Nick Palmer on “What price incumbency?
November 12th, 2008
(According to the UK Polling Report seat guide the Nottinghamshire seat of Broxtowe is Tory Target number 42 and requires a swing of just 2.35%. Yet can Nick, who became the first MP poster prepared to contribute here under his own name four years ago, manage to hold on? In one sense he is honoured for his constituency is the first where betting has now opened. So the subject of incumbency is pretty close to Nick’s heart and he has written this guest slot - Mike Smithson)
Is it worth a bet on him making it?
One of the big unknowns about the next election is the extent to which (if at all) incumbents will be able to buck any national trend against their parties. Given the current polls, we’re obviously talking Labour and LibDem incumbents at the moment, but it may be interesting to revisit the whole issue of incumbency in today’s un-ideological climate. I’ll try to do it in a non-partisan way that will also apply to future elections with varying party balances, and I’m not offering many predictions about the next election in particular.
There was some pretty detailed work on the effect of a well-known candidate (normally the incumbent) in the 1960s in the famous series of election studies by Butler and King, who looked at the effect when a sitting MP stood down. My recollection is that their conclusion was that a well-known and presumably popular MP could improve his or her party’s score by no more than a 5% swing. That doesn’t sound a lot, and if a party has a national lead of 20% at an election they can shrug off any such factors as far as the majority goes, but in specific seats it remains interesting. Butler and King found that the effect peaked after the first re-election, then gradually declined as people moved from ‘you’re doing a good job’ to ‘you again, eh?’
The other extreme is seen in the USA, where incumbency re-election is commonly over 90%. However, this reflects two things: gerrymandering of boundaries, and unlimited spending, with donors tending to gravitate to the current congressman (because he’s the one who can get them a tax break or whatever).
Has anything changed since Butler and King? Yes, several things:
• The narrowing of the differences between the party programmes makes many voters feel it’s not a life or death matter which party gets in, whereas in the past people almost thought literally that – one Labour activist did commit suicide after the 1992 election, and the stark difference in elections like the ‘Who governs Britain?’ battle after the first miners’ strike will have made it seem frivolous to vote for Fred the local chap because he’s such a nice fellow. If people feel the parties are much the same ideologically, the personal factor has more scope: who will do the best job for Bognor?
• The controversial Communications Allowance makes it more feasible for incumbents to keep voters informed of their doings despite the general decline in the number of activists willing to stuff leaflets through doors. This is mostly more than balanced by the Ashcroft money in marginals where the Tories are the main challengers, but there will be seats where the incumbent does have more resources.
• Modern MPs mostly spend vastly more time on constituency issues than used to be the case. Parliamentary legends abound of MPs who said things like, “The less I see of my constituents, the happier we both are”, and the intensive 365-day campaigning that active MPs pursue nowadays would I think have seemed bizarre in the 60s. For example, I’ve been organising a campaign against some proposals from local developers that I think greedy: to my astonishment, this has generated over 3000 individual letters of support from constituents, and over 300 non-party volunteers who have proved willing to deliver not only updates about the issue but also my newsletter all over the constituency. You can’t buy that sort of involvement. I’m sure that some of them won’t vote for me, and there’s no reason why they should feel the need to, but if I wasn’t the incumbent they wouldn’t have got involved in helping me to anything like that extent, and if you help someone in a campaign there is more likely to be a sense that you’re ‘on their team’ – it certainly makes it harder to attack the incumbent personally.
• LibDems in particular are supposed to be hard to dislodge. Apart from their real or perceived personal qualities, this may reflect the well-established poll finding that lots of people say they’d vote LibDem if they thought the party could win. If you’ve got a LibDem MP, then obviously they can.
As many incumbents are coming up for their fourth successive election, the ‘oh you again’ factor is presumably growing. Overall, though, I suspect that the scope for the incumbency factor has grown since the Butler and King days, and we are likely to see quite varied swings as a result. It is not, after all, invariably an advantage to be well-known. It depends what you’re known for.
Nick Palmer
MessageSpace Advertising
First
1 Nick Palmer wont be
But Nick why should the taxpayer pay you to blow your own trumpet? If you want to trumpet your successes and increase your chance of re-election that’s fine, but do it out of your salary, not mine.
The Communications Allowance is iniquitous, and if we want to promote the political process we should do it in a non-partisan way by giving it to all parties.
I would suspect that most MP’s have a personal vote and that can withstand small shifts of support. However as in 1997 when there is a lansdlide, it may reduce the swing but local sandcastles still get swept away with the electoral tide.
Sorry to go O/T so quickly:
“PMQs: Cameron picks the wrong fight on eve of Brown’s big summit”
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/themole,,pmqs-on-the-eve-of-browns-g20-summit-cameron-gets-bogged-down-in-a-child-abuse-row,55386
Imagine if ladbrokes opened a market effectively asking whether you’d be sacked in a year or so. Harsh. But then you do get paid well.
3. Because residents should be kept informed and should be informed about what their MP is doing. The CA puts several restrictions on what can be put in the text so it’s partly apolitical stuff that is sent out.
FYI I’m a Lib Dem who hasn’t posted for a while.
O Thread - Cameron brought up the Baby P subject so is equally at fault.
5
Read Nick Robinson’s blog comments, and see what REAL voters think, not Westminster villagers .
http://blogs.bbc.co.uk/nickrobinson/
Night all - off to see my father in law as he is 70 today !
re 7. But you were the first ever poster on PB back in March 2004.
Now Tim they fight over the3 honour on each thread.
re 7 yes I know you’re a LD, but why should all constituents get one of these missives from their MP, but not others saying how they would do things differently?
The evidence of abuse of the CA is growing. Even Nick P (despite his antithesis to obfuscatory small print) indicates on his CA material that it is paid for by the taxpayer in 3 point type, small enough to be completely invisible.
9-Yes. I already saw it. I don’t agree with the Mole on this. Although I’m from the group who thinks Cameron should raise his game on the economy, it seems that Brown is getting away and he will probably get a good coverage at the G20 meeting.
Regarding the LDs, their neither being in government, nor having a realistic prospect of entering it in the next several elections, means that their MPs are more free to practice retail politics than those of Labour or the Conservatives. There’s also the fact that switching a seat from LD to Con or Lab adds or subtracts one from the governing party’s majority, whereas switching from Lab to Con or vice versa changes the majority by two. Voters in Lab or Con seats therefore get a better return on their vote in terms of changing the governing party, so are more likely to vote based their opinion of the government. Anyone see a problem with this analysis?
Nick P being non-partisan on incumbency - yeah right!
Interesting Post Nick.
I always thought it was first time incumbancy that usually provided the boost and it deminishes with time (Elections).
Certainly in the case of say a Labour MP in a seat contesting a 4th term, an anti-incumbancy effect may well be in play rather than a pro-incumbancy. The LD’s are a different issue bacuse apart from the devolved assemblies LD’s do not take part in government. Interestingly whenever the LD’s are in a position of power such as local authorities they suffer like Tories and Labour.
The last election IMO showed the power of incumbancy but it has to be remembered the principle oppositions vote remained vertually statisically flat. If we assume the Tories will improve upon their 2005 vote, then the governing party is likely to suffer pretty big depletion in marginal seats like yours and i don’t think incumabncy is going to help you as you will cop the blame for Brown!
The news on the BBC was pretty devastating for the government (been getting a bit out of touch with UK politics!), leading on unemployment and then Brown doing an impression of a speak your weight machine on the recent baby murder case. Note to Brown, Obama won because of empathy, lacking emotion is not the same as remaining calm under pressure.
I also noticed that labour ratings had gone up a little in some polls recently, presumably this is the lull before the storm when people realise just how bad things will be for them. That labour seem to be giving short term boosters to taxpayers seems strange if they aren’t in a position to call and win an election now, they need to show they have a more long term view not give themselves rope for hanging them a year down the line.
Having seen how the fundamentals of the economy lead to an election result in the US I’m surprised if any tories are worried. Government screws up people’s money, government pays for it. Why should we be any different? They need to not respond to every move or show panic, hence Osborne shouldn’t even be considered as being shifted, Cameron should wait until the economy starts to have more of a personal effect on people and supporters shouldn’t be the sort of lily livered wusses who kept telling Obama to do this, that and the other when, if he had followed their advice, it would have ruined mid and long term strategy for a purely ephemeral gain.
I wouldn’t bet on Nick P at those odds, incumbency factor or no incumbency factor. You’d need to think he has a better than 31% chance of retaining the seat.
9/13 I do like the Labour spin -” Whew Cameron could have hurt Gordon if he’d bought up unemployment, luckily he didn’t so we got away with it, well except of course that Gordon crashed and burned due to his own glaring partisanship and lack of empathy, but it was a win!”
“Modern MPs mostly spend vastly more time on constituency issues than used to be the case.”
Do most MPs actually think this is a good idea (privately!)? Is it really their job, or just something that helps re-election (whilst emasculating local democracy)?
14 - Yes, I doubt voters are quite so rational with regards to the “better return on their vote”. But the point works if some voters are more Anti-Con/Lab than Pro-Lab/Con.
Brown and Labour looking terrible on ITN this evening. This is a very bad own goal by Labour. Not sure if by itself it’ll be enough to change the media narrative, but its certainly pretty bad.
Oh, and of course Nick won’t survive the next election.
Channel 4 report that David Cameron accused Gordon Brown of being smug over unemployment at PMQ’s.
With the £ under attack, and the DOW diving this evening, here is the real reason that not only Brown but the whole UK could lose everything:
U.S. Slump May Be Longest in Decades as Growth Fell Off `Cliff’
By Bob Willis and Kristy Scheuble
Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. downturn will be the longest in three decades, and the drought in consumer spending may be the worst ever, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
The implosion of credit markets last month will cause the economy to shrink at a 3 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter and decline at a 1.5 percent pace in the first three months of 2009, according to the median estimate of 59 economists surveyed Nov. 3 to Nov. 11. Following last quarter’s 0.3 percent drop, the slump would be the longest since 1974-75.
“The economy fell off a cliff in October,” said Richard Berner, co-head of global economics at Morgan Stanley in New York. “We had a huge financial shock that intensified the credit crunch and triggered a sharp downturn.”
Declines in household spending will extend into next year as the worst financial crisis in seven decades forces employers to keep cutting payrolls on top of the 1.2 million jobs already lost this year. President-elect Barack Obama has said the U.S. needs a second economic stimulus package “sooner rather than later.”
The pace of contraction this quarter would be the worst since 1990. Berner is among economists projecting the current slump will also be the most serious in a quarter century as the lack of credit causes a reinforcing, vicious circle of declines in confidence, spending and hiring.
“All of these adverse feedback loops are working to reinforce the downturn,” he said. “At the moment, it looks like the deepest U.S. recession since ‘81.”
Some members of the group that officially determines when U.S. contractions begin and end are even more pessimistic.
`Serious Recession’
“We’re in for a pretty serious recession,” Jeffrey Frankel, a member of the business-cycle dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, said in a Nov. 10 interview with Bloomberg Television. “There’s a chance it’ll be the worst postwar recession.”
In addition to gross domestic product, the group tracks changes in payrolls, production, income and sales to make their call. The NBER usually declares a recession 12 to 18 months after it starts. The odds of an official contraction occurring within the next 12 months rose to 100 percent, according to this month’s survey, up from 90 percent in October.
After dropping at a 3.1 percent pace in the third quarter, consumer spending will fall 2.9 percent this quarter and 1.3 percent in the first three months of 2009, according to the survey median. Spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the economy, has never fallen for three consecutive quarters in the postwar era.
Rising Unemployment
Falling demand will cause an even bigger increase in unemployment than projected last month. Economists surveyed forecast the jobless rate will rise to 7 percent in the first quarter of 2009, up from last month’s forecast of 6.6 percent. The rate will climb to 7.7 percent by the end of 2009, the highest level since 1992, the survey showed.
The jobless rate rose to 6.5 percent in October, the highest since 1994, the government said last week. Employers cut 240,000 jobs last month and the total number of unemployed Americans jumped to 10.1 million, the highest level in a quarter century.
“The combination of the credit crunch and the rapid decline in consumer spending were the two drivers” behind the weakening employment outlook, said John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The economic slump is contributing to a plunge in commodity prices that spells good news for inflation. Consumer prices will rise 1.8 percent next year, the smallest gain since the last official recession in 2001, after increasing 3 percent this year, the survey showed.
Less Inflation
The diminishing threat of inflation will give the Federal Reserve leeway to lower interest rates again, the survey showed. The benchmark rate, now at 1 percent, is likely to fall to 0.5 percent by March, its lowest level ever.
Obama, in his first post-election press conference, last week said he would follow up on any fiscal stimulus passed by Congress in the last weeks of the Bush administration with further measures after his Jan. 20 inauguration. Already, the government has approved a $700 billion financial rescue package, on top of wide-ranging measures from the Fed to boost liquidity.
“We have taken some major action to date, and we will need further action during this transition and subsequent months,” Obama said.
U.S. automakers have been among the hardest hit by the slump in spending. Vehicle sales plunged in October for a 12th straight month, the longest streak in 17 years, overwhelming efforts by General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC to cut costs by trimming payrolls and shutting factories.
To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Willis in Washington at bwillis@bloomberg.netKristy Scheuble in Washington at kmckeaney@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 12, 2008 00:01 EST
Wither the US? Britain and the EU will be sucked in; stangly I think the new big 3 will survive better than us; China, India and Russsia. Why Russia because their capitalism is still faily bascic and will weather the storm.
“Wither the US?”
Freudian slip?
19-Ted-I agree with you on that. But I still think Cameron should bust the “Gordon saviour” bubble. I don’t think he needed to attack Brown’s economic reputation today, but it’s a daily job that the Conservative Party is clearly failing to do.
25. NO!
Mister Palmer, you refer to the Ashcroft money, but what about the money from Ron Cohen[sp]? Or the ennobled Lord Sainsbury? Or Lord Goldsmith, Labour donor, then peer, and the man who headed the CPS when it refused to proceed with cash-for-honours to the courts?
The communications allowance is morally wrong because taxpayers are effectively providing funding to incumbents. Labour should stop whining about Ashcroft and try persuading somebody they’re worth backing.
26 - Cameron has to ride the wave and for that he has to await it. As people have stated again and again, the narrative has not yet turned in his favour, he won’t make it happen by it by forcing it, and it’s pointless when it’s on its way anyway.
27 - I thought you were saying that you believe the US will ‘wither’ in comparison to the new capitalist nations. Thought it was quite poetic actually to use ‘wither’.
24 Not Russia in my view - energy costs will remain low so state income hard hit, foreign investment has been frightened away, many of the largest oligarchy companies are in massive debt needing to shed assets.
Nick - 18 months to your retirement - cheerio!!!!
I don’t think Butler and King came up with anything like a 5% incumbency swing, Nick. From memory it was 500 to 1000 votes, which equates to about a 1-2% swing. But there is also evidence this wears-off over time…
There are always isolated exceptions, of course, but realistically Labour would have to be within about four points of the Tories nationally for you to have a fighting chance…
31. I’d have my doubts about India as well - it hasnt reached the point of self sustaining robust growth - the Chinese are closest to that. (Russia is stuffed. As they deserve.)
33 - Yeah, much better value to bet on a hung parliament, at the same odds from the same bookie, if you think Labour are anywhere near avoiding a Conservative majority.
20. Constituency issues - depends on the effectiveness of the constitutency effort. Famously in the US constituency efforts were terribly important - Al D’Amato, a long serving Republican senator from NY was known as Senator pothole for his constituency services - I heard that his office really was pretty good at having potholes dealth with. The old adage is “all politics are local”.
But I suppose in the UK constituency MPs like NickP probably dont have the power to demand a filling in of potholes - or do they?
I hope Nick Palmer (and Frank Field) are the only Labour MPs that survive.
Gordon now thinks that his rule about the 40% of GDP debt ceiling does not apply in these ‘extraordinary’ times that were brought to us ‘from America’.
Sooner than he thinks he will find out that foreigners won’t be interested in buying the gilts necessary to finance his Kaynesian spending splurge at these interest rates. He will either get little to no financing or the interest rates will go through the roof. UK gilts are not a wise investment when they are tied to a depreciating currency.
Don’t forget the UK is absolutely dependent on new loans (even more so than the US) in order to ’service’ its debt.
Let’s see how he reacts when the penny drops and there are no takers for his gilts.
I can’t believe the ease in which he says: So what I’ll borrow billions and spend them since borrowing is the reason why we are in this situation.
I predict a currency crisis in 2009, UK is the next Iceland not the next US.
30.Thank you Paul. It actually means ‘where goeth’, as you have gathered. Whew! Glad that’s cleared up.
29-Ukpaul-Who knows what will make the media narrative change? Because the media is against him, he should be quiet and wait? I really doubt this. He’s the leader of the opposition, and that’s what he should do, oppose. And it’s not all about making the press like him. It’s his job too, to show the mess that Brown did on the economy and to show how he will improve the situation when he is in government, and for some reason he does not seem to be doing this right. Cameron may not turn the media narrative in his favor, but you can hardly say he’s trying to do this or that his economic team is doing a good job.
Just watching PMQs, have to say Michael Martin doing his job well and impressing. Why cant he be like this most of the time?
33. Although, happily for you, that is where I expect we’ll end up.
Con 37, Lab 34 would give you about a 40% chance of holding on….
Was the fall in retail sales mentioned yesterday? If so, apologies for raising it again.
http://www.kpmg.co.uk/news/detail.cfm?pr=3249
Sales down 2.2% compared to October last year.
Evening all
Thanks to Nick for contributing the article. There’s very little in it with which I would disagree. Political activity and its manifestations have changed a lot in the last thirty years and the standard of activism (though not always the standard of activist) has improved markedly.
Prior to 1997, I think there were a number of Conservative MPs who had come to regard their constituency as a personal fiefdom. That election brought in a number of new MPs who had toiled long and hard in opposition and some who had not considered victory but who rode the coattails of the national swing.
I believe the Conservatives eventually learnt the lessons of 1997 and the new generation of Tory MPs are much more assiduous in their constituency work. Those Conservative PPCs in the obvious marginals (Lab, LD, SNP) who have worked hard have utilised modern campaigning techniques and resources and may reap the benefit of that in 2010. It’s also possible some other Tories will win on the back of Cameron’s coattails.
I think that incumbency, as a factor, helps slightly but is no substitute for ongoing local activity, contact and profile. This is especially true where the opposition is also active and prominent. Thus, in some 150-200 seats, the election campaign will be the culmination to the multi-faceted ground campaign which has been running since, say, 2006.
39 - I don’t think the time is yet right; when winter sets in, people have worried about spending at Christmas and when they face a the new year would be a good time. At the moment there’s a lot of running around from the public to no great effect or without much direction.
Carrying on watching PMqs….
“If i misunderstood the honourable gentlemans intentions, please accept my apologies”
If Brown had the mental wit to say that, it would have been the end of it.
what a week - Glenrothes and off to France and the £ plummets
45, aye. Or, better yet, don’t make the bizarre partisan accusation in the first place.
40 I agree - good performance for once from Martin
45 - Brown and mental wit?! -bit like ‘watford’ and ‘good team’
31/34. I’m talking of a scenario where the West is largely postrate economically. In that case the 3 nations mentioned can advance by taking control of the new markets that will form; and I’m talking of markets in more than one way.
This world picture points to instabilaty, the very opposite Browns rosy cornacopia.
48, wasn’t Brown visiting Watford today? Did you say hello to him?:P
of Browns etc.
41. So Labour barely fall from what they polled in 2005, despite heaping on us the worst recession for decades and the ghastly Clunking Fist? Give over!
Great article Nick. It is an interesting topic - my gut reaction is that certain parties do better than the other at maximising the incumbency factor. Overall I’d put the Lib Dems at the top of the pile for this. I think this reflects their (effective) style of regular communication, combined with the fact that they’re never in Government so the voters don’t blame them for as many things.
As for Labour and Tory MPs it really is down to how old-fashioned they are.
I’m really impressed by the fact you having 300 non-party volunteers. As you say you simply cannot buy that level of support. Super stuff! You should be telling the rest of the PLP about how they should strive for this.
Wishful thinking Nick.
51. Weathercock - Russia doesnt make anything -other than second rate weapons - and lots of primary materials for which demand collapses. They are stuffed and if you are right, then they are ultra stuffed. India makes stuff for the rest of the world and has a lousy domestic economy, if you are right, they are very stuffed. Only the Chinese have some chance because their domestic economy might generate some growth, and even then they really need overseas export markets.
Outside the US and Europe, the global economy is tiny, there are no significant new markets - BRIC still depends on US and Europe.
53/54 My gut reaction is that Nick will lose his seat whenever an election is called. Prepare your CV Nick.
Saw a clip on the news of PMQ`S all rather undignified.
Then a news readers on channel 4 asking for guarntees that no child is in danger.He should live in the real world and get of his sofa.
The real blame is with the parents of the child.
A witch hunt by politicans of what is a multi agency failure, for sackings of one individual, and the scapegoating of social workers makes one wonder why anyone would apply to do the job.
44-Ukpaul-I don’t know when the time is right. But it’s quite clear, at least for me, that Cameron is not doing his job of opposing properly. Even if he could do nothing to affect the media narrative, he should never cease to make the case for a Conservative government. Many also thought that the time was not right for Brown to make the claim that he saved the economy, but it seems it was.
51. What you say is all true Ken. But Russia had a budding capitalst system before the revolution of 1917 and will again in time. All I’m saying is that these 3 countries will take advantage of any weaknee of the West.
It’s good to see that Ed Balls is doing as David Cameron asked - a proper independent inquiry and a lot more scrutiny of Haringey. Obviously after triangulation, Labour managed to work out that Cameron was right (or at least that the majority of the electorate favoured the DC view rather than the GB view) and have belatedly jumped on board. It’s just a pity that Brown couldnt have said that at PMQs. It also rather knocks on the head all the pathetic spin from various MPs including NickP and Ruth Kelly - the latter bleated about how the Haringey report was “independent”, what was “true” at 1pm obviously wasnt by 5pm.
Amusing article. More or less pure self delusion. The miasma is obviously leaking out of the Brown bunker and infecting everything around it.
60. Tis always the case. I was forced to laugh at the audacity of a Labour MP at PMQs today who managed to suggest the Tories took their ideas from *Labour*!
I have had many discussions with MP’s over the years as to the effect of the incumbency factor and the overwhelming opinion has been that it is usually worth between 500/1000 votes. There are of course plenty of reasons why it could be less and I agree that this does not apply so strictly to LibDem MP’s who seem to benefit more from the incumbency factor than Lab/Con MP’s.
In the 1997 election there were many apparently hardworking and apparently very well thought of Conservative MP’s who lost their seats. I suspect the same may apply to scores of Labour MP’s after the next election.
57 60 visits by social workers, 50 injuries over his life, the mother twice arrested but not charged with child abuse, a resident boyfriend with a violent past, a lodger with an under-age runaway girlfriend, a doctor who didn’t find a broken back and broken ribs.
The three found guilty were the perpetrators but Haringey Social Services and the other agencies job is to prevent such, they had the opportunities, the evidence (if they had but looked),. So should they keep their jobs? It’s not scapegoating, if those involved failed they surely can’t continue to be employed in their roles.
Maybe Brown had a point…
“The leader of the British Conservative Party suggested Wednesday that the death of a toddler in London is a failure of the governing Labor Party.
Norman Cameron launched a verbal attack on Prime Minister Gordon Brown during Question Time, The Daily Mail reported.”
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/12/Conservative_chief_blames_Baby_P_on_Labor/UPI-70911226518281/
64, quite. In addition to this, processes and organisational structures needs to be bolstered so that the likelihood of this recurring is minimised.
I’m a firm believer that institutions need to be very strong, because they last for the longterm, whereas a new, excellent director in the area (with the old structure) would only exert influence so long as they held the post. A proper restructuring would last for much longer, and not be contingent on a top class director.
63. I imagine incumbency has greater advantages to a visible and popular MP in a year with a tighter election, or when both parties are tolerated so much that a Tory voter might vote on the strength of his Labour MP.
When it’s a landslide year, I doubt it has much bearing - people don’t care who the local bloke is they just want a new party in power and will vote accordingly.
I think people who live in Lib Dem seats are more likely to be aware of who their MP is because they don’t come from the big 2. This might make the constituency more independently minded, more swung by the third party and more easily canvassed.
65. I’m supposed to trust and believe a report that calls the leader of the opposition Norman Cameron?
65 Yep reliable news agency that claims Norman Cameron is Conservative leader.
Gabble must be a Brown doppelganger.
I spent today discussing manufacturing contracts with customers / suppliers and no-one should underestimate the chaos that is out there. My guess is that sterling will continue to crash until the UK provides a clear route to how it will pay its way in the world. We could see 1 euro = 1 £ in the next few months.
Hi All
RE PMQ’s ~ What would happen if DC did either of the following?
a) Got up and gave a 30 minute speech on all of Browns failing! not allowing time to answer. This was advocated on Red robbo Blog, by the way hes getting a pasting over there but hey whats new.
b) Stood up and “I’m not asking any question today as I never get an answer” and sit back down again?
65. “Norman Cameron???” Oh dear! And from a website that has the audacity to put “100 years of journalistic excellence” as it’s banner.
I’m glad that Nick has acknowledged the electoral benefits of the Communications Allowance. Of course that wasn’t the real reason Labour introduced it, oh no, of course not…
67. It depends where the MP’s seat is on the list of marginals, relative to the swing. e.g. A Labour MP with a 10% majority has about the same chance of holding his/her seat against a 5% swing as an MP with a 2% majority has against a 1% swing…
72, if he goes on for too long the Speaker interrupts (has happened before). The latter option (although fairly pointing out Brown’s ‘answers’ often seem to bear no relevance to the question asked) would seem childish and deprive Cameron of an opportunity to whack him.
Anyway, I think the effect of the remarkable PMQs will be to really fire up the Tories, some of whom have been a tad lacklustre. They’ve just had a big juicy reminder of why they hate Brown.
The news was just dreadful for Brown tonight. The BBC were suprisingly critical and Tom Bradby on ITV was utterly scathing of him.
65 Gabble - Gordon Brown defended, even after Balls had announced that the Government would indeed do what Cameron had asked they do, that the enquiry by Haringey was “independent”
In the Times report:
The Times has also learnt that Haringey Council, sharply criticised after the death of Victoria Climbie eight years ago, hampered the investigation into the death of Baby P by not handing over all their information to murder squad detectives.
That’s confirmed by the CPS
“A spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that the council had not been as frank as they should have been. “We can confirm that not everything was disclosed until the judge requested that everything should be disclosed at the beginning of the trial.”
But Brown was happy to accept Haringey’s report claiming Cameron was play politics because he didn’t. Balls at least recognised what had to be done and tried to save his master’s face.
77, doesn’t help that the Children’s Secretary (for god’s sake, what’s wrong with Education?) is about as photogenic as infected diarrhoea.
64 I would agree its a multi agency failure.
However the emphasis of blame by the media is always on the Social workers, which seems an easy hit against the saint like doctors and the Police, who they need to keep sweet for information.
Anyways the whole issue should have been dealt with in a sober and constructive way, with some dignity and decorum.
PMQ`S and the bear pit was not right forum.
Both Brown and Cameron both fathers of children should apoligise for spectacle this afternoon.
60. Interesting to see the silken-voiced Ms.Kelly dragged out to do the TV rounds this evening. I thought she had given up to spend more time with her family? Perhaps they are sick of hearing her monotone drone already.
I thought the Speaker, Michael Martin, did a brilliant job today. He saw the importance of the story and the need for the house to deal with it in a dignified manner.
The biggest losers were the Labour MPs who shouted and heckled - it looked and sounded terrible on the bulletins.
80. There’s something not quite right about that post…
Hold the phone and anything perishable:
I think everyone’s being a bit harsh on Gordon Brown regarding PMQ-gate.
Watching the re-run this evening, it’s hard finding where exactly Brown suggested/hinted DC was playing party politics with the issue.
I said te Tories needed to get angry and salivate a bit, but I didn’t realise 1) DC read my posts and 2) would take it so much to heart!
As Michael White says in the Guardian, DC was winning easily halfway through the exchange, but his wasting of questions (he only gets 6 a week for goodness sake) on seeking a withdrawal just for himself meant that he won on points only - just.
I’ve searched high and low for this but does anyone out there have numbers, or an estimated number, for the peak in the number of unemployed by the current accepted labour survey measure from back in the early 90’s when the claimant count (currently just under 1 million) topped 3 million?
81. I havent heard her this evening - I do hope that she has dropped the “independent” inquiry line that she was holding to in the R4 PM programme? Perhaps she would like to apologise to Cameron for that - after all Balls is now commissioning a proper independent inquiry.
re 75. How do you work that out Rod?
65: Any tabloid whose suppport is so blatantly bought by the vague dangling of a “P or K” barely deserves to be called a newspaper.
57- The blame is with the parents but not ONLY with the parents. In the common law tradition that we here in the U.S. inherited from you, it is a well-accepted principle that those who don’t normally have a duty to “rescue” another take on such a duty if they undertake to help the person. If social services didn’t exist or was not assigned to the child, you would be right. But the child, and society, had a right to expect social services and its employees to save the child because they undertook to protect the child (for payment, I might add; not purely out of the goodness of their hearts). The failure of the agency and those individuals involved merits appropriate punishment by any reasonable legal or moral standard.
86. Ah but Ken - it remains to be seen whether Balls’ inquiry is indeed independent. And more importantly whether any real sanctions will be imposed on those who failed so badly in this case (my guess, fat chance).
A rough measure of incumbency can some from the County Council seats where the General Elction was held on the same day. Obviously you have the independent and Lib Dem local but not national vote but I found it very useful in the seat I work in. That suggested 1500 Tory voters were switching and voting for the Labour MP based on who he is. He’s standing down so it will be interesting to see if extra swing is achieved.
Spreadfair still haven’t settled the US Electoral College markets. Anyone else still got a load of money tied up in there?
“In one sense [Nick Palmer] is honoured for his constituency is the first where betting has now opened”
Mike - which bookie is offering this market please?
83 I agree sorry, the last two lines should have read.
Pmq`s and the bear bit was not the right forum.
Both Brown and Cameron, fathers of children should apoligise for the spectacle this afternoon.
94, did you see the first question? Cameron couldn’t've been much more neutral, and it was an easy and obvious answer. Instead Brown reads his little card and has all the warmth and fuzzyness of a kidney stone wrapped in sandpaper.
Interesting this PMQs furore. If you study Cameron when he loses his rag, he is clearly not addressing Brown or Mr Speaker but someone seated to his left some way back from the aisle. Obviously some yobbo on the Labour back benches made a heckle about Dave’s merely trying to avoid the subject of the economy. Dave was enraged by the slur - and quite right too! - and lambasted the dotard all guns blazing!
As for Brown, I was thinking of voting for him on account of his handling of the economy, but after that cynical and ill-mannered dig he will never again get the benefit of my vote! In fact, so deplorable was his behaviour it actually made me reassess his handling of the economy and I now subscribe to the view that it’s been cr*p!
A few seconds ago DOW hit -400 for the session.
92 - Yes Richard, as have others on PB, this all revolves around Missouri and settlement of other bets is being held up also, eg Ladbrokes’ Firewall and their McCain to win +/- 21.5 States bets.
The last I read the formal result could still be 1-2 weeks away - quite why and what’s now happening is anyone’s guess.
95 Morris Dancer no I did`nt.
And I guess only a small minority did.
Most people will see the clip on the news of two red faced angry men, shouting above a hostile crowd, about the death of a child.
Whoever was partly to blame surely both men would believe it was not a dignified response.
Especailly in comparison to how the deaths of soldiers are announced, even when there are disagrements on the conflict.
Dez is right. Some people killed that child and it wasnt social workers. Yes there was maybe incompetence and those responsible should be disciplined for a lack of professionalism BUT but do we see anyone trying to name the killers?
No. I’d like to see them outed in good time for their incarceration.
Politicians need to cut the hysterics.
99. No only one man was to blame - Gordon Brown. As was implicity acknowledged by Balls actions this afternoon. Brown should apologise. But he wont. Just like he doesnt like to answer real questions.
87. In both cases the MP would have about a 50/50 chance of re-election. Swing is approximately normally distributed with a standard deviation of about 3%. The formula shadsy presumably used to calculate his odds [since he asked me for it last week] is
“49.
The chance of a Tory gain in a particular Labour/Con marginal can be estimated using the Excel formula
NORMDIST(x,y,3,1)
where x is (Tory opinion poll %lead + 3)/2
and y is (Labour seat %majority)/2
and the chance of a Labour hold is 1 - (the above calculation)
Basically, it assumes that swing is approximately normally distributed, with a standard deviation of about 3 (bolded in the formula - it is usually in the range 2.5 to 3.5) The x is the national swing achieved by the Tories (lead + 3)/2, the y is the swing required to gain the particular Labour seat (majority/2). When x and y are the same the chance of a gain is exactly 50% (a fact some Tory rampers tend to forget…)
It’s a simple metric, and is only valid for classic Lab/Con marginals. It would break down where other parties had a reasonble chance of a gain.
However, Curtice and Firth extended the principle to all parties and all seats to arrive at their famous “66″ forecast majority in 2005, but you need about 8 separate calculations for each seat to do that. I use those calculations in my “probabilistic forecasts” which I post from time to time….
So applying it, for the sake of example, to Nick Palmer (sorry Nick
) we have say
Tory national lead - 10% (swing since 2005 = 6.5%)
Nick’s majority - 4.7% (swing required = 2.35%)
Chance of Tory gain is NORMDIST(6.5, 2.35, 3, 1) = 91.7%
Increasing the variation in swing slightly, by changing the 3 to 3.5, reduced the probability slightly to 88.2%…
Of course this is only an estimate - it takes no account of regional variations, for example. It could best be described as saying if there were 10 seats across the country of identical marginality to Broxtowe, we would expect the Tories to win 9 of them, and some lucky Labour MP would hold on, but we don’t know which one…
by RodCrosby November 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm”
The standard deviation of swing at each election since 1951 is as follows:-
1951 1.7
1955 1.9*
1959 2.3
1964 2.4
1966 1.7
1970 2.1
F1974 2.9*
O1974 1.5
1979 3.1
1983 3.0*
1987 3.2
1992 2.8
1997 3.4*
2001 2.6
2005 2.4
[* = boundary changes]
One can see that swing has become less uniform since about 1979, with generally larger standard deviations. Also notice that boundary changes tend to increase the standard deviation due to uncertainty in the notional results. All in all, I would expect the SD to be about 3% at the next election, perhaps slightly more.
btw, we can deduce that shadsy thinks at the moment the Tories have at least a 5% lead, and in practice considerably more…
re 93. See the panel at the top of the story or click here -
http://politicalbetting.bestbetting.com/specials/politics/uk/next-general-election/seat-winner—broxtowe
82 brilliant post!!!!
Mike Smithson rules!!!!!!!!!!
102. Dear me Rod, you and your formulas.
Tessa Jowell: Britain would not have bid for 2012 Olympics if we knew about recession:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/3448188/Tessa-Jowell-Britain-would-not-have-bid-for-2012-Olympics-if–we-knew-about-recession.html
Reminds me of the shameless way Brown tried to take credit for the Olymics medals in China by flying back with the athletes. Holding them up on the plane, whilst he got off it and greeted them in. Brown really has no shame as we have seen today. He will stoop to lows that O should imagine Mandelson cannot stomach.
The worm definetly turned today and Brown shoild apoligise to Cameron IMO.
The move by Balls (which is astute, incidentally) will definitely get referred to next time. Or should anyway. I hope Cameron goes on the economy next week though. Returning to this, except in passing would be an error of judgement.
107. I wonder if the press might actually do their job for a change and investigate this story and the disgrace that is Haringey social services a bit more closely. There’s plenty to dig up, enough to end several careers I suspect if pushed hard enough.
Nick Palmer- very interesting and impartial insight on things. I think you bring a very welcome perspective into this site, and always with good grace, well constructed and written posts, and good manners.
103 Thanks Mike, I thought I’d read the thread carefully, but obviously not. I felt pretty sure it would be Ladbrokes, with the Shadsy connection to PB. Given the Tories’ overall GE odds, I thought their 0.28-1 for Broxtowe quite generous (sorry Nick), but in these tough times, I am disinclined to give Ladbrokes an interest free loan for up to 19 months for such a short priced bet.
99 No I disagree Dez. The death of a child is something to get angry about especially where it was so preventable.
Here’s a formula:
Con gain Broxtowe!!
Frankly I find it pathetic that Labour are trying to link Cameron bringing up this young child’s death to the Broken society campaign.
If Cameron had mentioned Broken society, then Labour would be just in saying that. But Cameron did not and more importantly the Local LD MP also raised it.
I find it astonishing that Brown will try and use the case of a childs death for partisan purpses. But for Labour MP’s then to advocate some sort of “Broken Society” agenda is just sick. This was not a patisan agenda by Cameron - Labour have dealt with this extremley badly and Brown and now Labour need to apoligise.
112. Unless the national Tory lead is less than about 1.7% you’d have to say it’s odds-on that Broxtowe would turn blue, but that of course doesn’t make it anything like a certainty…
111 Voreas it is but that forum is a disgrace.
An the anger is directed in the main at the wrong people.
82 - Mr Speaker finally acts memorably in a way that reflects well on him. Gordon Brown hasn’t got the first idea about how to show human emotion.
I’m starting to get the same feeling about David Cameron’s moral compass that I got about Tony Blair’s. This is not, by the way, a compliment. But it probably is a vote winner.
82.”I thought the Speaker, Michael Martin, did a brilliant job today. He saw the importance of the story and the need for the house to deal with it in a dignified manner.
The biggest losers were the Labour MPs who shouted and heckled - it looked and sounded terrible on the bulletins.”
Not usually a fan of Michael Martin, but today he deserves much credit for the way he handled this situation in light of the serious nature of the issue.
Again, I agree that the behaviour of the Labour backbenches was a disgrace. As with the first PMQ’s after the recess, sometimes the subject being debated in the HoC’s is just to serious to be drowned out by normal partisan noise. And being able to recognise that is a skill that the Labour backbenches increasingly seem to have lost recently.
O/T:
For some light relief:
I just noted Sky saying that people running for public office should be vetted for fitness for public office including mental health problems - I looked at the TV and they had a picture of Brown at the mansion house speech.
113. Also pretty stupid as plenty of people will make precisely that link if prodded and will think Cameron is 100% on the right track.
Rod Crosby - despite being educated to degree level in maths and having worked in derivatives, I can’t understand your formula.
In business strategy, if something is too difficult to understand it is usually b*llocks.
How about Nick Palmer needs a swing of about 3% to lose his seat. The swing will probably be (at least) 10% in England. Nick Palmer loses his seat.
“No more boom and bust”
118. If that were seriously considered it wouldn’t just rule out the misfit in No.10 but about 50% of the House of Commons as well.
116, someone (Gaz?) earlier said that Blair made party political points about the Bulger case. Cameron has notably not done that.
121.
Presumably if the incumbency effect is worth up to about 5%, decreasing after the first re-election, then that means 2nd and subesquent term incumbents are likely to have a larger swing against them than 1st term incumbents and new candidates replacing 1 term MPs but lower swings than new candidates replacing long-serving MPs?
121, to be serious for a moment: it’s entirely possible that mental disorders can actually be beneficially. Savants for example have phenomenal brain power and are usually terrible liars. Psychopaths have excellent charisma and high intelligence. The notion that being mentally unwell is always an entirely bad thing is wrong, I think.
Guido reporting a Hain-related Thinktank controversy. No details.
Also, where is that Yougov poll?
On a positive note, expense fiddler and all round total git Den Dover has been chucked out of the Tory party.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085199/Cameron-kicks-senior-Tory-MEP-facing-fraud-probe-half-million-pound-expenses-scandal.html
re 120 Rod’s formula seems pretty clear cut to me. It’s all well and good if we have a poll conducted in Nick’s seat, but we won’t. A nationwide poll is an average and not every seat will swing the same. Assuming a normal distribution then seems about right to me.
127, Den Dover? Sounds like a comedy transsexual’s pseudonym.
Kudos to Cameron. He was also quick over the Conwy business. Unlike Brown, who dithered for months over Hain.
128. Tories are doing better in the East Mids in all the poll subsamples.
Max £350 on Conservatives/Broxtowe
122 - That was not what I was referring to. I was referring to his ability to persuade himself that he is taking the moral high ground on any subject that he chooses to take on. To borrow Henry Labouchere’s comment on Gladstone: “I don’t object to Gladstone always having the ace of trumps up his sleeve, but merely to his belief that the Almighty put it there.”
132, I still don’t see your point. Cameron was pointing out a conflict of interest with the local review, and not making a party political point. He didn’t need to convince himself he had a moral high ground, and he wasn’t seeking to attack Brown (until the party political allegation).
Is the Guardian site down?
128 Its completely useless for predicting a single seat as it is an average. Would it have predicted Crewe and Nantwich, Glasgow East, Glenrothes? I don’t have an IBM consultant on hand to work out the answer, but I doubt it. Its called over-engineering - looks clever, achieves nothing.
129. Yes I’m not sure if he has a brother called Ben. Great news he’s gone anyway. Shocking man.
120. what it means is, given a national average swing of x, and a standard deviation of 3, the proportion of swings that would be higher than y is the result of the formula. This equates approximately to the chance of an MP with a majority of 2*y losing his/her seat, and the complement is the chance of a hold.
btw, how do I get a job in derivatives?
I’ve been reviewing my GE betting strategy recently and IMHO the longer Brown leaves calling a GE, the bigger the thrashing Labour can expect at the polls. Had he called a GE in Oct or Nov 2008, the result could have been quite close, with perhaps the Tories around 40-50 seats ahead of Labour. By next Spring 2009 this lead may have increased to 90-100 seats and one year later to around 140-150 seats as the economy is gripped by recession and unemployment continues to increase sharply.
To insure against a March 2009 G reducing my potential profit on the GE spreads, I’ve therefore taken Betfair’s odds of 3-1 against there being a GE during the first half of next year.
I’m discounting a GE in the second half of 2009 on the basis that by then, the outlook for Labour will be so grim, Brown will be hanging on like grim death, Micawber style, hoping that something will turn up before he is forced to the polls by or shortly before the deadline of June 2010.
I appreciate that I’m at odds with our genial host, who as of yesterday was continuing to support buying Labour on the spreads - I just can’t see it myself.
84. Don’t forget that White is very biased towards Labour. A better way of measuring Cameron’s success is the fact he made the Government take very important action today. Also it was reported that BBC2 feedback was generally very complimentary regarding Cameron and highly critical of Brown at PMQs . Brown has reminded the commentators of several of his weaknesses and this may well influence a change in the narrative.
135. It’s not predicting anything. It’s assigning a probability, which across numerous seats should produce an expectation of the aggregate number of holds and losses…
115 I think we will have to agree to disagree, my opinion is that the House of Commons should reflect the country, and a wave of disgust and disbelief I think would have gone across the country over this case yesterday. It certainly did in our house, and it was compounded by the fact that this child was seen 60 times by various different state employees. My first thought was after the second time the mother was arrested it was time to properly find out what was going on. Questions need to be asked about this and if necessary people need to lose their jobs.
137 btw, how do I get a job in derivatives?
First, find a solvent bank.
137 To get a job in derivatives all you need to do is work really hard doing 70 hour weeks for about 5 years. Not the typical Labourite approach to work
140 So if it doesn’t predict anything, what is the point in it? What action would a political better take as a result of using your formula?
re 135 no it’s not useless. I presume that your degree level maths didn’t include any statistics.
145 Yes it did include statistics, but only those that had a use in the real world.
143. First get a PhD in theoretical physics with a heavy computational element from a top class university. Second, find a solvent bank. Third, learn to drink vast amounts and become a sexist/ misogynist who frequents lap dancing bars when not working 70 hours weeks…
144: For any event, multiply probability by decimal odds, if it’s above 1 you have value. Deciding how much to stake is tricky, but you can’t go far wrong with (half) Kelly.
“Predicting” events is the classic gambler’s fallacy. It’s why the books make money.
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/contact/complaints/complaint_compliment_or_suggestion_contacts/az_pages.htm
All of those appalled by the way what happened in Haringey was dealt with by the local authority (I hope that could just read “All”), please go to the link above, click on ‘child protection’, then make a complaint. I’ve demanded that some of these clearly incompetent people resign and pointed out that doing so might help them sleep better once they have.
re 146 well so does Rod’s. All statistics is extrapolating what is likely to occur in a population given a measured sample.
141 It should reflect the country in a sober and meaningful way.
If you think that forum today was a dignified way, to understand a childs death, we will leave it at that.
147 Yes Ken its really that easy. Why don’t you do it?
147 LOL - post of the day!
re 151 well at least we’re not as bad as the Urkrainians.
151 I think it was important to raise it, even more important to signal there is something terribly wrong and vital to give it the weight that means there will hopefully be no fudging the issue.
when will betfair put up markets in individual seats
152. Well I suppose I could, but I dont fancy the drinking bit…
151, the lack of dignity was a consequence of the inhumanity of the Labour leader and the bawling from his backbenches. I daresay if Cruddas were the stereotype of Labour the backbenches wouldn’t've behaved so appallingly, and if he had been leader the matter would’ve been answered and addressed in the first question.
156 Probably not before the GE is called.
John Major attacks Brown for screwing the economy up:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5141436.ece
158. I think this was one of those occasions when Brown didn’t lead his party, but followed.
160 Brown will be hoping Major’s intervention is not as powerful as it was last time.
Interesting interview with David Davis in the NS
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2008/11/david-cameron-davis-lead
Mike Smithson- well done for pointing out the spectacular incompetence of Brown, and the braying bunch of partisan numskulls behind in dealing with the child’s death.
I have just watched the sequence of events now, and think that this is probably the most primeministerial I have seen Cameron contrasted against the Palinesque state of the Labour party.
138. He’s stuffed isnt he.
Last year, at the Mansion House, the Prime Minister spoke of “an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London”
The Jonah effect! A unique bit of British politics linked to Brown as the Bradley effect is unique to the states!!!
Why has this caused such a disjunction between “public opinion” and the “Westminster hothouse”? let me explain
In truth few of us truely understand the minutiae of fiscal policy; we have our opinions, but at heart we have to admit that most of the time, our opinions are derived from instinct.
But when it comes to the death of Child P we just know that this is, unequivocally, wrong and any attempt by the politically correct, Guardian reading apologists from the overpaid bossy world of “Social Work” to self justify is simply wrong.Child P is a horrible tragedy, but it is the end result of this deranged world in the target driven world of the public sector where no one is allowed to think, or take action, or take responsibility.
Cameron was articulating a howl of anguish from every parent who has simply had enough of this bizarre charade. He has touched a chord, andthis may be a defining moment.
Good piece Nick and a happy coincidence that we put our first constituency prices out at the same time. Thanks to Mike for highlighting them.
If we priced every Lab/Cons marginal up using Rod’s formula we would, of course, go skint very quickly, but I think it’s a useful tool. As Rod pointed out, you’d have to think the Tories were only 4 or 5 points ahead to give Nick even a 9/4 chance of holding on. We’re happy to give him an above average incumbency boost.
We’ll be putting out maybe a couple of dozen more seats in the next week or two. If anyone’s got any requests, please shout.
138- Peter- after watching PMQ’s just now, and seeing Cameron quickly regain his surefootedness contrasted against Brown’s lumpen, lumpenness, it is very hard to disagree with your analysis.
169 Come on board Tyson and I promise to buy you a fuzzy tree lapel badge!
164. Crikey, that’s some comment, coming as it does from a Labour partisan. I begin to wonder whether Brown really has had a ‘Ratner moment’ as suggested earlier today. Certainly suggestions that he is enjoying some kind of ‘Falklands moment’ seem very far off the mark today.
169
Tyson take a look at Nick Robinsons comments. Two support Brown out of over 100 and NR himself comes in for some fairly strident criticm.
http://blogs.bbc.co.uk/nickrobinson/
Thats what people outside the Westminster village think
I’ve just seen today’s PMQs and I’m frankly astonished. Gordon Brown has gone DOWN in my estimation. Something I thought was no longer possible. David Cameron looked rightly shocked and I realised after the exchange ended that my mouth was gaping. Labour probably killed off the ‘Brown bounce’ today.
re 171 which is why it is very useful and valuable to listen to what tyson and StJohn (for example) have to say on the Labour party and Bob Sykes on the Tories.
169 - I observed the following from PMQs today - 1) Brown can never resist the temptation to score party political points off the Tories, whatever the subject, and whether it makes any sense at all. (See also the nonsensical call for the mysterious ‘Authorities’ to investigate Osborne over the unpleasantness on the Yacht.) 2) Brown is incapable of operating without a script. Given the sheer breadth of c*ck-ups this government has been responsible for this gives Cammo almost limitless scope to trip him up with things he hasn’t prepared for.
Bring these two things together and it gives Cameron a rich seam to mine over the next few months.
On topic. Sorry Nick. Incumbency or not, look for something else to do after the general election.
174. I wouldn’t categorise StJohn as a Labour partisan, I don’t think. That would be very unfair - he’s a punter who happens to be a Labour supporter as well.
171 - Not sure it’s fair to call Tyson a Labour Partisan. I have no doubt his sympathies lie left of centre but he is a free thinker rather than any kind of partisan (IMHO)
176. David, could you send me an e-mail at woody662@hotmail.com
Just watched the BBC report of PMQ’s. Didn’t really represent the shocking performamce Brown put in. Think he’ll be happy with the edit.
164. I dont think it is fair to bring the name of the first female president of the usa (to be) into it.
While Mrs Palin may have appeared utterly awful in some interviews, others appearances have shown a smart witty, confident woman who should not be underestimated.
180 - Well there’s a surprise.
160.Martin that is a damning article from Major, and it will resonate, just as Ken Clark’s comments will too. And I am not in the least bit surprised to see these senior politicians from the previous Tory government now pointing to the severity this recession, or how ill prepared we are thanks to Brown’s stewardship of the economy.
Also interesting to note Major’s caution about large tax cuts and fuelling the public debt further. Nigel Lawson seems to be of a similar opinion IIRC, so its interesting to see the current Shadow Treasury team reflecting that view in its approach.
161.”158. I think this was one of those occasions when Brown didn’t lead his party, but followed.”
A very canny observation SallyC.
Today’s effort at PMQ confirmed Labours GE defeat and that Brown is the worst PM of all time!
178. Oh I think he is. Not of the Millbank dalek type like some of the mystery astroturfers we get on here - he strays off the party line often enough. But his sympathies, instincts and prejudices are overwhelmingly Labour.
re 177 I wasn’t - what I was saying that StJohn is a Labour supporter who occasionally (increasingly so perhaps) lets us know - honestly - how perhaps the average Labour supporter is feeling. Whereas, Gabble for instance would champion the Labour cause even if the Times had, for instance photographic evidence of Brown with his hand in the till.
9 from that blog entry I follow a link to this
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/172710/diff/3/4
hmmmmmmmm, what to make of that then
180. He won’t be happy with ITN though. Bradby really put the boot in on Brown.
171- runnymede- I have only just seen this exchange now, but as this is a subject area I that I am very familiar with, I would like to make a few comments;
clearly Cameron cares about this subject matter
clearly Cameron asked an extremely well informed and probing question
clearly Brown missed the point
clearly Brown tried to make it partisan
clearly the back bench labour MP’s missed the point
clearly the back bench labour MP’s acted in a partisan fashion
This is a hugely emotive subject, and Cameron showed a breadth, and sense of purpose that showed to me something that he hasn’t before that transcends politics.
I do not think that I am going over the top but today Cameron displayed an “Obama” moment, and Brown behaved like Sarah Palin.
Anyone who wants to play with the seat probability Excel widget - without the heavy math - can find it here…
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/seatchance.xls
180. The BBC has tried very hard indeed to ignore this story today. Another example of how damaging it is - instructions have obviously been received and understood.
186. Yes, on that we can agree, I think.
186 Chris A - Your ‘hand in the till’ reminds me that I did really quite like Clegg’s comment that Brown was like a “petty pickpocket”. I don’t find Clegg at all inspiring generally but I thought that was pretty good stuff.
170.”169 Come on board Tyson and I promise to buy you a fuzzy tree lapel badge!”
PfP, don’t forget to add in a cute and cuddle red squirrel, I might even persuade Tyson to join that small band of Scottish Tories instead.
189. Yes, I agree entirely (strange feeling…!)
Labour’s move to announce an inquiry just before 6pm was designed to ensure that less of PMQs was shown on the News bulletins as part of the story was now that there would be an inquiry.
Despite that a good amount of PMQs was shown. I’d say the BBC1 10pm News was good for Cameron - it showed Cameron’s main attack, Brown accusing him of Party politics and the MPs jeering. Cameron could not have asked for more than that - there is no way they would have devoted the time required to show the opening bits as well.
OT
Markets
Too busy trading USD/GBP to read much.
FTSE reminds me of the 1971-74 pattern when the FT Ordinary Index lost 70% of its value in 2.5 years.
No rallies stuck… lots of sideways moves and big falls.
Seems the best prior example I can come up with..
(1929 is too apocalyptic..).
I expect big dividend cuts next year to conserve cash..
As for pension schemes, I expect several pension trustees when this is all over are likely to find themselves being sued for neglect of duty. Many schemes are chnronically uunderfunded and are likely to effectively become insolvent and the parent companies unable to ever fund them properly.
170/193- Peter and ChrisD- jokes aside, I have been genuinely touched by Cameron’s interest in this subject, and his show of integrity and human decency today. I saw a glimmer of someone who can transcend politics, and maybe, just maybe he has the makings of a great PM.
183. ChristinaD. While I agreed with most of what John Major wrote in his article, it doesnt alter the fact that JM was a rubbish PM, and it’s faintly embarrassing to see him poking his head above the parapet. It’s a bit like Neil Kinnock writing supportive things for Labour. Well meaning, but embarrassing, a reminder of a failed past. Not as toe curling as Norman Lamont of course. (He is the Tory equivalent of Michael Foot).
Off topic, but a favourite one, if you think that no other swimmer has much of a chance other than Rebecca Adlington you can back her at 4.6 on Betfair currently and also lay Any Other Sport in the winning sport market (swimming isn’t listed separately) at 3.5. There’s a fair amount available as well.
197. Well well…this is a long way from your previous class-obsessed vitriol old fellow. Roger will never speak to you again.
178 Tyson is not a Labour stooge. And he is kind to his dog. Not too bad at all.
180.”Just watched the BBC report of PMQ’s. Didn’t really represent the shocking performamce Brown put in. Think he’ll be happy with the edit.”
What a contrast with ITN and Sky news coverage, which both seemed to quite fairly sum up what actually happened in the right order and context. I saw the BBC coverage at 6pm, and I honestly believe that you would have had to put a bit of thought into how you edited that story to come up with that result. It basically sanitised the government’s behaviour today at PMQ’s, and later when Ed Balls desperately tried to do damage limitation with a hastily convened enquiry.
I mean, instead of showing Cameron’s response to Brown today at PMQ’s, the BBC bizarrely chose to show him sitting with some children elsewhere?
But, at the end of the day it was Ed Balls and his department that were caught totally off guard by developments today, and they shouldn’t have been! And judging by Ed Balls reaction at PMQ’s, he knew it.
Chelsea season over.
Rare that the little team wins on penalties!!!!1
201 - ….and he supports Man City, for which he, and the rest of us, deserve a little bit of sympathy….
198. Although his premiership was riddlied with problems, inflation was pretty much killed for a long time and the seeds sown for 16 years of growth on his watch. Shame Labour took the credit and squandered it but that’s another issue.
Tyson, which news report did you see?
178/201- fleet and sally- thanks for this exchange.
I think Fleet’s description (178) is pretty much on the money. And yes, I am kind (on occasion) to little Trotsky, who now needs a walk. G’night all.
198.Ken, we will have to disagree on that issue. Major was never ever a hated figure as a PM, it was his party that had served for far too long after their expiry date. Do not underestimate the appeal of Major, or the fact that he can still very ably put across his point and do damage to Brown and this government.
202. Yes I start to wonder whether the BBC’s next step will just be to show archive footage of Brown waving, followed by cuts to pictures of an adoring throng. The extent to which they are going to protect and boost him at the moment is reminiscent of state-controlled TV in Romania or East Germany in the 1970s.
205. Please don’t engage in revisionism about John Major. He was an awful PM, awful party leader. Out of his depth in every sense. He did enormous and largely unnecessary damage to the Conservative cause in 1992-1997.
Major was not hated - despised and patronised yes
118 - I saw that and had no doubt it was deliberate
Not a good day for Labour at all.
204- ukPaul- but they are now the wealthiest club in the universe and shortly will win everything;
206-sally-I just watched Mike’s link to see what all the fuss was about, and then realised what it was all about.
Now Trotsky is off out
Did anyone see the GDP projection graph just shown on Newsnight?
It indicated the range of possible GDP growth going forward. The outer upward projection for the recovery in around 2011/12 was growth of 7%!!!
That seems extraordinary.
re 213 If you want to see it from the horses mouth, I posted the link earlier.
168. I’d be grateful if you could price Sefton Central, shadsy, [and please use Martin Baxter's notionals
]
re 213/4 oops wrong link, that was the inflation one. The growth one is here.
202 ChristinaD
SKY must have changed tact from this afternoon if they are being fair.
Joey Jones’s detailed report immediately after PMQs was quite damning for Brown but they gradually diluted it and spun it for Labour.
Glen ‘thingy’ went so far as to say that the woman who was supposed to head up the enquiry might not be doing so and therefore it made a mockery of Cameron’s attack. They had been briefed about this post event and you have to ask why Brown didn’t give that answer at the time, if that was the case.
Boulton gave another set of pathetic excuses.
Perhaps they have had complaints? Certainly after Deripaska, Boulton seemed conscious and rather upset that his impartiality was being questioned by so many viewers.
Maybe they have decided that the BBC way of putting your fingers in your ears and humming a Labour tune is not the way to go.
re 213 and similarly there’s the same probability that growth will be -3.5% next year.
208 ChristinaD. We will have to agree to disagree. Yes, the foundations of economic stability were built up there (the main reason is actually the Thatcher reforms of the 80s and the receding of the damage caused by said reforms). But, we are talking about the cones hotline, rail privatisation, and the man who was depicted by Spitting image wearing his underpants over his trousers. He really is the Neil Kinnock of the Conservative party. Not a bad person, but not exactly remembered as a great leader.
216 that graph = we havent a frigging clue
219. Yes, and worst of all the monumental, unforgiveable twin errors of the ERM and Maastricht which wrecked the Conservative party for more than a decade and opened the field for the monstrosity of New Labour.
219. Rail privatisation was an almighty cockup, but ironically has resulted in a new age of the train, with dramatically improved safety, and massive increases in passenger usage.
I wonder what effect all this will have on Brown’s preformance at PMQs.
His inability to give a straight answer comes from his lack of confidence in his own anwsers. Today can’t have helped. We will see a determined effort to keep to the economy in future. Not that there aren’t dangers there.
222 - … massive increase in passenger usage, many of them paying £5K per year to stand in a corridor.
Bitter, moi?
222. The only reason train usage is going up is because of the sheer national embarrassment that is Britain’s road network.
Our rail network is still - largely - an utter bloody shambles more befitting of a third world country.
Nick - very thoughtful article. My perception is that Labour MPs are now more tuned in to constituency service than many Tory MPs were in the mid-1990s, though obviously there will be plenty of exceptions.
The amount of casework MPs do for constituents is staggering. Councils have huge staffs and multiple departments to provide services to local residents; MPs, each of whom is the main advocate before government of an area with 60,000+ residents, manage with two offices and maybe half a dozen staff each.
Would there be a case for a publicly-owned (and staffed) constituency office in each constituency, that passes from MP to MP? It could be in the town hall, and might even gain considerable local prestige. Such a system would reduce actual or perceived abuse of MPs’ allowances - indeed it would greatly reduce the level of allowances required altogether.
209.”He was an awful PM, awful party leader. Out of his depth in every sense. He did enormous and largely unnecessary damage to the Conservative cause in 1992-1997.”
I think the complete opposite, if anything, he was at the time just about the only figure that could keep the party together. Its why he won that leadership contest. Parts of the Westminster party on the other hand did enormous and largely unnecessary damage to the Conservative cause in 1992-1997.
And from the same BOE report, if you like to bet on the financials. Their estimate for the probabilities of the oil price in 3 months time is
>$81.40 p=0.26 or 3/1
>$99.70 p=0.10 or 9/1
>$121.50 p=0.038 or 25/1
Just seen the PMQs thing in full
Cameron came across as genuine and passionate, Brown came across quite poorly, but not quite as bad as it was made out by some earlier. The party political thing was a fairly cheap trick, but not as brazen as some claimed.
To me the most irritating thing about him is he really doesn’t answer the question! And Cameron’s point was entirely fair, he was merely putting to him what Brown’s own children’s commissioner had said.
Brown was not, at least, stuttering and shaking, which is an improvement. I suspect this will be fairly quickly forgotten in terms of bad press for Brown, but Cameron was very human, a million miles from the Rogeresque Bullingdon caricatures. A similar thing happened in his conference speech about the NHS I recall, he was quite emotional then. Will do him good.
210.Ken, just remember Major in all the TV/Radio news stations last year after Brown’s infamous trip to Iraq during the Tory Conference. His timely intervention, and the fact that he was no longer in front line politics did a lot of damage to Brown that day.
216. Thanks - I see it’s actually 6% - it looked like 7% on the TV.
Given that no-one else has taken advantage of the almost free money I mentioned at 199, I’m beginning to think that there’s some expensive flaw in my reasoning.
229 - It’s been observed on here before (forgive me for not attributing this, but I can’t recall) that Cameron is at his most effective when he is genuinely angry.
225: Not in my experience. It’s really quite good, if expensive. Been up to Newcastle this year, and into and out of london a few times. Never more than 10 mins late, always clean, and the information on board is infinitely better now.
Admittedly I don’t commute daily, but there’s only so much to be done about the overcrowding issue.
A million more unemployed will help i guess
230. Agreed - that Major intervention was the single most important thing in destroying the Brown bounce last year.
Crick on Newsnight - ‘Brown came out of the exchanges pretty badly….. Report tonight appears to be pretty much what Mr Cameron was asking for’
Angriest political scenes since Adam Boulton’s ‘woman scored’ after the non-election
234. I commute daily - and not even to London, but in the other direction, and I reinforce my earlier point: The rail system (here in the South at least) is a disaster.
227. He didn’t keep the party together - by appeasing a europhile minority he split it, and drove away large numbers of activists and supporters. Some of the voters he alienated are only now being persuaded to come back and vote Tory again.
Do we think that the intervention of two Big Beasts from the Tory Past on the economy today is a coincidence (or is it part of some machiavellian Osborne plot?)
236 me ‘woman scorned’
236 - Cripes - that must have stuck in Crick’s craw..
re 231 I think the width of the fans compared with past ones shows that basically the Bank hasn’t got a clue.
Also remember that Darling with all the backing of the Treasury economists behind us confidently told us only in March that growth this year would be somewhere between +2¼ and +2¾%.
Crick should do something with that hair.
Shambles.
232. I think the answer is that if Hoy wins you lose both bets.
241 actually he was pretty matter of fact about it! It was almost ‘yup, Brown was a real ass, banged to rights here’
135/144. It may interest you to know that the famous “66″ majority, which won the BBC such plaudits in 2005, was arrived at without “predicting” the result in a single seat!… but by assigning probabilities and then summing them across all seats.
see. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/statistics/staff/academic/firth/papers/curticefirth.pdf [pp. 9-12]
The normal distribution of swing method I posted is a simplified version of this approach…
Benedict Brogan on Will Tories be dumb enough to give Brown the scalp he wants?
“If the Tories are wondering what to give Gordon Brown for Christmas, how about the head of George Osborne? Nothing would cheer the Prime Minister more than the removal of the Shadow Chancellor, ideally in a wrapping of recrimination and Tory backstabbing. Imagine the rejoicing around the No10 tree as Mr Brown contemplates the corpse of the Conservative party’s chief election strategist and economic frontman. How earnestly he must wish for such a gift.
And it looks like some Tories are willing to give him what he wants. In the weeks since yachtgate the ether has been crowded with whispers and questions about Mr Osborne’s fitness for the job. The FT has produced a useful distillation of the situation today. In essence, if Mr Osborne doesn’t sharpen up, turn the tables on the PM, and put the Tories on course for tax cuts, he’s toast. Or so the argument goes.
I’ll leave the merits of the Tory economic policy to others. At the moment it looks ropey, but largely because Mr Brown is playing crack dealer to the nation’s debt addicts (who wants to hear about prudence?). But those Conservatives muttering about Boy George should be in no doubt that the biggest favour they could do Labour is to drum him out and install William Hague.
Mr Osborne is more resilient than people realise, and will bounce back. For energy, enthusiasm and political sharpness he still outclasses most of his colleagues. His bigger mistake was to think that because he’s a rich guy, he can carry on behaving like one. I suspect he knows this. David Cameron’s weird reluctance to implement his threat against frontbenchers with outside interests speaks to the bigger problem facing the Conservatives: their love for the lavish life at a time of national belt tightening. Mr Brown has spotted what it thinks is ambiguity in Mr Cameron’s support for his friend and sidekick, and will hammer away, knowing that there are Tories fool enough to help his dirty work.”
This tripe about the government fearing someone like William Hague as Shadow Chancellor is so transparent, and absolutely cr*p!
If some in the Tory party want to show it has not changed after 11 years in opposition, it just needs to fall into this trap.
And Benedict is right, for energy, enthusiasm and political sharpness Osborne still outclasses most of his colleagues by a long way.
242. He was nearly right, just substitute the + for a -
Councillors swapping parties happens all the time, but I thought this letter by Lincolnshire Councillor Lindsey Cawry - today - regarding her defection is linked to the ‘Gordon Brown is a muppet’ narrative of these past few threads:
_____________________________
“I have become disenchanted with the Labour government and I can no longer remain in the Labour Party that I have served for the past six years. It has taken many months to align my conscience with my actions, however, I regret to say that I no longer feel comfortable in a Party led by Gordon Brown. My decision was based on my inability to reconcile my conscience with the ‘leadership’ of Gordon Brown, the current government’s lack of direction, its lack of positive leadership and its refusal to listen to the people of the country.
“My ideals and principles are now more in-line with the Conservatism of David Cameron. Therefore, I have made the decision to join the Conservative Party from where I feel better able to serve the best interests of the people of Lincolnshire.
“I shall not be standing again in the County Council seat of Lincoln Boultham at the next County Council election in 2008.”
____________________________________
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2008/11/defection-watch.html
AVE IT
AVE IT
AVE IT
AVE IT
AVE IT
AVE IT
250 - Couldn’t agree more, old chap.
re 244 quite right it is - thanks. I’ve put some on to cover that eventuality.
249. Doesn’t represent a marginal seat, by any chance?
251
Where’s Mark Senior these days? Did he take the bet that there would be no recession in the end?
239.”Do we think that the intervention of two Big Beasts from the Tory Past on the economy today is a coincidence (or is it part of some machiavellian Osborne plot?)”
Oh, I don’t think its a coincidence, and don’t forget Nigel Lawson is in on the act too. Because not only are they attacking the government, they are in effect backing the present leadership economic stance not to be bounced into sweeping tax cuts or deeper borrowing.
253: Under Gordon Brown, all Labour seats are marginal
It’s how he keeps them in line…….
255 Mark senior is projected to grow at -2.5% next year……
255. I miss his measured contributions and unflappable demeanour, I must say.
I would like to add my voice to the condemnation of Gordon Brown and his comments today.
I would also like to congratulate David Cameron for asking Brown a question which he was totally unprepared for. It completely caught Brown on the back foot. However, I can’t help but think Cameron WAS playing clever party politics in choosing to ask that particular question at PMQ’s. Not being critical at all of him doing so, it’s his job to make Brown look the uncaring lumbering idiot he is.
However, let’s not get carried away. When the election is finally called, it will be all about the economy and that is Brown’s home ground. There will be very few voters placing their cross based upon this incident today.. although I guess it could slew the next one or two polls slightly as it will be still fresh in the minds of some.
256 - Suspected not! Nice to see old Clarke lumbering into the fray.
247 - On Osborne, mischievous article by the Sage of Glenrothes there. Stirring in the guise of giving the Tories advice. Suspect I would be inclined to check anything coming from him for a Number 10 watermark.
253. Could be.
General Election 2005: Lincoln
Labour——–Gillian Merron 16,723 45.4 -8.5
Conservative–Karl McCartney 12,110 32.9 +1.7
Liberal Dem—Lisa Gabriel 6,715 18.2 +5.5
Majority: 4,163
Labour gain in 1997 with a majority of 11,000, which has slowly been chipped away.
249 Muppet must be the word of the day. I’ve just called Robinson one on his blog.
This comment left on his blog is interesting:
‘I guess this won’t get past the moderators but why did the bbc change this:
Labour backbencher Jon Cruddas told BBC Two’s Daily Politics the case of Baby P was “beyond politics” adding: “David Cameron was absolutely right to raise it.”
to this:
Labour backbencher Jon Cruddas told BBC Two’s Daily Politics the case of Baby P was “beyond politics” adding that Mr Brown’s answers did “shine a positive light” on his party.
in the news story?
This kind of bias is an appaulling abuse of the bbcs position.’
Its worse when you remember Cruddas said it DIDN’T shine a positive light on his party.
But of course we all imasgine the bias!
256. Perhaps Lord Healey can be wheeled out to support Labour’s view. On the other hand perhaps not…
262 Merron = 18 months from the P45!!!!
263 - If we had a to choose a specific muppet for Robinson to be, one could do a lot worse than this fellow -
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Dr._Bunsen_Honeydew
263
They have obviously realised they;ve been sussed and changed it back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7724541.stm
I am still about but having computer access problems . Getting rid of Virgin Media and BT ( YEAH !!!! ) to get both Internet Broadband and Phone supplied by Tiscali .
267. Clearly nothing more than a mere typo then, hahaha.
267 - Looks like the Stealth Editing Department is a 24 hour operation, then.
Do not know whether anyone has commented on this earlier. Having watch PMQs a couple of times tonight, I believe Cameron pushed the papers off the despatch box as a clear sign to his colleagues that he was jettisoning the prepared questions.
260. Also from a poster on Nick Robinson’s blog
“Nick,
A lot of people here are accusing you and the BBC of bias towards the Labour party (and I mean A LOT of people).
But now it seems to have got so blatant that it is obviously counter-productive and your efforts are actually driving people to the Conservatives.”
266:
Dr Bunsen Honeydew! Modelled on Sir Lew Grade, of course:
http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/lewgrade1.jpg
266 - I’d also like to note that I feel my life has been immeasurably improved by the knowledge that there is a Wiki devoted to the Muppets. I suspect my productivity at work tomorrow might suffer…. (on top of the damage PB already does to it)
272 - Maybe it’s all an elaborate ploy by Red Robbo - a deep cover CCHQ agent all along.
Get your money on Begich to take the Alaska senate seat -
New totals with some strong democrat areas to count.
Stevens 118602
Begich 117631
Was previously -
Stevens 106594
Begich 103337
26302 votes counted today
Today’s count
Stevens 45.65%
Begich 54.35%
Many votes still to be counted.
260.”However, let’s not get carried away. When the election is finally called, it will be all about the economy and that is Brown’s home ground.”
Penny, absolute right about the next GE being about the economy, but not so sure that Brown will be on home ground when it comes around.
He does grandiose statements, and throws down commands like a Moses, but he is not good in a crisis. He simple does not have the leadership skills required by a PM on a Sunny day, never mind when its raining. What we have seen recently, and I mean just the last couple of weeks, is a tighten up No10 spin operation trying to cover up his obvious weaknesses after his faltering performance during the week of the Banking meltdown.
Honestly, think back over the last few weeks, its all been spin and news management rather than substance. But as today at PMQ’s showed, he simple cannot think on his feet with out all the back room help. That press operation is going to be very difficult to maintain during a hectic GE campaign, when you need to be on duty for long hours and with often unplanned set pieces with the media and the public.
Over the last few weeks since the banking crisis, we have in effect had the phoney economic war, but when we hit the grinding day to day reality of a bad recession and people get angry, he want be any more able to empathise or accept his part in it all.
I still don’t think that Brown will be there leading the government during the next GE, and I think that Mandelson is already campaigning to shore up his own position in this present government. And if Brown is not up to the job, Mandelson will know someone that is.
In fact, Mandelson is desperately trying to do what Blair always advised him too, get the Labour party to learn to love you.
268. Glad to hear ot Mark. Just swopped to virgin and it’s brilliant. 10 meg after a year of half a meg from bt. Tiscali is a nightmare, was off for 3 weeks once, useless call centre.
261.Fleet of the Worlds, the Labour party have already tried that one with Brogan recently with regards Osborne. No, I think that this little article is Brogan’s payback for that bit of briefing/counter briefing that the government used him for. I would put money on it being genuine.
277 - ChristinaD - agree wholeheartedly with your comments re - Phony war.
One gets a sense that many people believe that the banking crisis was the sum total of the economic trauma we face. The reality is that we have many quarters of economic agony to come.
Retail at the moment feels like a jumbo jet with the engines flaming out one by one. Sometime in January there’s going to be an ominous silence in the cockpit.
267 One of the bloggers on Robinson’s site subsequently makes reference to the fact that the link stopped working for a while.
You don’t have to be a detective!
278 Virgin were OK when I first switched to them but have had problems recently which they made no effort to solve until after I cancelled . Will have to see re Tiscali , their call centre cannot possivly be as bad as BT who surely have the worst call centre in the UK or to ve more accurate India .
282 - All I will say is avoid TalkTalk like the plague. Frankly it’s a miracle I can post this at all.
282. Same standard I’m afraid. Both are horrific, knowing my luck virgin will crash for a month now.
I’m with AOL. I’ve been getting a bit fed up with them recently and have been thinking of changing, but I read all these horror stories about other ISP’s and its stops me in my tracks. Since signing up with AOL for dial-up in 2000 and then switching to AOL Broadband in 2004 I have never had one day when I haven’t been able to sign on at some point. Perhaps I shouldn’t rock the boat when things seem to work compratively smoothly?
277. Christina..if there is one area he is capable of thinking on his feet, it’s with the economy.
I think we have to look at how the “grinding day to day reality of a bad recession” is likely to hit the average voter.
The average voter will look at his mortgage repayments, which are generally on the way down and if the BOE is to be believed, likely to fall further next year. The average voter will look at the tax cuts he is receiving in his pay packet. The average voter will look at inflation which is likely to fall next summer as the large gas and electricity increases this year, drop out of the equation.
The average voter is not all that bright or politically or economically astute, which is why Labour have managed to stay in Office for so long.
Yes, there will probably be a hefty increase in unemployment by the time of the next election, but although that will affect SOME average voters, it will not affect a large percentage of average voters.
The average voter is not economically astute enough to realise that reduced taxes have to be paid for in the future. The average voter will be busy counting their mortgage savings rather than seeing falling interest rates as a sign that the economy is going down the tubes.
Sorry to be so pessimistic and damning about the political awareness and intelligence of the average voter in this country, but this what we.. and the Conservatives are up against, in my opinion.
285.I too have been with AOL for about 8 years, in fact, since we went online. And apart from one blip recently, never had any problems with them.
286.That was a very interesting post Penny.
“The average voter is not all that bright or politically or economically astute, which is why Labour have managed to stay in Office for so long.”
I think that you are wrong on all counts there, but if the Labour party wish to believe that of the electorate after 11 years, then they obviously didn’t learn the lessons they need to simple just to survive the next few months, never mind carnage in a GE.
Think I heard that the maximum sentence that can be passed on the two men involved is 14 years? If so, those monsters could be back on the streets in 7 years.
286.”Christina..if there is one area he is capable of thinking on his feet, it’s with the economy.”
When Brown’s media performance for a simple evening news slot is so dire, that it ends up doing the rounds on the internet, as well as requiring editing…
I didn’t say that the Labour Party wished to believe that of the electorate.
I am just giving my opinion of the average voter.
286 Unemployment in itself is not a vote loser . There will always be many more voters in employment than unemployed . Fear of unemployment however is a vote loser therefore for Labour to have a chance at winning a 2010 GE , the recession and the level of unemployment needs to be clearly past their peaks .
Front pages:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Thursdays-Papers-Newspaper-Front-Pages-For-Thursday-November-13-2008/Media-Gallery/200811215150416?lpos=Home_Left_Promo_Region_0&lid=GALLERY_15150416_Thursdays_Papers%3A_Newspaper_Front_Pages_For_Thursday_November_13%2C_2008
285. Yeah, they may not be the cheapest out there, but at least they are reliable and you get the internet when you want it!
Anyway, back to politics.
With all the upraor over PMQ’s I’ve onlu just gotten round to looking at the detail of todays announcement on unemployment - And what a disaster they are! Unemployment has seen its biggest monthly increase since 1992 and now stands at its highest level for 11 years. In other words, its back to where it was when Labour first took over. All of those years when unemployment just kept on going down and down have been completely wiped out in just a few months.
Only a couple of months ago so called “economic experts” were claiming that unemployment would top 2m by the end of the recession - Now it looks as though we’re going to top it before the end of the year! As unemployment is a lagging indicator and we’ve only really started going into recession, I think its highly likely that it’ll carrying on rising through 2009 and probably even into 2010 (when a lot of the other indicators should be showing signs of recovery) and it looks like we’ll be well over 3m unemployed by that time. Thats 3m men and women who can’t afford their mortgage. To pay for food for their children. To look after elderly or sick relatives. 3m individual tragadies.
289 It is 14 years.
It was an offence brought in to combat the difficulty of proving murder when the child lives with more than one person and they both/all point the finger at each other.
Sadly it doesn’t carry life.
286. But against that far more people have savings rather than mortgages. True their savings are generally much smaller sums but they are still just as important to people who have them. More people will lose savings income than will save mortgage interest.
Next there are also a large proportion of people on fixed rate mortgages who will not get any saving anyway.
Also remember (almost) no retired people have mortgages and this is the fastest growing group of people and is by a long way the most likely to vote.
Finally more people are affected by Unemployment than at first glance - if 3 million are unemployed add their Partners and also other family members who may also be affected in some way (if not financially then emotionally). That makes a lot of people.
292. Actually not necessarily so Mark! There are all the Pensioners to start with, students, NEATS (18+), Home makers, people signed off from work such or unable to work because of illness or medical condition and of course the unemployed.
One also has to take off the Economic immigrants (From the employed side) as well who cannot vote in National elections. In a serious recession, which looks likely you might see another 1 Million plus or so unemployed. So of actual voters it may actually start getting closer than you think!
Also on the stuff we’ve heard from Mervyn King - Truely extraordinary! Interest rates may be cut to 0%. Inflation will most probably fall below 0%. This is truely incredible and frightening. If rates fall below 0% then all the savers across the land will lose the interest that so many rely on! If inflation falls below 0% workers will be looking at pay cuts - Which will surely lead to wave after wave of industrial unrest. Its an utterly exceptional situation we’re in here. Very worrying.
There’s no shroud too small for Cameron’s cynicism.
And I mighty add, how on earth was it ever allowed to get this bad? All those responsible need to be given their P45’s starting with Brown!
298 You blue harpie doomsters do make the most ludicrous posts sometimes . Not many weeks ago you were spreading doom and gloom about inflation at 5 plus % now you are saying it will be doom if it falls to zero . What rate of inflation will you be happy with ?
Reading through posts from this morning, I’m forced to ask again: Why would anyone who wants Labour to lose the next election advise the Tories to commit electoral suicide by changing shadow chancellor?
And how often has an opposition changed shadow chancellor so close to an election anyway?
Here’s an idea and bear in mind I thought of it while driving home fairly drunk so it may be total rubbish. Try this on for size: John Redwood to replace Midshipman Osborne when he finally goes - as he must. JR seems to have done a far better job of holding the government to account and articulating an alternate set of economic ideas than GO so why not reward him. JR is the sort of vaguely frightnening Tory the lower orders respect and he’d do a great job as Shadow Chancellor.
Right now Osborne isn’t going anywhere.
303. That would be the WORST possible thing for Cameron to do.
301. Well not a negative level thats for sure. Mark, stable, well functioning economies do not have negative inflation. If that happens its a sign that something very serious has gone wrong.
I thought of it while driving home fairly drunk -
Not something i would advertise mate!
303.And Redwood is not going to be Shadow Chancellor.
305. Agreed. As a so called “blue harpie” I’d actually consider voting Lib-Dem if Redwood got anywhere near being given the shadow chanellorship!
276. At that rate you would need 11,172 more votes in the same ratio for Stevens’s lead to be closed. How many is “many more”?
308 so what level of inflation and interest rates do you want ?
302.LS, it would be electoral suicide.
311 sorry refers to 306 .
I’d rather have Redwood than Cable.
At least Redwood has become aware of his oddness.
Cable is self-satisfied smug and sneering.
308. Grow up.
307. I wasn’t advertising; I was just explaining the context of my searing insight. While my right brain was fully occupied with preventing the car from going in a ditch my left brain was liberated to come up with my brilliantly counter-intuitive idea. Mate.
312. Exactly. I just don’t get it.
168. Newport East please. Mainly so I can boost my ego by handing down bullsh*t condesceningly (what else does anyone use the internet for?) and passing it off as inside info.
(All that said I’ll stand by my prediction of Newport East as a Lib Dem gain, or at least a seat that’s much closer than people expect).
315 referes to 306 which said it refered to 308!
no that’s wrong. 319 referes to 315 which …well it wasn’t aimed at you GIN - it was aimed at Mark who accidentally aimed at me. Get it?
317 Its not going to happen so you don’t need to get it.
319 ???????????????????????????
303 In ht eevnt of a DC govt,I’m sue he’ll serve finely
Mark, 2.5% inflation is the level at which the economy has been functioning well. That the BoE target. Seems like a perfectly reasonable rate to aim for. Interest rates need to vary on the circumstances, but again a 0% rate doesn’t sound like its something that would be desirable in a well functioing economy.
Take a look a this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation
And tell me that you aren’t worried by the prospect of a period of deflation.
If inflation falls below 2% Merv will have to write another letter.
325-He’s getting used to this!
Thanks for the comments on the piece - nothing special to add. The idea at 226 of permanent non-partisan staff is interesting. One advantage would be continuity, another that the staff wouldn’t all lose their jobs if their MP does. A drawback is that it would resemble the split between elected councillors and full-time officers, which in my experience doesn’t always work well: the officers reckon they know best, the councillors think they should be able to micro-manage. There’s a lot to be said for having staff who you’ve chosen because you reckon you’ll work well together, rather than just inheriting someone.
The phrase “repulsive little worm” doesn’t really describe Gabble. He’s more a kind of… turd… that has somehow gained the power of human speech.
The Voice from the U-bend. The Voice of New Labour.
Ugh.
326 Perhaps he could just text.
What Mark is saying is kind of like someone that has high blood pressure welcoming having low blood pressure. Hypertension is bad, but hypotension isn’t something that anyone with hypertension should be aiming for either. Theres a nice balance at which the body functions well. Its the same with the econoy. Thats my take on it anyway.
329-lol!
“Tories face tough choices - and moving George Osborne is one of them”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/13/do1302.xml
324 A short period of deflation does not give me any cause for worry at all just as a short period of inflation at 5% plus did not justify the hyaterical comments of the doom and gloom blue harpies .
332 He is right about one thing. Moving him is unthinkable.
333. I see your enforced period of internet silence has not enabled you to grow a brain in the interim. Shame.
328.Sean, saw your posts earlier today regarding Brown being put up as the Saviour of the global economy. Did you see Newsnight tonight?
If you didn’t, its worth watching Paxo interviewing Lord Darzy(? have I got it right), Seltzer &Co. I think that narrative is about to change, there are rumblings in the global ranks.
Bear in mind it is quite likely that Tiscali’s UK operations will be bought by Sky in the near future.
332. I would go along with much of that. It think it would be desirable for Osborne to go to party chairman and Hague or Clarke to take over as shadow chacellor. But I also can’t see it happening, as Cameron is too close to Osborne. However, if Osborne was himself to ask for a move, then that would be interesting….
33. Well good for you. I have to say it scares the hell out of me, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
336. It was actually Lord Desai.
I only point this out as a few months ago a massive row broke out on this very website when there was previous confusion between Lord Desai and Lord Darzi.
Poor seanT - it’s not been a good day for him. Even the tories were giving their head boy a kicking over his woeful grasp of simple economics.
If the Dems can grab the Alaska Senate seat (as now appears likely) and win the Minnesota seat in a recount (as also appears likely given the a Democrat is in charge of the recount process and given the interesting pattern of Dems nearly always gaining against Republicans in recounts), that would give the Dems 59 Senate seats, undoubtedly a veto-proof margin. This would give Obama Carter-like congressional majorities to work with and Republicans would be de facto non-entities in Washington.
It is interesting to note that only ONE Democratic president has managed to win election to the White House twice: Bill Clinton. The others were Truman (was so unpopular by the end of his term that he didn’t bother to run for re-election), Johnson (same story), and Carter (ran but was defeated by Reagan). Note that while Truman and Johnson came into office upon the death of their predecessors, neither managed to get elected in his own right more than once although both were constitutionally entitled to run again.
So why could Clinton get re-elected where Truman, Johnson and Carter failed? One obvious difference is that the GOP was in charge of Congress during Clinton’s re-election bid, while the Dems were running Congress when Truman, Johnson and Carter ran for re-election. Again, we see the strong aversion of American voters to maintaining one-party rule.
If the Dems indeed come out of this election with the overwhelming majorities they appear to have, it is nearly impossible that the Republicans will take back the House, and even more so the Senate, in 2010. This sets up a likely scenario where the Dems will go into 2012 having controlled the House, Senate and White House for four years continuously, likely most of that in poor economic conditions. I would say based on all this that, from this very early vantage point, 2012 looks decidedly rocky for the Dems. Total control can be a poisoned chalice, as history has shown.
340….cue for some bollox about foreign royalties.
309. Though he probably would be an excellent chancellor. I would feel comfortable knowing that Redwood was pulling the strings in the background which he isnt.
I have mentioned it before, but his blog is full of first class material and dissection of the present crisis, i like people who know their onions, and he does.
332.”David Cameron brushes off any criticism of his friend, branding it ridiculous and claiming he is only taking flak because Labour knows his value. Yet, I cannot see how that can be at the root of criticism by Tories who want to beat Labour.”
Me, that is the key passage in Iain Martin’s article, and it shows yet again why Cameron and Osborne have finally brought the Tories to a position where they have consistently led the government months.
And they have done it over 3 years by pulling some in their own party kicking and screaming all the way, ably abetted by the likes of Martin etc in the Telegraph and one or two other supposed crystal balls in the right leaning press.
Good rule of thumb, if what Cameron and Osborne are doing has ConHom and these journalists moaning, its probable bankable.
They are trying to punish the Shadow Treasury team for not dancing to their tune either on their strategy to deal with the last few weeks, and also, but not promising slashing tax cuts. It always makes me angry, Brown’s biggest failing is his inability to be a good strategist, instead relying on short term political tactics.
And no matter how many times that boomerang comes back and hits him in the face, still he does it.
But the worst offenders are the right leaning press and some in my own party, to remove Osborne would be electoral suicide right now.
A short term negative tactic which would hurt Cameron and the Tories, but would gift Brown a further bounce. Cameron and Osborne have a GE to win, the right leaning press and their Tory headless chickens did much to make sure that the Tories were unelectable for so long. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. God, it must really bug some of those smug Telegraph types who think that they know best, that is, until along comes a couple of new Tories to shoe them up.
338 Out of interest , when the Conservatives were in power from 1979 to 1997 in how many months would they have been close to your ideal scenario of 2.5% inflation .
343. Hammond is Shadow Treasury. He is the guy whose comments upon the announcement of the BoE independence [blogged here previuosly] are well worth a read.
He pretty much predicted where we are now, minus the parcelling up of the dodgy debt.
341. I feel your pain, S&S. I go through the same logic-bending mental contortions every year trying to convince myself that Scotland have a chance of winning the Grand Slam.
Wouldn’t a simpler way of looking at it be that if Obama does a good job, he’ll probably be re-elected?
344 I agree.
339.Thanks Mike, I knew I had the name right, but couldn’t be bothered googling the spelling. That will teach me.
What a charade:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085225/Equality-watchdog-pays-women-15–white-staff-earn-most.html
348. Sally C agrees with ChristinaD - surely the most pointless post ever on PB?
310 - Depends on how many ballots are thrown out but easily more than 11,000.
In any casem the point is moot because the most recent update now shows Stevens three votes behind. See here -
http://soaelections.gci.net/data/results.htm
344.Oops, Shoe should obviously be show.
349. No problem!
351 I think you have a case of mistaken identity.
351.Gabble, coming from you, that is hilarious!
But, don’t knock it, in this male dominated site a female view is sometimes useful. Especially if its the opposite of Harriet Harman’s.
Time for bed. I hope your brother is well Christina. I think of him every time I read your posts.
Although its my impression that people are increasingly detatched from the plight of the military, Rememberance Day at least seems to be a more recognised than in my childhood.
At my son’s school, they blow the whistle in the playground for the 2 mins silence and play the last post to mark the end.
357.Thanks Sally, was just writing to him today. Sunday was very poignant in my house because of my brother being in Afghanistan, and also because we lost my dad earlier this year. He served a full career in the same regiment, and led the remembrance day parade for nearly 30 years in my home village.
bloody hell, some nasty comments from various Tories here directed at Nick Palmer (runnymede, weathercock etc). What unpleasant people…
357 - I was thinking the reverse today, I’m afraid. When I was a kid rememberance day was very well observed, but that’s not what I saw today. Of course the world wars were significantly more recent then, and let’s face it: people don’t associate rememberance day with those who lost their lives in more recent conflicts.
312. I hope you’re right. But with some of the most anti-Labour people I know calling for it, I have to wonder.
346. I had the opportunity to have a good one on one with Hammond some time ago, for about twenty minutes or so grilling him on inflation, pensions cpi, libor etc.
He knew his stuff pretty well, he also was making some excellent points about the risk of the bank of england interest rate becoming detached from the lending rate.
He was impressive.
357 To be honest my son goes to an all boys private school in a not too pretty or posh Yorkshire town. They may do things differently.
I recently saw though him participate in a performance of OH What A Lovely War, in an old hall inscribed with the names of former pupils who had died in the two world wars.
When the boys went to hire their costumes, some were real uniforms.
I can be a sentimental fool but I was very moved at the sight of those boys knowing my predecessors had seen their own little boys grow up and face such carnage.
There but for the grace of god and all that.
As a little boy, the year he started, aged nine, he insisted on going to the service at the village war memorial, in his school uniform. And he isn’t weird or nerdy.
It can be done. But there has to be a will.
Look what happens when someone from Labour gets on the phone to the BBC.
Check out the very last sentence:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/172710/diff/3/4
360 not 357.
364 The very same point was raised on Robinson’s blog. And of course Cruddas said it didn’t put his party in a positive light.
366. to be fair, that’s where i picked it up from. Nick Robinsons blog is really amusing for the complete and utter contempt the readers hold him in, i got to about 100, and with the exception of maybe three or four posts, all were deeply scathing of how Robinson misread the situation.
Is the internet full of angry conservatives? Or, are conservatives the only ones motivated to write on blogs?
363.My brother’s son attends a well known Scottish military boarding school, he took part in a memorial service for the fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan in Stirling recently. Can’t go into the details on this site, but it was particular poignant for him.
My lads go to the local comp in a very rural area of Deeside, but my middle son aptly named Malcolm like a certain American based poster here hopes to follow his grandfather and uncle into the same regiment after University. He has by the way, the same forthright and feisty attitude of the other Malcolm which sometimes makes me smile wryly.
357.Just seen a priceless comment on the Coffee House Blog about the comments thread on Nick Robinson’s blog.
Balls plays politics.
If you watch PMQ’s again, check out Ed Ball’s reaction as he sat on the Labour benches. He knew that he had dropped the ball as it were.
You know, its quite ironic when you consider what his official job is , and just how many times recently he has been found wanting or AWOL from his official brief. And yet he gets away with it?
He should have been on top of this problem, and even if he wasn’t, the horrendous headline news last night should have sent alarm bells ringing, but it didn’t?
Why? Because despite having a full time job, he was probable too busy helping Brown dictate what Darling should be doing with the economic crisis.
Osborne has been getting some grief, but Balls has seriously not been performing where he should be.
120. A 10% swing would mean a 17% Tory lead. Which polls are you looking at?
I don’t think comparisons with the USA are valid.
In the USA representatives have a personal mandate, they are selected as candidates by competitive primary, and then win an election. This encourages representatives to be responsive to voters, as they can be challenged at both primary, and election - there are no safe seats.
In the UK candidates are chosen by the party machine, and so are responsive to party whips, rather than public feeling.
Douglas Carswell wrote a short piece on this (link below).
http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=219
Long story short, I don’t think Mr Palmer will get any incumbency benefit. He’ll stay or go in line with the public perception of Labour.