party Chairman role if he’s considered too old to be the leader? He if did it jointly, he could keep on his fag directorships.
Regarding the campaign, I spent virtually every day canvessing with the tory candidate in south derbyshire and for the first couple of weeks, there was no labour activity at all apart from a visit from Prescott where I had the pleasure of heckling him. The labour campaign stepped up in the last few days when they thought we may have a chance of winning and I’d realised we had lost when the voters were queueing up outside the polling booths in teh evening in the labour core areas of Swadlincote. In the end, we halved the majority which when looking at the national and east midlands picture is the best we could hope for. There was a lot of anti Blair feeling about (not a shock) but the personal following of the sitting labour MP, whos quite a pleasent chap really, swung it.
As I said before, the stuff about Davies which is coming out (among the the journalists) is pretty heavy stuff.
Sean. I think we can take it that Ian Taylor will back Ken Clarke if he runs. He only said that he could envision supporting Davis if the latter promised to follow a moderate path as leader. If David Cameron decides not to stand there will be a stop Davis candidate. I doubt whether Cameron/Osborn and co will support Clarke because of his views on Europe so they may well support Rifkind instead. There’s too much bad blood between the two camps for there to be a coronation. Davis’s people have been briefing solidly against Cameron and Osborn as the men behind the 1997/2001/2005 failures. As for Ken and Europe EMU is dead for this Parliament but , as you rightly say , the Constitution is another matter. All Ken can offer here is an agreement to disagree within the Shadow Cabinet which won’t be enough for many. Ironically it might be beneficial for the No campaign that it is not led by the leader of the Tory Party; a brand still not liked by most of the public.
No one wants the No campaign to be led by the Conservative Leader, but it would be hugely desirable to have the Conservative Party machine weighing in behind the No Campaign. I strongly doubt whether Clarke as Leader would permit that to happen.
Sixty. I don’t know he might be willing to let others do it. He was furious with TB for as he saif “Spinelessly” Conceding a hugely difficult referendum in the first place. Blair also led him up the garden path in 1999 on Britain in Europe. If Blair has made a rope for his own neck i doubt Ken Clarke would be much inclined to stop him hanging himself Politicallya.
What are the rumours about Davis?
62 - Erm, how shall I put, this is very difficult, erm ladies and the SAS.
What - at the same time?!
64 - Unfortunately not! Lets put it like this, it is not to do with sex.
Sean. I suspect that Ken’s remarks today indicate that he is trying to see whether some formulation can be found on Europe to ensure a viable candidacy. He emphatically does not want to come second a third time. There has always been a strong feeling among many Tories that Ken is the best leader for the Party ‘if only it wasn’t for europe’. His blokishness, his opposition to the Iraq war, his experience and the fact that he never has been a ‘left winger’ in the conventional sense all add up to a potentially powerful appeal to the Tory electorate especially among Tory MPs ( who are bound to become more significant in the decision making process post any rules changes.) Age is a factor but I suspect not a prohibitive one. If France says no he’s off the hook. If France says yes narrowly and the Dutch say no - which looks increasingly likely- could Ken take the line that the Constitution as drafted is dead and that the UK should use its Presidency to press for changes to make it more acceptable to the european public i.e. ‘Paris is worth a mass’. All his life Ken has been a strong pro-European but he might conclude that the referendum is lost anyway and that Europe is better off changing now than after a no from the UK. It could be seen as the great betrayal by some of his small grouping and, on balance, I don’t think he will do it but for Ken it’s now or never; this is his last chance to become Tory Leader.
63. Sophia, pardon my ignorance, but what daoes SAS mean?
I googled SAS, but they only things I found were a Business Intelligence software and the Scandinavian Airlines and I think that the Davis’ rumour has nothing to do with these things.
Andrea - it’s part of the military forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service
Andrea - the SAS is the Special Air Service: the special forces in the British Army. Davis is or was an SAS reservist.
68-69. Thanks.
After Sophia mentioned “Ladies and SAS” and I found via google that SAS are the Scandinavian Airlines too, I thought for a moment that the rumour has something to do with an hostess (I was already imagining the front page of The Sun)
67 - the regular (full time) SAS are amongst the most highly-trained forces in the world. The unit was formed in 1941 in North Africa (to fight your countrymen and the Germans, Andrea), and the name Special Air Service was a decoy; they were actually ground troops (although their first - spectacularly unsuccessful - mission was deployed by parachute).
Davis was a member of the Territorial SAS. Territorial soldiers are part-time reserve forces like the US National Guard. The TA SAS are probably the most highly-trained of the reserve forces.
I’m boggling at trying to work out what Sophia’s hints mean …
Incientally Paddy Ashdown was a member of the Special Boat Service, an elite unit of the Royal Marines, who are naval soldiers and who are themselves elite troops.
Now it seems a long time since Portillo’s conference speech when he was Defence Secretary…
“Three letters send a chill down the spine of the enemy: SAS. Those letters spell out one clear message - Don’t mess with Britain!”
As I said in another thread, what could be so bad that it would stop him from being leader, but not so bad as to stop him from being shadow home sec.? Perhaps there is no rumour, just a rumour that there is a rumour.
Come on Sophia please tell us. If you’re worried about libel just call him Joe Bloggs.
David Davis would be perfectly competent and doesn’t have some of Howard’s negatives: he seems a natural choice without being very alarming to contemplate for Labour. He doesn’t have Clarke’s dangerously positive appeal, but Clarke will not give hostages over Europe. A new face like Osborne would have the advantage of a complete break with the past - nobody can reasonably associate Osborne with Mrs Thatcher! - and he could potentially get away with drastic things, like a name change for the party, but whether the party is ready for that I don’t know.
Personally I think the Tories are probably doomed in their present form - the long flirtation with populism without actually gaining popularity has corroded the brand to the point that most opinion-leaders are embarrassed to admit that they vote Tory, and you can’t build a majority on a foundation of Daily Express readers. I don’t expect Conservatives here to accept the diagnosis, but if they fall back to say 30-31% against Brown next time, as I think they may, the need for a complete rethink will arguably become more apparent.
Correct me if I’m wrong but does everyone in the labour party think when Brown becomes PM, everything will be ok again. Brown has only gained his popularity by staying well out of the way of unpopular policies. His appearances during the Iraq war and tuition fees debates were limited to say the least. When he becomes PM, he’ll have to start dealing with these issues and as we’ve seen with Blair, popularity can soon disappear.
We are all agreed that taxes are going up and add these to the economic difficulities approaching then the picture may not look as rosy on front either for GB. There is a strong case to say the GB will be as unpopular as TB is 4 or 5 years time.
76 - I think non-leaders very often benefit in popularity from a novelty factor. It certainly wouldn’t be wise for Labour to strategise based on any poll numbers Brown has now.
Thanks for the constituency reports, in response to my post. I did some work for Labour in Tynemouth this time (I also helped there in 1997 and 2001).
This had been a Conservative seat since (if memory serves me right) 1951. In 1959 the redoubtable Dame Irene Ward enjoyed a majority of 14000, but that got squeezed down over the years as the Conservatives faded in the North-East of England. By 1992 the majority was down to 597 and Labour picked up the seat easily in 1997. It is classic “marginal” territory - working-class areas and council housing in some parts, retirement bungalows and chic commuter-belt estates in others.
To be honest, if the election had taken place in 2003 or 2004, I might have been apprehensive for Labour’s chances. The Conservatives had been making inroads into the local Council and had won the Mayoralty of North Tyneside. Council election results, in the wards making up the Tynemouth constituency, pointed to a Tory win.
However by 2005, the Conservatives were coming in for some criticism and hostility over a variety of local issues, especially the closure of a popular local community centre. As their candidate was a local councillor and Cabinet member, this probably didn’t help him.
From what I saw, Labour had a lot of people helping on the campaign and were doubtless aided by an incumbency factor. The Conservatives probably had the edge in literature - lots of leaflets, all with familiar themes (immigration, taxes). There was also a controversial Conservative advert in the local paper linking asylum-seekers with rises in Council Tax. The LibDem campaign was barely noticeable and I suspect they diverted most of their activists to Durham City and Newcastle Central.
I know there were some nerves in the Labour camp early on but they seemed to grow more confident as time progressed. As in other areas, there seemed to be hostility to the “negative” Tory campaign and dislike of Michael Howard. Interestingly, I understand that on election day Tory canvassers were “knocking up” firm Labour voters, which seems to be a waste of resources and suggests faulty intelligence - so much for Voter Vault!
On the day, Labour won with a 4000 majority. The Tories achieved a decent swing of 5% but suffered the double whammy of also losing the Mayoral election (narrowly) on second-preference votes.
Incidentally, on Vote-2005, in response to suggestions that the Tories were on course to take Tynemouth, I posted in early April suggesting that Labour would hold it “with a sharply-reduced majority”. Prescient or what? Maybe I should apply for Andy Marr’s job!
76. that’s why it’s better for Brown that Blair will stay longer. All the anger, both from potential voters and from some MPs (because I’m sure Jeremy Corbyn won’t like Brown either), will be direct to Blair.
Maybe I’m missing something, but what exactly is David Davis’s USP? He seems a perfectly competent performer on television and in the Commons, but I don’t detect any special charisma. As for his political beliefs, what are they? I’ve yet to hear him suggest any fresh ideas or fresh direction for the party, just vague re-statements of traditional Tory values.
It strikes me that he would be the “safe choice” as Party leader, which isn’t what the Tories need right now.
37 bookvalue “25 - “vulpine” actually means fox-like. Perhaps the analogy is with a species Labour wants to protect whilst the Tories are happy to tear apart…” …and the Lib Dem policy is ….what? of course sorry half of you wanting to tear it apart and the other half protecting it.
Everything went to plan (probably better!) in the seat I was working in (as stake board man) vs. a very weak candidate (where do the Tories get ‘em from?) and a Tory councillor defector standing for UKIP -Twickenham. We delivered a mountain of literature in the hope of getting a 10,000 majority and ended up 36 votes short. [thanks Alan J]
Re Richmond Park (for Tories a trophy seat, ‘where the rich go to live when they breed’): the Tories spent (it is said) c. £100,000 on paid deliveries (sub-contracted to ’self-employed’ immigrants) before the campaign, but were unable to match the volunteer team of deliverers deployed by the lib Dems during the campaign. It is true that they, unlike Twickenham, picked a presentable candidate (Forgione) and strking that this did them pratically no good at all.
Re Balls’s chances: when was the last time an MP went straight into the cabinet upon election? No doubt it has happened before, but when? I agree that Chief Secretary (also in the Cabinet, I think) is the highest he can expect.
I think John Davies was appointed to the Cabinet within about six weeks of becoming an MP in 1970.
81 - :D. Actually I am on the fence about which Tory leader would be best for us.
For a focus group take on the Tory leadership and the merits of the individual candidates, have a look at this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=UJPYUPDRMFFM3QFIQMFCNAGAVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2005/05/15/ntory215.xml
75 - “I don’t expect Conservatives here to accept the diagnosis, but if they fall back to say 30-31% against Brown next time, as I think they may, the need for a complete rethink will arguably become more apparent”
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this here and elsewhere, but there is simply no historical precedent, not one, no matter which party is in government for it to regain ground after some electoral loss.
The scenario posed that once Brown is in No 10, Labour will go on to recover and increase its majority again is simply not credible given all the precedents.
That is not say it is automatic that the Conservatoves will win next time - after all it took Labour 3 elections after Maggie’s ‘83 landslide to get back - but no party once it has begun the downward majority slide has EVER reversed that trend.
86 - Maybe we should have a David Davies/David Cameron joint ticket.
88: shades of the Steel/Owen sketch on Spitting Image: “We’ll take one word from your name - David - and one word from mine - …”
Ken Clarke’s past should be asset, not a liability. Look at the economy he bequeathed to GB–who has spent most of his time boasting about the “longest this …”–all set up for him by KC. GB kept rigidly to KC’s spending plans for two years, so tory economic growth is 1992-1999. GB’s share is actually less, to 2005.
The tories’ problem is that they haven’t been even been able to get across that rather simple point, so what chance do they have on tougher issues like pensions?
87 New Labour has set all sorts of electoral precedents. That said, I think it’s unlikely they’ll regain lost ground next time, if only because people will have had four more years to get out of the habit of voting Labour. Next year’s London Borough elections are likely to be bad for Labour, which means a further reduction in their local government base; over time, that matters, as we were to discover in the 1990s.
Does anyone think the Sunday Tory Graph is really Tory anymore. Everything spun negatively Tory fight gets personal er really? Even before the election they ran very unhelpful stories. The DAil Version remains rock solid but the Sunday although it formally backed the Tories… makes you wonder what Lawson and Blair chatted about over those agreeable dinners at Chequersa.
92 - Yes, kind of the reverse of the Times and the Sunday Times.
Ben, i remember a post from you mentioning that you thought that the contest in Manchester Withington would be closer.
I’m a Lib Dem in Manchester and helped in the election. I just wondered if you have any insight into what happenedin the seat from the Labour perspective.
I know the Lib Dems targetted the seat, did Labour know they were?
I found myself thinking the same thing, P.
There was an interesting article in ‘Lib Dem News’ (if that is possible) about how the Lib Dems won in Manchester. I don’t remember it in detail, but they pilled members from every Manchester seat and many others further afield into Withington, and also set a very, very heavy delivery schedule, organised by the head of North West campaigns, which they thought they wouldn’t manage but did.
It is interesting that they effectivly abandoned all other seats in the area to focus on this one. I think people like Kaufman are very lucky it wasn’t their seat, or they could have been gone.
BTW- isn’t Kaufman quite old now, and isn’t there a chance he will retire in 09, leaving an even better hope of a Lib Dem gain.
Geoff at 87: there aren’t very many reasonably contemporary Governments to go by (prewar Britain was a very different world), so I’m not sure your form book is all that useful. Labour 1945-51, Con 1951-64, then Lab/Con/Lab/Con. A sample of six is suggestive but not conclusive. I do think that people will be in the mood for something new by next time, but whether they’ll prefer a new Conservative government to an almost new Brown government remains to be seen, and depends on many unknowns.
There seem to be a lot of people who wanted to vote Labour but just couldn’t this time, some may come back next time.
Geoff at 87: one example of a government renewing itself whilst in office might be the Conservatives between 1987 and 1992. They became deeply unpopular in 1989-90 (21 points behind in the polls) but after ousting Mrs T and ditching the Poll Tax, they recovered to such an extent that, in 1992, they recorded the highest-ever Conservative vote (as well as recovering all their by-election losses).
OK, the majority was reduced but that was due to the vagaries of the electoral system which, even then, was starting to favour the Labour Party. A six-point lead in the popular vote should have delivered a majority of over 100, but instead the majority was only 21. Another factor was that Labour, whilst achieving only a modest national swing, did better in marginal seats.
If you want an indication of how the Conservatives have been all but wiped out in large parts of urban Britain, then go to this site http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge59/i13.htm which carries the results of the 1959 General Election. You’ll be gobsmacked to see how strong the party once was in areas we now consider Labour heartlands.
To give some examples, the Conservatives then held 6 out of the 9 seats in Liverpool. They held 3 out of 4 seats in Nottingham, 4 seats in Manchester, 2 seats in Newcastle and 5 seats in Glasgow. They also held Clapham, Hartlepool(!), Plymouth (both seats), Portsmouth (both seats), Preston (both seats), Swansea (1 seat), Walsall and Wolverhampton (1 seat), plus numerous seats in Scotland.
Now OK, this was a good election for the Tories and in a “normal” year, some of these seats would revert to Labour. But the point is that, in those days (and to a lesser extent, in the 70s and 80s) the Conservatives were a major force in urban Britain. Today they are in 3rd place in many of these seats. Can you really aspire to be a party of government when most of the large urban areas of Britain (outside London) have turned their back on you?
You’ll find the nature of the population in most urban centres is very different now to what it was in 1959. In most such areas, the proportion of the electorate who are middle class people working in private sector occupations is much less now than then. And in most such areas, the population is much smaller than it was, as people have moved out. London is large enough to still contain many such people.
I thought this was quite an interesting opinion piece.
It is a good piece. I really struggle to see how anyone can beat David Davis, who seems to have sewed the whole thing up in advance. He has the backing of the daily and sunday telegraph and the mail (I would bet) and has managed to draw in people from different wings of the party for support. Also by avoiding the debate about internal party reform, he won’t hack off any activists. The only other possible competitors are David Cameron (real hatchet job on fellow moderniser Osbourne in the MoS about his membership of the Bullingdon Club at Oxford) and Ken Clarke. I find hard to see how the latter can win without a damascene conversion on Europe and think the former would still get outgunned, certainly amongst the activists and probably amongst the MP’s as well. Remember Davis has also worked the constituency’s and put in a lot of public appearances for many of the newly elected Tory MP’s.
I was aware of the friendly relationship between Ian Taylor (my own MP)and Davis, but not that with Damian Green who is a class act. Interesting too if D’Ancona is correct about possible contacts with Clarke. However, I thought the legacy of mistrust by Tory MPs was more entrenched than Andrew appears to indicate and DD seems have had a reputation as a scheming prima dona stretching back to the 1992-7 government.
So my gut instinct is that a coronation is by no means a certainty: he is going to have to define himself rather more clearly in the months ahead. I still haven’t by any means lost hope on Cuddly Ken For Number 1 (and 10) - if he truly wants the job, he KNOWS he has to reach a modus vivendi on the EU - but the prospect of DD is becoming more appealing.
Cuddly ken would have to convert a lot of centre ground voters to get around the problem of UKIP securing 10% of the vote. Considering the rumours about contact he has had with Davis I was wondering if his statement that he was considering running was a deliberate ploy in Davis’ favour ie. he will “step aside” in favour of the candidate best placed to lead the party.
100 - The strong Tory vote in Liverpool until the late 60s was driven by sectarian considerations - The Conservatives had traditionally had the support of the Orange Lodge Protestants, while Labour were predominantly Irish Catholic. Glasgow might well have been similar…
RE: David Davies, good candidate, needs some trimming around the edges to be less populist and more pragmatic. That said he is the ultimate foil to TB.
I think that GB is the favorite amoungst Conservative voters for labour leader, though we would really like Bob Marshal-Andrews.
My views on MH is that he would have made an excellent PM (I would say that wouldn’t I?) but he is hated (unreasonably) by too many people. (More than TB, and that is hard work).
I have spent the campaign talking to people who vote for Labour/Lib Dem’s who when you discuss Conservative policy agree with them all, but they did not know about the policies, largley because they were not talked about.
As an example, take school discipline: Everyone agrees that the Conservatives are right that a Head Master should be able to expel a pupil and that the apeals system undermines his/her authority. However they wonder then what a Conservative Government would do with the expelled (a fair question). If you delve into the policy, it is to make speciealist places to deal with these pupils, a policy I have had absolute agreement is the most sensible from Labour and Lib Dem supporters. The PROBLEM is that only I knew of the second half of the policy because I looked it up, and without it, the first half of the policy is silly. So the policies were there but were not communicated at all.
That said, we are dealing with a moving target and will have to come up with better policies next time, because Tony will nick all our popular ones now.
106 - it was - Glasgow Central was a Tory seat up to 1955 (I think) - partly due to the business vote - but also due to sectarianism.
I don’t however believe the Liverpool ‘orange’ vote can in any way be comapred to modern day Glaswegian sectarianism. After every Old Firm game people are seriously injured or murdered. Thousands of Rangers and Celtic current season ticket holders come from Northern Ireland.
Anyway back to the point the last Tory seat in Glasgow was lost in 1982 when Roy Jenkins won Hillhead (against Gerry Malone - who has made a habit of losing to Liberals).
Teddy Taylor lost Cathcart in 1979 and interestingly the Lib Dems came second in the new ‘Glasow South’ last week.
It’s clearly not the case that the Tories have moved out of the cities (except London).
107.”I think that GB is the favorite amoungst Conservative voters for labour leader, though we would really like Bob Marshal-Andrews.”
The best Labour government for tories is something like this:
Alan Simpson as PM
Jeremy Corbyn as debuty PM
Bob Marshal-Andrews as Chancellor
Clare Short as Foreign Secretary
Glenda Jackson as Culture Secretary
Diane Abbott as Education Secretary
Alice Mahon as Chief Whip
Almost scary!
108, Liverpool and Glasgow Protestants were strongly Conservative, because many of them were of Irish Protestant descent, and they formed their allegiance at the time of the Home Rule crisis. In those cities, the Labour party really grew out of local Irish Nationalist parties (Liverpool elected an Irish nationalist MP and councillors up to 1929).
Although those allegiances have gone, there were and are seats in both Liverpool and Glasgow which the Conservatives ought to have a chance in.
A few random observations on the Tory vote in Scotland from an expat Glaswegian:
The Tories were the last party to poll more than 50% of the vote in Scotland (in 1955, I think) but actually called themselves Unionists in those days - and it wouldn’t have been Scottish devolution they were campaigning against.
Confusingly, Teddy Taylor used to campaign to Castlemilk (the large council housing estate at one end of what used to be Glasgow Cathcart) with leaflets printed in red! What finished him off in 1979 was the collapse of the SNP vote after the devolution referendum.
East Dunbartonshire (just captured by the Lib Dems) was another former Tory seat.
Gerry Malone also managed to lose Aberdeen South, though to Labour that time.
I find it hard to take seriously anyone that was in the ‘Territorial SAS’.
Do they end embassy seiges, but only at weekends?
‘Hello? Yes, we’re the Territorial SAS, how can i help you?….a hostage situation on an aircraft you say?….well….its a bank holiday next week, but the traffic’s murder…how does late afternoon sound? 4ish?’
Sean at 101: I agree there has been demographic shift out of the inner cities, but does that wholly explain the near collapse of the Conservative Party in urban areas outside London?
Jesmond and Gosforth in Newcastle, for example, are leafy suburbs with expensive houses and a population comprising professionals, academics and a large number of students. Once this area used to vote Conservative in council elections and the Conservatives would come a strong second in General Elections (they even won the Newcastle Central seat in 1983, due to the Labour/SDP split).
Today the Conservatives, who once held Newcastle Council, don’t have a single councillor. They are third in Jesmond and Gosforth and third in the Parliamentary seat.
I don’t get the impression that the social profile of the area has changed enormously. What has happened is that the Conservatives have largely disappeared as an electoral force here. The same must be true in other major cities.
I think there is an over-emphasis on urban seats, and this is reflected by the constituency boundaries. In a sense, although it would be nice to increase the Conservative presence in conurbations, it is largely irrelevant as Britain continues its march towards being a largely suburban society. In these areas, the Conservative presence is on its way to recovery, just as the Republicans have captured the increasing suburban vote in the United States. This is a function of rising wealth and living standards, and are hence natural Tory territory. At the risk of sounding overly metropolitan, the only urban seats worth thinking about in the long-term are those in London, and again the Tories are beginning to make inroads there. Essentially, although I find the above statistics interesting, I don’t think they should deceive the party into thinking they are of contemporary consequence.
A couple of comments on this thread:
1. Surely Ed Balls for GB’s first Chancellor is a risky bet- how about Ruth Kelly? (if not Alistair Darling, but GB will be keen the top posts don’t look too ineluctably Scottish- may be hide him as Foreign Sec).
2. My seat- Edinburgh South- was fascinating. I’m not an activist so I saw it all from the sidelines. The Tories poured pots of money in, to not much effect in the end. The Lib Dems fought their usual incredibly heavily spun campaign, as Marilyne McLaren’s activists wrote to harrass Nigel Griffith’s backers, pretended the seat was the old pre-boundary change seat (’Only 83 votes in it’ etc., which was the total for the Scottish Parliament seat), always referred to NG as ‘Blair’s man who voted for the war’ and so on. NG responded by pretending resolutely that the Tories were the real threat, which the Tories themselves then quoted on their literature (’even Labour think we can win’ etc.). The Lib Dems claimed the seat as a gain for them at the beginning of the night, but NG won with a majority of 400-odd. MM has now targeted the seat 3 times (I think) and failed, but she isn’t a very attractive candidate- even Lib Dems I know don’t like her. Scotland is somewhere where the Brown factor probably will increase Labour’s vote next general election- especially if Labour lose control of the Scottish parliament in 2007, which I devoutly hope they do.
3. I agree that GB will have much less natural appeal in many parts of England than TB. And that all those enormously high figures of support for him in recent polls are unlikely to transfer to him as PM. But he knows that better than anyone else, and you can bet he has a strategy for addressing the ‘English deficit’, whatever it is.
One last comment on the ‘urban seats’ debate: have the Tories written off Scotland entirely now? Edinburgh used to be solidly Tory, as did Perth, Stirling, Aberdeen and Dundee. I remember when Edinburgh had 4 Tory and 2 Labour seats, only 20 years or so ago. In my lifetime I’ve seen the Tories in Edinburgh lose first the city council, then 2 seats, including Michael Ancram’s seat, then the other 2, including Malcolm Rifkind’s seat. Scotland was a Tory-free zone in 1997, and in the last 2 elections has each time voted in one single unknown Tory in preference to a much more high-profile, known figure, voting out in 2005 the one they voted in in 2001, Peter Duncan. And there is no sign at all of a resurgence, in either the Scottish parliament or Westminster. Do you have a strategy for addressing that? Is there anything you can say to the people of Scotland to attract them back? Or would you just say that there, too, Tory absence is ‘largely irrelevant’ as Britain continues its march away from the North and Scotland loses population? Just how many former strongholds can you keep writing off and expect still to form a government?
Of course we haven’t written Scotland off. We did very badly out of the boundary changes with Pentlands and Ayr being obliterated and only a handful of winnable seats being created. Edinburgh Pentlands in Hollyrood is held by the Tories (a seat that is in a city and in Scotland). As for Perth despite very unfavourable changes to the boundaries we came within 1500 votes of winning it.
I’m a Tory activist in DC&T and to say we’ve given up on winning seats in Scotland is an insult. I gave up hours of my free time to deliver leaflets, knock on doors etc. Across the South we have been steadily rebuilding, winning council seats, Holyrood seats and a seat at Westminster. Its going to take a hell of a long time to build the party back up to its former size but no-one is giving up, I can assure you.
Odd as it may seem, I’m rather relieved to hear it. Remind me how which non-top-up Scottish Parliament seats besides Pentlands you have?
RE 118: Ayr and Dumfries and Galloway. The problem with the boundary changes for the Tories in Scotland in general were with the exception of the borders, they wiped out the really tight Tory labour marginals in Ayr and Edinburgh Pentlands, which would have been won by the Tories at the last GE in all probability. They also screwed up Perth, which also would have gone Tory under the old boundaries.
However this shouldn’t deny the fact, that there are seats, relatively unchanged where the Tories performed v.poorly, especially Eastwood and Stirling. Also our performance in seats such as Edinburgh West and Aberdeenshire West were also fairly shocking.
However under the old boundaries we would probably now have 4 seats, under the new one’s we have one.
117. 119. What happened in Angus ? I had that as a certain Tory gain at the start of the election campaign. Had money on it
From what I see the Scottish Tory party, in general probably needs a kick up the backside and a new leader. Targetting Edinburgh South (a seat we have not won since 87) over Edinburgh South West (mixture of Pentlands and central) was not clever thinking. McLetchie anyway ought to give someone else a go at leading the party. Since the advent of devolution the Tories have done comparitively well in Wales and could well become the main opposition at the next assembly elections, whereas in Scotland they have done poorly from what was a very similar position in 97 and 99.
Sara - not very many. Ayr and Galloway are the only ones allthough I assume you knew this. I fail to see how that means we’re giving up it just means there’s an enormous amount of work to do.
Alan - like D&G and DC&T the nominal resultd for Angus and Perth and NP were probably a bit out and the wrong way round. Angus was still disapointing but we remain in range for next time.
Andrew - McLetchie should stay he’s a good leader who’s liked by the members. Our real problem lies with the UK leader and the level of autonomy they give. DD has indicated that he would give the Scottish Party more autonomy especially in fiscal terms. This would help by allowing us to create a more ditinctive policy platform like the Christian Democrats in Bavaria or the various Progressive Conservative parties in the Canadian provinces.
122: No, I wasn’t being snide, I really had forgotten. It’s interesting to hear you say the old boundaries would have given you 4 seats- fair enough. Now here’s an interesting question for Scottish Tories. Would you take part in a Conservative/SNP/LibDem coalition in the Scottish Parliament, if the SNP would drop the referendum demand? This seems to me a genuinely interesting possibility, and it’s been done at local council level.
Three Tory MSPS tried to get elected for Westminster.
Obviously the name recognition factor should have helped their chances.
One succeeded (in D,C & T) but where does this leave the two unsuccessful ones ? Does it show a lack of commitment to Holyrood or is the Scottish Tory party short of talent?
122 - Hi Max ,
As someone living on the South Coast of England my knowledge of Scottish po;itics is sketchy . As I queried before , I was under the impression that the Scottish Parliament was unpopular and the Lib Dems would suffer because of this in the General Election but we now know they didn’t . I know you replied that you were puzzled but attributed the rise in Lib Dem support to Iraq protest . I would have thought myself that given the 2 facts the Iraq protest would have gone to SNP or the Tories .
My own conclusion from far away is that the Lib Dem sharing of power can not be as unpopular in the electorate as a whole , perhaps they are looked on as a moderating influence which stopped Labour doing more extreme things but I welcome the views of yourself and other Scottish contributors .
IMHO the only way to relaunch the Tory Party in Scotland is to allow it complete freedom from CCO HQ. Only a full blown CSU type arrangement will do. Obviously it would continue to be a centre right party but as a completely independent Party it would be credible as a patriotic party for the first time. A succession of Tory leaders have had zero credibility in Scotland. We can’t go on whingeing about adverse boundary changes. The Tory share of the vote- about 16%- was pathetic. Scotland has a more Left Wing political culture but there’s no reason why a credible right of centre party couldn’t get say 25%. I should add that it doesn’t help when a succession of Scottish Tories indicate that the finest sight in their minds is the road to England; Teddy Taylor, Michael Ancram and Malcolm Rifkind.
125. Mark, the Lib Dem campaign emphasised how the policies implemented by a Lab/LD coalition in Scotland differ from the policies implemented in Westminster by a pure Labour administration. Top-up fees and free care for the elderly were the main ones.
I think Charles Kennedy being popular in Scotland, where Michael Howard isn’t, also helped. As for the SNP campaign, it was very heavily targetted in just seven seats.
127 - Thanks Alan J for that input , it is obvious that the Lib Dems would have sold their power sharing positively in the way you described but not so obvious that it would have apparently succeeded so well and throws into doubt the forecast of sweeping gains by the Conservatives from the Lib Dems in next year’s elections
I don’t think anyones forecasting sweeping Tory gains from the LD’s at the next Scottish elections (allthough we may pick up one of the Borders seats). We’ll be very dependant on who the UK leader is. I agree totally with Blue Moon that a CSU style set up would be hugely benefitial. The old Unionist party was quite distinct and we need to get that back.
I don’t think selecting MSP’s shows a lack of talent, it happens plenty in other countries (in Canada provinsial politicians often go on to stand for the federal parliament). And before Stuart blows his top I am not suggesting for a second that Scotland is a provence I’m just using an example. I suspect they would rather represent a constituency and maybe thought they had a chance of winning their seats following the decent polls when MH first came to power.
129. Max, you’re fogetting the PR system at Holyrood - even if you did win a Borders FPTP seat, you would just lose one from the list to compensate. But surely Dumfries would be your top target in the South of Scotland ? You would need to maintain your vote there with a view to 2009.
I think the Scottish Parliament battle will be very different from the Westminster one (sorry, you’ve all already discussed this before): lots of English people living in Scotland who don’t feel Scottish don’t vote in the Scottish Parliamentary elections; the Lib Dems lots more publicity as the ‘natural lefty alternative to Labour’ through being UK-wide than they will at Holyrood; the SNP put hardly any money into the campaign other than in their 7 big targets; Kennedy was an obvious plus, whereas either Rumbles or Steven will be far less so. And the different voting system also makes a huge difference- it really is the place for a Tory breakthrough if there is ever to be one in Scotland. Is there a book open yet?
Yeah i take your point Alan. I just think in terms of moral seeing bits of the map go blue helps more than winning additional member seats. Dumfries is the number one target in the South and it’ll be interesting to see who’s chosen to stand instead of David Mundell. The Borders seats would be secondry but are more winnable than most seats in Scotland. Having said that if their is one region of Scotland where we will have a chance to return more MSP’s it will likely be the South. Incidentally I wasn’t suggseting the LD’s will do badly I just think the Borders are a bit of an exception with a different dynamic to some of the LD’s other strong areas.
There’s no real point forecasting into the future. As I’ve said untill we have a leadership palatable to Scottish voters allied to a more autonomous party we will find it hard to progress.
The Lib Dems have some interesting targets for 2007, too. They must fancy their chances in seats like Inverness, Aberdeen North, Edinburgh Central and Strathkelvin & Bearsden.
One of the affects of the low turnout was to create a lot of seats with small numeric majorities. Edinburgh Central will be very interesting. I wonder if Robin Harper might consider standing their given how well the Greens did on the list vote. And surely Nichola Sturgeon will take Govan this time. As Alan says Stathkelvin must be very promising for the LD’s given how well they did in East Dunbartonshire.
The other really interesting thing will be the performance of the SSP who could completely implode without Tommy Sheridan. At least we only have two years to wait and not 4 like the rest of the country (except Wales)!
Showing my ignorance again here, I presume that the constituencies in the Scottish Parliament are not the same boundaries as in the recent General Election
Alan - Out of interest do you have any feelings on the leadership contest. Its hard to see past Nichol stephen at the moment.
Re 123 - Sara it hasn’t happened at council level. The SNP forbids its councillors from forming administrations with the Conservatives. Hence David Parker the popular leader of the Scottish Borders council had to resign from the party. Sorry for insinuating you were being snide in your last question, just thought you were taking the p*ss!
Mark - yeah, but the Arbuthnot comitee is looking into maybe changing the voting system so that could all change. But at present all the boundaries for 2007 are the same as 2003. You’ll find plenty info about them on the scottish Politics site.
137 - Thanks Max , will investigate
134. Sturgeon doesn’t stand a chance in Govan. Govan got split between 3 seats (South, South West and Central) for the GE. The Lib Dems beat the SNP in two of them. Jack McConnell is no great orator but he beats her easily at First Minister Questions.
135. The Holyrood boundaries for 2007 are the same as Holyrood 2003/1999 and Westminster 2001/1997.
136. I think Nicol Stephen will win easily. Is there a market open ?
About coalitions - the key point is that in any coalition there has to be a junior partner(s). Until the SNP and/or the Tories get some humility about being potential junior partners in a coalition, that restricts the possible permutations of coalition. Unless the SNP and Tories drop this stance then I think the most likely coalition after 2007 (though not necessarily a majority one) could be Labour/Green.
137. 2007 will be under the same boundaries/rules as 2003/1999. Arbuthnott is looking towards the 2011 elections.
What is still uncertain though is whether the local elections scheduled for 2007, which will be under STV, will take place in 2007 or 2008.
What is interesting next year is the jockeying for positions on “the list” particularly within the Consevatives and the SNP, who rely on the lists for most of their MSPs.
Alan - Its not a question of humility for the Tories. There is no party with whom the Tories could conceivably enter into a coalition with at the present time. The only ’stance’ we have to drop is being a centre-right party and its not going to happen.
I’m trying to understand the Tory lack of success in Scotland. In other parts of the UK urban and industrial areas tend to be Labour, and suburban or rural areas are often Conservative (OK, I know that’s a gross oversimplication and ignores LDs but it seems to me to be a broad pattern). This isn’t so in Scotland,perhaps a consequence of having four primary/headline parties.
For instance, a friend and colleague of mine is an Aberdonian & an IT contractor. He is very much against a lot of things that new labour have done - IR35, pensions fund raid, etc. They affect him very directly, he complains about the amount of tax he pays, council tax levels, passionately against the iraq war etc. I don’t know how he votes, but seriously doubt that he would have voted for Labour.
The one thing I do know is that he does not vote Conservative. He hates them with a passion and his glee at the 1997 defeat lasted until… well, now. It would be a cold day in hell before he voted for a Tory candidate, even if it were proved to him that stated policies would leave him materially better off (that’s an “if”, not necessarily a partisan comment on current party policies, etc).
Now, he may be atypical (and the fact that a percentage of the vote does actually vote Tory - albeit a small one - means that obviously not everyone thinks like this), but what is it that is still damaging the Tories in Scotland, and can it be repaired? It certainly seems to be more extreme than other parts of the UK.
RE: 141, I think Thatcher did for Conservative support in Scotland.
The poll tax?
141 - Whatever the historical reasons for the overall dislike of the Conservative party in Scotland , it is a fact that it is there . There are some Conservatives working hard to overcome this , our poster Max for example but the impression I get from the South coast of England is that English Conservatives have in the past written off Scotland and think they can win without it and this will permeate through to the Scottish voters . One possible solution is for the Scottish Conservatives to become an autonamous party even omitting Conservative from the title but I am pretty sure that this would be seen as a ploy and rebound on them with even worse results .
I think that there is a much stronger degree of dislike for private enterprise in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. I can’t understand why we can’t get at least 20% though.
A couple of thoughts - the Troy decision to target Edinburgh South over SW was bizarre - many said so at the time. Credit for Max for holding the line, but when the leader of your party represents 7/11ths of the seat and you’re up against one of the dullest Cabinet Ministers in history, with an unpopular government - to choose the next door seat to target (from third) is mental.
I remember commenting a while back that I thought the Tories might suffer from having someone so associated with the south (and the Poll Tax) as leader. The Tories didn’t also do badly in Scotland - they did badly in the north of England too - a reverse William Hague effect?
The popular uprising of Braveheart Scottish nationalism combined with the lack of education in schools about the combined history of England and Scotland within the UK has left the English being regarded as the enemny of Scotland with the Conservative party as the embodiment of everthing that is English. The Conservatives have no chance whilst this simple popular sentiment prevails as every event which happens is seen through this distorted prism . The labour party has every reason to perpetuate and encourage this thinking . Perhaps it will require a generational shift to break this but I would not be surprised if the relative weakness in the Scottish economy versus the south of the UK continues until such time as the Conservatives start to receive support from at least 35 % + because this would reflect a changed attitude to wealth creation , taxation etc .
146 - of course if the Tories had chosen Helen…
I think the Thatcher/Poll Tax argument is rather overstated. The Tory vote in Scotland went up in 1992 only a couple of years after Mrs T had lost the leadership.
It is difficult for a center-right pro-Business party when you have such a large well funded public sector, and a deeply hostile news and broadcast media, but its not impossible. As I said a more appealing leader would help as would more (fiscal) autonomy. It is going to take time but in my part of the country we are begining to make progress. Hopefully the rest of the party will learn from what we are doing in the South of Scotland and adapt it to their own areas.
Dan - who’s Helen?
RE: 149, or Troy (refers to a misspelling Dan himself made in 146)
RE: 150, That should be of (not or) sorry for the typo.
140. With no prospects of being anything other than in perpetual opposition, maybe that explains why some Tory MSPS tried for Westminster?
142. Tory support in Scotland between Heath’s last election in 1974 and Major’s first election in 1992 only fell 2%. So Mrs Thatcher did not significantly damage Tory support in Scotland. What she did do, though, was polarise the anti-Tory majority against the Tories, resulting in anti-Tory tactical voting that still persists.
146. The Lib Dems finished only 1000 votes behind the Tories in Edinburgh SW. So very nearly a spectacular own goal.
Problem in Scotland and to a lesser degree Wales, is the level of tactical voting for the Tories. Whereas in England the Liberals or Labour have one source to tap for tactical votes, in Scotland and in some seats in Wales (PC vote is fairly concentrated and does not tend to overlap with marginals, Tories are targetting such as Monmouth) there are two sources for tactical voting. The classic example this time round (if the notional figures are correct) is Dumfries and Galloway where labour was able to draw on large amounts of tactical votes from the SNP and some from the Lib Dems to hold the seat.
Anybody know how we get an RSS feed for this blog? I am not very tech savvy and would really like to get updated info on this blog. Thanks!
singulair…
…
washing-machine…
…
penis enlargement patch…
penis enlargement product…
rolex replica…
replica rolex cheap…
rolex replica swiss referred…
replica rolex cheap advertised…