Is Michael Thrasher right about a hung parliament?
November 14th, 2009
Why won’t the pre-1997 polls comparison die?
Michael Thrasher gave an interview for Sky News yesterday afternoon in which he built upon the article written for their website, inferring that the election is heading towards a hung parliament. In it, he made various claims and inferences that really shouldn’t be allowed to stand and which I find quite astonishing from such a senior expert in the subject. To summarise:
He claimed that the Tories are struggling to break through 40%. In fact, of the 19 polls since the end of the conference season, only two have the Tories sub-40. The rest are in the 40-45 band.
He claim that the Tories aren’t as far ahead in the polls as Labour were pre-97. This is such a basic howler that it is the sort of thing which undermines credibility as an expert. As has been frequently pointed out, not least on this site, the methodology used in polling has changed significantly since 1997. Only ICM can be compared on a like-for-like basis, and using that sequence, the Tories’ lead is very close to where Labour was at the same time in the parliament - in the mid- to high-teens. Laughably, Sky’s Poll Tracker - linked in the article - gives the May 1997 Labour figure as 59%. Labour actually polled about 43% at the general election that month.
He claimed the Glasgow NE result showed little enthusiasm for the Tories. There may be something in this but all it showed was minimal enthusiasm in Glasgow NE - a trend we’ve already seen in two other similar Scottish seats, one next door and another in Glenrothes. Even so, in government-held seats where the principal challenge comes from a third party, the main opposition often gets squeezed. Labour lost their deposit in both the Christchurch and Newbury by-elections during the 1992-7 parliament when the Lib Dems powered to gains from the Tories; Blair still won his landslide.
He claimed that the Tories aren’t doing well enough in ‘real’ elections. Well enough is a relative game. In marginals like Crewe & Nantwich or Norwich North - the sort of seats that will determine the election result - Labour received a resounding raspberry in contrast to at least qualified support for the Tories. It’s notable how badly the Lib Dems are doing: if it were all down to Labour unpopularity, the Lib Dems would have been serious challengers in both by-elections. Besides, the real story of the last year has not been Tory strength but Labour weakness, most notably their sub-16% share in the European elections.
There was a strong inference that the Tories need to be matching Labour’s polling pre-97. However, Cameron doesn’t need a 177-seat majority (though he no doubt wouldn’t turn it down if offered). 50 seats is enough. For that matter, Labour didn’t need what they got: it’s not a meaningful benchmark. Of more relevance is that because of the distortions in the system, the Conservatives do need to be further ahead to achieve the same. Even so, Thrasher’s claim in his article that a 12% lead would produce a majority of just six seems bizarre unless he expects turnouts in all of Labour’s safe seats to fall as in Glasgow NE. Also, if anti-Tory tactical voting weakens, so the lead the Tories need to reach any particular milestone falls.
He repeats the ‘Economy stupid’ myth In 1997, the Conservatives were ahead on the Economic question but still got trounced. Likewise, fluctuations in Labour’s deficit over the last two years have borne little relation to the state of the economy. Both facts counter the suggestion that an economic recovery will of itself have much impact on Labour’s fortunes.
Glasgow North East was a very good result for Labour - to hold the seat by more than 8000 after losing the near-identical Glasgow East last year was a fine achievement. However, while it may point to a firming of the Labour vote in their heartlands, that’s not where the election battle will be won and lost. I for one will continue to place more faith in the opinion polls.
David Herdson
MessageSpace Advertising
David - This is all about the media narrative and my sense is that this week is seeing a change. The notion that we are “heading for a close election” is much better in news terms than “there’ll be a Tory landslide” and that will colour a lot of the coming coverage irrespective of polling numbers.
What Thrasher does not do is make any attempt to work on the impact of the rise of other parties and what that does to conventional seat calculations. This is the key matter which should be being examined and which I’ll be dealing with in the coming days.
He must have been watching PB, and listening to a lone voice crying in the wilderness…
I’d take issue with at least a couple of David’s points.
“Even so, in government-held seats where the principal challenge comes from a third party, the main opposition often gets squeezed. Labour lost their deposit in both the Christchurch and Newbury by-elections during the 1992-7 parliament when the Lib Dems powered to gains from the Tories; Blair still won his landslide.”
I think it’s a matter of some note (and certainly not a coincidence) that the Newbury and Christchurch by-elections were fought when John Smith was Labour leader, not Tony Blair. Labour were probably heading to victory under Smith, but not on quite the scale of what eventually happened, and certainly not with the same amount of support in the south of England. It’s also no coincidence that Labour did so much better in the Eastleigh by-election in June 1994, even though the Liberal Democrats were again the victors. By that stage, although Margaret Beckett was technically Labour leader, it was already very clear that Blair would be taking over.
“He claimed that the Tories aren’t doing well enough in ‘real’ elections.”
Again a useful comparison can be made with June 1994, with Labour scoring (if memory serves me right) 44% in the European elections. The Tories’ performance in the Euro elections this June was pretty dire by comparison. OK, we all know that PR encourages voters to consider smaller parties, but even so.
Remember in Barnsley East in December 1996 Labour’s share dropped to below its 1992 general election level in a by election where the turnout was 33.7%.
re 3. Thrasher’s great achievement was to predict the 1997 election from local council by election results when all the pollsters, bar ICM, were pointing to much bigger Labour margins.
I don’t think that that has been repeated.
Superb article,David and a great first reply from OGH.I can only lower the tone.
There are two elements involved in predicting the outcome of a General Election.
The first is UNS and to predict that accurately you will need a large crystal ball. The other element is in predicting, given a vote share for each Party, how that will pan out in term s of Seats.
My mantra is that “the Tories don’t need to do as well as people think in order to do well.”
The Tories will do well where they need to and could get an Overall Maj. with less than 40% of the vote.
So I am not NOM’s biggest fan.
The Sun do a hatchet job on Prof Nutt’s son
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2729905/Drugs-professors-son-in-spliff-pic-on-net.html
Britain’s Abu Ghraib: Did Britain collude with US in abuse of Iraqis?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-abu-ghraib-did-britain-collude-with-us-in-abuse-of-iraqis-1820545.html
Effective Spreads.
CON 356-358
LAB 205-207
LD 51-53
Predictable shift towards LAB and against CON and by implication the SNP.The Lib Dem prices are seemingly fixed in stone.
One feature about these Spreads is (sadly) that they seem more or less correctly aligned and there is no longer any great shame in being a Buyer.
Game to Thrasher and Crosby, but not Set and Match.The Hung Parliament scenario needs two or more favourable polls for Labour and that one will take off.I suppose a favourable poll is one where Labour are ten or fewer points behind Big Blue.
O/T but on the relationship between a budget and the election.
Is there not another dimension involved which is that any “harsh” budget will probably trigger a substantial Labour backbench revolt and may indeed struggle to pass the House of Commons? What are the implications of a Govt going to the country having failed to get a budget approved?
a black mark for the University of Plymouth,me thinks.whatever happened to excellence?keep up the good work Mr Herdson!
Willie be another Labour letdown?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/papercolumnists/2729788/Willie-Bain-Willie-be-another-Labour-letdown.html
Thrasher’s right and this is a very weak attempt at a riposte.
The 40% argument stands. Thrasher merely argued that the Tories are struggling to break through the 40% mark. They are. The ‘polling has changed’ argument beloved by pbniks is a sleight of hand. It’s a classic case of moving the goalposts and telling everyone that everything that came before is now worthless. This is not merely disingenuous, it’s erroneous.
As for the economy argument in 1997, the Tories had lost on the economy on Black Wednesday in September 1992. They never regained trust in that area regardless of how rosy the picture lost.
The rest of Thrasher’s points seem to me to be robust, although the ‘little enthusiasm for the Tories’ argument is more surmise. I happen to agree with it.
Hung parliament looks likely to me.
Incidentally, if pb is to remain a heavyweight site I really think lead articles like this should be balanced by other points of view. This site needs better balance from the top.
13. 14. Lol - wishful thinking based on Glasgow!!!
Good Morning Lewis Duckworth Single Run Winning Voters For Nick Palmer Worldwide
Meanwhile …. Interesting article young Mr David H although I think your dig at the yellow perils’s by-election travails in Crewe & Nantwich and Norwich North are misplaced. In neither seat was their a realistic prospect of a Lib Dem win. The significant factor in this parliament is how few opportunites they have had to roll out their by-election bandwagon.
Only Dunfermline and West Fife, Bromley, and Ealing Southall have fitted the bill and only in the latter have the Lib Dems failed to achieve a snorter of a success.
Horses for courses David and presently that striking yellow bandwagon is political ambulance chasing but has been temporarliy wheel clamped in the nothern environs of Glasgow !!
16. There not their a realistic …. !!
It is, perversely to the Tories benefit to have such speculations. The last thing they want is an air of Inevitability. So keep up the good work lefties.
re 13. John you are wrong on the economy. ICM ahead of the 1997 election had the Tories ahead on this measure. Even on polling day the final survey had Major’s party showing a two point lead on this measure - and a fat lot of hood it did him.
See
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/06/06/why-labour-shouldnt-put-its-hopes-on-the-economy/
re 16. Jack - your piece will be published after lunch.
For once David your petticoat is showing. Your header could have been a press release from CCO. Whatever has become the folklore of this site it is patently obvious that Cameron isn’t doing as well as Blair was in ‘97.
re 14. David is one of our guest editors and is a Conservative.
His points on polling are valid - the ONLY pollster from the 96-97 period that has kept a consistent methodology is ICM. The others from that period have either given up UK political polling or have radically changed their approach.
Later in the day there is a guest piece from Jack W taking a different standpoint.
re 21. True - and Labour is doing a lot lot worse than Major’s Tories were in the same period.
See
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/11/01/at-precisely-this-stage-before-97-blairs-lead-was-just-13/
Is the Scottish Sun about to come out in favour of Scottish independence (again)?
‘Willie be another Labour letdown?’
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/papercolumnists/2729788/Willie-Bain-Willie-be-another-Labour-letdown.html
It is a glimmer of light.
The Scottish Daily Express has been far less anti-SNP these last 2 years. So, could we be seeing sections of the Scottish press start to give the SNP a fair hearing? I suspect so.
Note: the Scottish Sun is the biggest selling newspaper north of the border, by a significant margin. It is especially important in traditionally Labour areas in eastern Scotland, so it swinging behind the SNP would be a big threat in lots of Labour seats, eg, all their Edinburgh seats, the West Lothian, Falkirk and Clackmannanshire seats, Stirling, Dundee and Aberdeen.
20 Mike S. I shall have a splendidly ‘long’ and uncommonly decent luncheon in preparation for the mud pies looming from the horizon.
Baton the hatches Mrs W and prepare to repel borders !!
As has been said on here before, Scotland is another country electorally. I don’t think it is possible to extrapolate from any Scottish result to predict trends in England, or vice versa.
Never mind another country, Glasgow NE is another planet. It is one of the worst, most desperate sinkholes in Labour’s rustbelt heartland.
Labour postponed the by-election to give them time to work the seat as they have never done in 70 years. I doubt they have the resources, either financial or in personnel, to replicate that effort across the board come the GE.
22 Mike S. “….a guest piece from Jack W”
I feel like a born again PB virgin !!
I see real value in both the Lib Dem and (especially) the Con prices in this seat (that 6/4 from Hills is a stand-out opportunity IMHO).
The 7/2 being offered on Labour’s Nigel Griffiths is utterly appalling value (I wouldn’t back Griffiths before he is at least 10/1, and probably not even then). The SNP price of 25/1 is also poor value (50/1 is more like it).
An opportunity to “green up” your Edinburgh South bets?
Bookies best prices - Edinburgh South (incumbent: Nigel Griffiths MP, Lab)
Con 6/4 (Hills)
LD 13/8 (PP)
Lab 7/2 (Lad, PP)
SNP 25/1 (Lad, PP)
(Note: SkyBet and Victor Chandler also list Edinburgh South, but poor prices throughout the board.)
21 Roger. May I just say that David Herdson’s political petticoats are normally of the finest sartorial elegance, if somewhat routinely trimmed in a rather fetching shade of pale blue. I understand the PB blue team ladies would prefer it if he wore them a tad shorter and showed a finely turned ankle.also
Rumour has it that he gets them in job lots from Peter the Punter and then has then personalized at CCHQ !!
24 SD. Does the Scottish Sun sell more copies than the Record ??
Shirley Sun Mishtayke ?
21 - Roger, it is getting a bit boring to repeat ad nauseam, but whether Cameron is doing as well as Blair is an irrelevance.
Write out 500 times: “BLAIR ACHIEVED A MAJORITY OF 179. TO AVOID A (TECHNICAL) HUNG PARLIAMENT CAMERON NEEDS A MAJORITY OF 1″.
Also why are the comparisons always with 1997? Why not 1979, or 1970 or…?
26. FergusMac - “Labour postponed the by-election to give them time to work the seat as they have never done in 70 years. I doubt they have the resources, either financial or in personnel, to replicate that effort across the board come the GE.”
Spot on!
This is a key factor to consider when looking at betting markets involving the Scottish Labour Party: overstretch. In a UK GE they will be pushed to the absolute limit in terms of resources, especially personnel.
The same applies to the Scottish Lib Dems, but even more so. If the other 3 main parties can stretch them enough then the SLDs will quite simply snap. We could knock them out of contention for a generation. UK GE could well see Scotland becoming a de facto 3-party country: Lab/SNP/Con. That would clarify issues a great deal, and focus voters’ minds tremendously, especially in terms of the overriding constitutional question.
November before 1979 election: Gallup Con 43 Lab 48
November before 1970 election: Gallup Con 45 Lab 42
November before 1951 election: Gallup Con 43 Lab 40
30. Jack W
23 February 2009: ‘Job cuts as Record and Mail merge’
The Daily Record’s circulation has dropped to about 336,000, allowing it to be overtaken by the Scottish Sun as Scotland’s most-bought daily newspaper, according to official ABC figures.
The circulation of the Sunday Mail has also fallen in recent times to a current level of 416,169, but it has retained its position as the country’s most popular Sunday newspaper.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7906469.stm
30 Further. IIRC the Record outsells the Scottish Sun by a margin of around 4/1.
In a well-worn phrase, Marx wrote that history repeated itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. What we are witnessing at present, in the form of the Government and the Prime Minister, is both at once: a political farce, and a human tragedy. The farcical collapse of our government can be contemplated with detached amusement, but the personal disintegration of Gordon Brown is awful to behold.
Early yesterday morning Labour won Glasgow North East, in what one headline bizarrely called a “landslide”, the word normally used for when a governing party is routed. What had actually happened? The Government had held one of the safest seats in the country, a rotten borough in a Third World region which Labour has dominated for generations by patronage, in a very low turnout after a campaign fought entirely on parochial issues. It’s a mark of Brown’s plight that this should be regarded as a triumph.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/geoffrey-wheatcroft-gordon-browns-very-public-decline-1820373.html
34 SD. Err cobras my celtic mucker. The Sun sells around 90,000 and the Record 350,000.
yesterday: ‘Scottish Sun’s Sales Lead Narrows Over Record’
http://www.allmediascotland.com/press_news/23536/Scottish-Sun’s-Sales-Lead-Narrows-Over-Record
OP — “He repeats the ‘Economy stupid’ myth” (David Herdson)
No myth. Ignore the headline figures: it is about the economic circumstances of individual voters.
The Conservatives hit their own supporters hard: negative equity under Lawson, small businesses hurt to stay in the ERM.
Labour has kicked its own supporters too: from working class (10p tax and rocketing unemployment) to middle class (whose grown up children are graduating with huge debts and no prospects).
So David Herdson is right that a headline economic recovery is immaterial, but he is right for the wrong reason.
Yet you can almost sniff the expectation of change in the Whitehall air. Meetings between permanent secretaries and Shadow Cabinet members last longer and are much more business-like than in 2001 and 2005. “Then, we went through the motions about our policies and then had a cup of tea and a gossip,” recalls one Tory frontbencher. This time, Whitehall senses it is for real. “The Civil Service has given up on Labour and Labour has given up on the Civil Service,” claims one shadow minister. “Exactly the same happened to us before 1997.”
Ministers deny it, praising the professionalism of neutral officials who must serve only one master – and it is still Labour for now. But some ministers admit the wheels now turn slowly on projects the Civil Service doesn’t like, and that some senior officials don’t bother to have regular meetings with them. “We know what they are thinking,” says one cabinet minister.
Formal talks between the Tories and Whitehall are friendly but necessarily tentative. Civil servants can “listen” to an Opposition’s proposals but cannot “advise”, even if they think its policies are unworkable. There are some informal contacts. Senior officials “accidentally” bump into shadow ministers at social functions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andrew-grice/andrew-grice-whisper-it-but-whitehall-is-already-preparing-for-a-change-at-no-10-1820557.html
It is just silly to extrapolate any conclusions from Glasgow North East.
The area is SO deprived, and SO strongly Labour, and SO lacking in established opposition, that the only way the Labour vote could be harmed is by mass apathy. This is what has been countered, perhaps quite legally and legitimitely, by the mass postal voting drives - the modern day equivalent of giving people a lift to the polling station.
In addition it is an area where ’scare’ stories can only succeed. With unemployment levels as they are, when many people don’t know anybody who is actually employed, when dependence on benefits is so complete, arguments about how people are being kept in poverty by the benefits trap are spurious. Economic arguments will be largely irrelevant, and prospects of employment must be so distant that it is entirely rational for most voters that their only concern is what future govts might do to the level of their benefits.
Many voters on benefits in a marginal seat will quite likely anticipate economic recovery as making their reliance on benefits less important, so they will weigh up arguments between their current and future standard of living. This will not be the same in an area where even a return to boom times will probably not make a major dent in unemployment.
Any suggestion of change will represent a threat, so Labour will win easily.
37. JackW - “The Sun sells around 90,000″
Source Jack?
The links I provided quote official ABC circultion figures: in October 2009, the Scottish Sun’s average daily sale was 354,910.
FPT Mrs Thatcher’s death is not to be hoped for. Whether Mark Thatcher is back in the headlines following Gunn’s release is a fair question though.
September ABCs - Average Net Circulation (including free giveaways)
KEY: RED (FALL) GREEN (RISE)
DAILIES SEPT 09 AUG 09
Scottish Sun 361,244 (368,097)
Daily Record 311,508 (314,279)
Scottish Daily Mail 115,940 (118,110)
Scottish Daily Star 88,134 (90,501)
Scottish Daily Express 69,802 (72,179)
The Herald 56,799 (57,932)
The Scotsman 46,501 (49,676)
The Times 26,350 (29,100)
Scottish Daily Mirror 27,070 (28,082)
Daily Telegraph 23,730 (25,497)
The Guardian 15,452 (16,593)
The Independent 7556 (7677)
Financial Times 4458 (4332)
SUNDAYS SEPT 09 AUG 09
Sunday Mail 380,581 (389,475)
Scottish News of the World 305,758 (315,534)
Sunday Post 237,355 (241,075)
Scottish Mail on Sunday 96,761 (98,115)
Sunday Times Scotland 68,610 (70,349)
Scotland on Sunday 56,514 (62,149)
Sunday Herald 42,665 (43,877)
Scottish Sunday Express 39,369 (41,457)
Scottish Daily Star - Sunday 28,510 (29,918)
Scottish Sunday Mirror 23,447 (24,418)
The Observer 21,034 (21,614)
Sunday Telegraph 20,011 (21,220)
People 15,500 (17,007)
Independent on Sunday 6282 (6879)
http://milnemedia.typepad.com/milne_media/2009/10/its-the-economy-stupid-as-ft-shows-only-sign-of-circulation-growth-in-scotland.html
Better hope for the sake of the economy that its not a hung parliament. No way a hung parlimanent Govt would have the balls to slash spending or hike taxes. The pound would crash and the ratings agencies would cut the rating on UK debt.
37 Apols Stuart. I’m looking at the wrong figures for the wrong year and the wrong paper. Apart from that I was correct !!
I shall now head for breakfast full of remorse and shortly suasages !!
Scottish circulation figures below :
http://www.allmediascotland.com/press_news/23536/Scottish-Sun’s-Sales-Lead-Narrows-Over-Record
42 - Surely you’re not suggesting that “JackW” is guilty of living in the distant past?
46. Jack W - “I’m looking at the wrong figures for the wrong year and the wrong paper. Apart from that I was correct !!”
Now that is what I call a comprehensive retraction!
45 - Exactly the point Ken Clarke was making the other day. In some ways, in theory, a hung Parliament is more to be feared than Labour winning again (although in practice i don’t think Labour could get the tough measures necessary through its party, so better a hung Parliament, a rejection of a Tory budget prompting a full blown crisis, a re-election, and a convincing Tory victory).
Sorry but Thrasher speaks nonsense, as do several here. The Tories could win the election if they got 30% of votes cast: provided Labour got 25%; LibDems 15% and Greens, UKIP and BNP about 8% each. A bit of an extreme case and unlikely I agree but it could happen. There is a bit of an obsession with this 40 figure, as if in the ‘old days’ winning parties always got huge totals and leads. Even in 1970 it was Tories 46%, Labour 43%, Liberals 7% and Heath had a majority; only 3% for all other parties. It is the difference between Tories and Labour which matters. There is likely to be about 10% for all other parties (recall that apart from the moderately big parties there are far more independents than in the past). With so many ‘wasted’ votes spread more or less evenly over many constituencies, the bar for success, for both Tories and Labour, has been lowered. Add to this all the evidence is that in this election there is likely to be widespread anti-Labour voting, and the Tories are going to do better than average in the marginal seats. In my opinion, if the Tories have 38% and Labour 32% that will give the Tories a big majority. Mind you, in the past month the Tories have been doing their best to lose it !
It’s a bit wet and windy today… !
51. Any betting implications?
39. Yes and no. It is about more than both economic recovery alone AND which party is more trusted. It is also about how much salience the issue has. A lead is of little benefit if the subject’s not important to the voters.
In 1992, when the country had just been through a recession and many Tory voters were feeling a very tough time of it, the Conservatives were reelected with the biggest vote in history. Partly that’s because Labour wasn’t trusted but also it’s because economic issues were core to that election. By 1997, the economy was tootling along quite nicely and other issues were far more prominent in the voters’ minds. A lead on that question mattered much less.
In 2010, for Labour to gain ground on where they are now because of the economic debate, they need to get credit for the recovery (’this recovery, which started in [anywhere but here]‘ won’t cut the mustard).
The finanacial markets have given up on this Govt. and fully expect it to be thrown out in May. If there was any meaningful drift back towards a hung Parliament, then you would soon have a few failed bond auctions and a full-blown sterling crisis to focus minds.
One one level, Labour’s good fortune has been to have the credit crunch crisis at the tail end of a Parliament. Major had his ERM debacle shortly after an election win - and so the markets had to factor in four + more years of the same. Labour’s proximity to being turfed out anyway has probably saved them a party-destroying doing over by the markets.
The irony of Labour being saved from the worst by the impending arrival of George Osborne…their knight in shining army.
I’d like to extend hearty congratulations to David Herdson on a thoroughly excellent article. A more comprehensive demolition of one of the so-called psephology (ahem) “experts” would be hard to find.
Can someone do Prof Curtice now? Why that Lib-Lab stooge is held in such high regard I find impossible to fathom. His every word is motivated by raw hatred for the dreaded SNP and Tories. When will you all see that Emperor Curtice isnae wearing any claethes?
26 FergusMac: “Never mind another country, Glasgow NE is another planet. It is one of the worst, most desperate sinkholes in Labour’s rustbelt heartland.”
We’ve heard about this so many times. What action could be taken to turn the “sinkhole” into a thriving community? I mean, even if the right range of employment was magically available, it would be really hard for people to adopt a “working life-style”.
So what combination of factors is needed to turn things around for these people?
William Hill - Hung Parliament?
No 2/7
Yes 5/2
Murdoch is not exactly known for his love of the UK. I imagine he would be very relaxed with a Scottish Sun that backed the SNP, especially as this would fit in with his overall anti-Labour stance. Not having ever seen the Scottish Sun, how does it sit politically at the moment? Would there be a long way to travel from where it is now to support for the SNP?
54 - Great spin, but where’s the evidence? The Fitch warning this week spoke of whoever being in power having to make stringent cuts, which is why the UK is likely to retain its AAA status.
Polly Toynbee
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/14/last-hard-choice-for-labour
alex. I was only referrig to Davids header which says “He claim that the Tories aren’t as far ahead in the polls as Labour were pre-97″ A claim which I think Thrasher has got right whether relevant or not.
Jack. I have barely noticed David’s blue tinted petticoat before when writing his headers. Perhaps you’re age and experience are useful tools in guiding you where to look?
56. AnneJGP
“These people” (as you put it) need to quite simply help themselves. It is a grave error in life to look to other people to help you all the time.
Of course in times of crisis we must assist people in dire and immediate need, but when the neediness goes on for three-quarters of a century, one begins to wonder what on earth the afflicted are playing at.
Thursday showed that the citizens of Glasgow NE are an awful long way from enlightenment. But self-help starts in small stages. The state can help people to grow away from the dependency culture in small ways. In this respect the Scottish Government’s Alcohol Bill is a small step in the right direction:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/programme-for-government/2009-10/summary-of-bills/alcohol-bill
Alcohol addiction is a huge problem in GNE, and other areas with appallingly low self-esteem. It is a vicious circle.
61. you’re=your! (I noticed the first spelling mistake in a JackW post this mornibg also quickly corrected. It’s the early time of day.(
53 - Labour’s only hope is to flip the narrative and get much more focus on Cameron and Osborne. It’s an almost impossible task because minds are now made up, but the one thing that the Tories are vulnerable on is how they responded when the markets collapsed and the banks went into meltdown. Labour somehow has to make people start listening to them on that. I can’t see it working unless the Tories help them somehow.
Guido has a you tube video of the Labour Jedward theme. I know I am a Consevative, but its just uttely pathetic.
http://www.order-order.com/
64, why is Brown dithering for six months over nationalising Northern Rock and then (months after Cameron called for it in March or May) recapitalising the banks bad for the Tories?
Thrasher, unlike many posters here is obviously well aware of his PTV’s. A lot of people here are going to get a real shock as soon as the PTV scores for Labour and the LD’s start to increase closer to Polling Day. I’ve money on a hung parliament because I try to:
a. See beyond my own personal politics;
b. I have a calculator and I try to use it.
64. SO. This comment from Pollyanna’s latest epic might point out why Gordo trying to attack the Tories on economic competence is not going to fly
People know the banks not “big government” caused the deficit
The giveaway line that reveals all - spin, delusion, deceit.
No Polly, ‘People’ are far brighter and more astute than you ever give them credit for. They - we - are not stupid. We know perfectly well that government caused the problem.
How do we know this? Well, follow me closely here dear, but have you noticed that the UK is the worst placed economy in Europe, and ranks below Spain at the moment? And that we are still in a recession while the countries of the Eurozone are not?
Well, given that the banks act internationally, as Labour never tire of telling us, you’d expect us to follow suit, wouldn’t you, and be roughly in the same position as Eurozone - but we’re not - and the difference is government.
Then of course, we all know (apart from seemingly you Polly) that banks only got to behave in the way they did and still do because of the relaxation of rules by governments. And while countries in Europe are tightening up somewhat, we are not - and Brown and his gang od spivs and charlatans are still allowing obscene bonuses to be paid out of our hard-earned money.
I’ll leave it to others to remind you of the reckless and stupid policies that this government followed to bankrupt this country and place us in debt for decades. The selling of our gold reserves at knock-down prices, PFI, the destruction of the pension industry, the gargantuan government waste ……..
It’s government that did it Polly. You shouldn’t try to hide it, it makes you look silly.
Thanks for the on-topic comments. Ref posts 13-16:
John, as I mention in the leader, the Conservatives have been consistently at or above 40% since the end of the conference season. True, there’s been a mini-dip in the last two polls but blips in all directions are to be expected from time to time in response to events and due to normal statistical fluctuations.
The Tories did drop fairly regularly below 40% during the Expenses row and around the time of the Euros but (a) those specific reasons are unlikely to recur, (b) it wasn’t much below and at times, not below at all and (c) Labour’s share dropped too and the important stat is the lead, not the absolute share.
My views are backed up by my betting. I’ve been buying mainly on the Next PM market, partly because it does hedge somewhat against a hung parliament (just in case - ‘events’ and all that), but mainly because I’ve been bullish all along about Brown’s survival chances and it’s offered much better value than the Party Win markets - I got as much as 3/1 in June).
Jack, the Lib Dems started their campaigns in both C&N and NN claiming they had a good chance of winning. Had the by-elections been in the 2001-5 parliament, they may well have been right. They started both with a good baselevel but never gained traction and ended up being sidelined. The comment wasn’t a deliberate swipe at the Lib Dems as such, more an indicator of how the acceptability of the Tories as a party of protest (ie their appeal to the floating voter) has increased in the last 4 years.
John @ 3 - Yes, the Christchurch / Newbury by-elections were early in the parliament, under John Smith but I think the general point stands. Whether Labour had achieved 2% in Newbury (as they did) or kept their deposit would have been of little significance as a pointer to the next election. On a similar theme, the Winchester 1997 by-election also had a collapse in Labour support; it’s relevance was similarly limited. On the Euro-polls, I’m not sure there’s much value comparing the FPTP with PR elections. In 1994, about 1 vote in 7 went to minor parties; this year, it was more than 3 in 7. That makes comparisons on vote share very difficult.
Mike @ 1 - Yes. Good point.
Thrasher is giving notice that in post-democratic Britain, a eurosceptic Conservative election victory will not be permitted. They are confident they can rig any election. Ken Clarke gives the clue, spouting the same ‘hung Parliament’ line.
The instructions from Brussels Central could not be more clear. They rigged 2005, and will now do the same in 2010. Cameron will be stopped, by harvesting of postal votes and other electoral devices as are now commonplace, with election results produced to order.
Iain Gray looks rather happy:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2730169/Glasgow-North-Easts-bye-bye-election.html
But he has to return to work on Monday, and a massive reality check. Poor chap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_3rd_Scottish_Parliament
Oh dear…Polly pissing on the parade that only yesterday was giving such heart to the Labour faithful. Perhaps the memo never made it to Tuscany.
70. Yes and what is it with Aliens and anal probing?
70, it’s depressing that the postal voting system is so prone to fraud the electoral results could actually be illegitimate.
The Tories should make a big song and dance about this, and the Lib Dems too.
61. Roger - “I was only referrig to Davids header which says “He claim that the Tories aren’t as far ahead in the polls as Labour were pre-97″ A claim which I think Thrasher has got right whether relevant or not.”
ICM (the only useful comparison):
Aug 1996 - Lab lead 12%
Sep 1996 - Lab lead 15%
Oct 1996 - Lab lead 18%
Nov 1996 - Lab lead 13%
Dec 1996 - Lab lead 19%
Aug 2009 - Con lead 16%
Sep 2009 - Con lead 17%
Oct 2009 - Con lead 17%
Looks pretty close to me.
67 “Gordon Brown - Five More Years” - that slogan gives the Tories’ Top Trumps come the election. Write it on to your calculator - it may save costly betting mistakes when the siren numbers are steering you towards thinking Labour will do better than they can.
75, interesting post. Reminds me of Kellner stating on the Daily Politics that the Tories needed an 8, 9, 10, 11 point lead for a majority of 1.
68 global meltdown (Scott P)
No, it really was the banks and it really wasn’t the government.
Now, since that makes no difference at all to the electoral prospects of Labour or Conservatives, we might as well get it right.
69 “the Lib Dems started their campaigns in both C&N and NN claiming they had a good chance of winning”
And don’t forget the glee on here at the prospect of Boris becoming mayor so the LibDems could take Henley! Where the Tories are strong, there is no need for protest. Where there is a need, the LibDems are not fulfilling that function. Instead, it has gone to the right (UKIP) or the far right (BNP).
An excellent article David, which is provoking some top quality responses. It shows how the web can be a forum for excellent discussion, whereas the newspapers are a one-way street.
78, the Canadians, Swedish and Australians were very lightly affected by the financial crisis due to better regulation. Australia, for example, had a surplus.
If the Government had not run an increasing deficit in a boom we’d be in a much better position now. Howard warned at 2005 that we were spending too much.
70. And in an exclusive interview on Fox News, Tony Blair has just admitted that he is really Zoltar from Battle of the Planets…
69 David H. You can stop flashing your bloomers at me for starters. I’ve seen the best there are and your frilly lace offerings just don’t cut the mustard.
By-elections are a quaint political jig. All comers cry undying love for the punters and claim pole position for their candidate as the dance begins. We know better. No realistic commentator had the yellow peril dancing to victory in either C&N or Norwich. What is certainly true is that the Conservatives no longer leave the floor to the Lib Dems to dance off with the potential prize - as the Ealing Southall Ballroom Fandango indicated.
69. David Herdson and 79. MM - “…the Lib Dems started their campaigns in both C&N and NN claiming they had a good chance of winning.”
In Scotland, the Lib Dem by-election hype-machine reached its hubristic peak at the Moray Scottish parliamentary by-election in 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moray_by-election,_2006
They claimed they would win it, and ended up 3rd.
I would not be at all surprised if the Lib Dems lost their deposit im Moray next year. That is what happens when you cry “Wolf!” once too often.
Interesting article in yesterday’s Evening Standard under the heading
“Cameron warns “turnip Taliban” could damge whole party”
It concerns the matter of Liz Truss being deselected as parliamentary candidate for South West Norfolk by local Tory members.
This incident and the “cast iron guarantee” promose of David Cameron could hit them hard in the opinion polls and a “hung Parliament” may not be pure fantasy
35&37. Jack, you been having your lunch early today and been heavy on the sauce or are you just quoting from when you were 65.
73. When it comes to election fraud, only the dumb or the involved can still think this is aliens at work. ‘Reflecting’ seems to be part of the programme. I can see his space ship hovering overhead. It’s the one with the yellow ring of stars on the metallic blue background, right?
The Glasgow result was heavily rigged.
Clearly desperate Labour supporters will argue black is white for the next 6 months just look at john, Roger and Southam this morning.
John basically argues that truth is relative and because he believes something that differs from the evidence then it is as valid a point of view as one based on fact.
Roger is Roger and just makes something up.
Southam Observer just repeats the rubbish about the Tories failing to act. Just to point out we were around at the time(it was only a year ago) and remember distinctly George Osborne coming up with a bank bailout(admittedly with Vince Cable on Marr) approximately a week before Brown decided to claim the credit and two months before he called himself world saviour.
80 - All three countries are far less dependent on the financial sector than are we. The deficit did not cause the recession, the deficit made it harder to take action to tackle it.
We have an unbalanced economy that is far too reliant on services, retail and finance. That is a long-term problem that both Labour and Tory governments get the blame for, and very depressingly neither party seems to be proposing much that will change things in the future.
Where Labour has to take 100% of the blame is in not having the resources needed to tackle the effects of the recession without putting the UK massively into debt. The measures Labour took were the right ones, the problem is that we did not have the money to do it and that means we have one hell of a debt problem now. But a debt problem can be managed, if the government had not taken the action it did (action that the Tories mostly opposed) we would be far worse off in the short and long term.
71: Wonder if the Sun is correctly quoting Annabel Goldie as saying the Glasgow result was a triumph for the Conservatives?
In general I agree with David H and Mike S that some of Thrasher’s arguments don’t stand up, and also that if the Tories have a 15 point lead nationally then it really doesn’t matter if it’s 40-25 or 45-30 - either way they’ll get ample gains. However, a low absolute figure makes the result more unpredictable.
Say the result is Con 37 Lab 30 LD 21 Oth 12. The potential is there for odd local results all over the place, because the “others” vote and the LD vote isn’t going to be remotely evenly spread. (Plenty of betting opportunities for people who know the terrain, no doubt.)
The other point where Thrasher is right is that the lack of positive enthusiasm for the Tories (the 40,000 decline in membership in a pre-election year is pretty striking) means they are at greater risk *if* people become less anti-Labour for whatever reason - swingback, economic recovery, new leader, whatever. At present, Cameron is putting nearly all his bets on the “we’re not Gordon Brown and Labour” line. It might be enough, but it’s not a bulletproof position.
25
Apologies for a minor correction to an illustrious elder but it is ‘Batten down the hatches’.
Using a batten or strip of wood around the edges of a deck hatch to hold an oiled canvas in place against the coaming.
What this does go to show is how important confidence is in politics. This is one of the last hurrahs of labour and the left to try to get fighting spirit back and a certain amount of belief back in the party for the next election. The ‘we can win’ attitude.
Never mind it was one of the most safest seats for them..never mind it was on a hugely low turnout. Never mind there was huge apathy across the board for it. Labour Won!!! Woo-hoo.
‘If we can win Glasgow East, we can win in the heart of the english shires!’ goes the cry…never mind the facts. If you have belief then thats half the battle.
Thats the only hope with Brown they have, to pump some beleif in their deflating ballon, whilst hoping to puncture the tories. Never mind about politics….never mind about issues, this is pure identity and core vote tribalism stuff.
It’s been a good week for Brown. The Sun stuff was overplayed and overblown, and the upkempt of Glasgow North East were never going to turn away from their overseers.
But the fundmentals are still there. Brown is more secure now, but he’s still unelectable. Labour are still despised by a huge amount of English voters, the economy is still in chaos, the debt mountain is building, people are dying in an unliked war to support a corrupt government abroad.
Brown/Labour had a good week. Everyone has good weeks. But next week is another week.
David. To base a claim like that on just one polling organization because they got the result right on only one occasion is a bit flimsy. It could easily have been a fluke.
I feel sorry for all these election pundits like Thrasher, Curtice, Kellner et al.
Who knows they may be right or probably wrong, none of them have ever had an experience of a General Election campaign, with Gordon Brown on TV’s and papers, 24/7 for 4 weeks straight.
re 92. David is not saying that. The other 1997 pollsters have either left the UK market or are operating in an entirely different way.
So you cannot make comparisons as I have been arguing on PB for nearly six years.
Oborne backing Thrasher:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1227718/PETER-OBORNE-As-Brown-survives-hellish-week-dawning-Cameron-victory-isnt-bag.html
81. If you doubt the existence of large scale postal voting fraud, unreported for the most part in the MSM, but flippin obvious to any sane human being, then might I suggest that it is you who are blighted with alien connections, ‘The Oncoming Storm’ and it is you who has a mind disconnected from reality.
This is ground control advising all regular traffic that alien postal vote craft are circling, and that a 100 seat Conservative majority will magically be converted to a hung parliament by dropping off their loads into 50 selected seats. Only 100,000 a;ien inputs will keep planet Britain under alien control. You think they won’t do it?
92 - Didn’t they get the figures right in 2001 and 2005 too?
re 95. Well Oborne has got it wrong too.
He’s another polling illiterate.
95, the url is wrong. This has been a great week for Brown, his best this year. The Sun actually manages to cause sympathy for him, and the by-election is better than expected.
89: But Nick…are people ever ‘enthusiastic’ for the tories? Should they be? People vote Tory for different reasons they vote for Labour.
People vote tory to do a job. Mostly its to sort out the mess labour create. You don’t get enthusiastic about selecting a plumber when the other plumber has bodged the job.
Going back to Thatcher. The reason why she was admired was not becuase she got voted in promising stuff. She was admired becuase she actually did stuff. Promises and camaign words are all every well, but (as Obama is now finding out), you have to fulfill those words and promises and that is when reputations are made.
85 malcolmG. I always regard the prelude to a long lunch to be a fine “Scottish” breakfast !!
“50 seats is enough.”
Why 50 seats? Even John Major managed to drag his government out over a full parliament having won a 20 seat majority despite defections, divisions and defeats.
In fact, arguably Cameron doesnt need a majority at all - he just needs to get into government. Then he can control the agenda, show people that the world doesnt end with the Tories in power and call another election. Fear of what they might do in office is the main reason why it is hard for opposition parties to beat incumbent governments.
95: Curious Nick..you only seem to use the daily mail when it supports your arguement.
72. There is something strangely out of touch about Polly’s article! Hasn’t anyone told her that the ‘Sun’ story turned out to be to Gordon’s advantage or that the ‘big push’ has started!
Fergus. “It is one of the worst, most desperate sinkholes in Labour’s rustbelt heartland”
Nicely written. You should go and see ‘Harry Brown’.
If Labour had put a donkey up in Glasgow NE they would have won! It says nothing of the the national desire for a change of government
95. Well that proves it, eh Nick? Another real expert speaks.
OGH upthread is right - this is another attempt by the media to manufacture a new story line, nothing more. We’ve seen this so many times - the ‘Brown Tories’ and Tory European ’splits’ at their conference being obvious episodes.
None of these attempts has gained traction - the balloon deflates every time in the face of a complete lack of credible evidence.
I must say there’s been quite a gallant attempt by the remaining dregs of the red team on here to push the line over the last couple of days, though. A last gasp effort by a division 4 team to avoid relegation to the Conference….
104: You mean she’s actually thinking for herself rather than the ‘group-think’ most labourites get infected with.
Thanks David Herdson for writing this about the unmitigated rubbish that Thrasher wrote.
One might think that Thrasher favours Labour.
A 50 seat majority is clearly good enough for the Tories, but what it doesn’t do is set them up for a sustained period of government. A 50 seat majority means that Labour will probably have 200 plus seats, the LDs will have over 40 and the SNP and PC several more than they do now. That gives them all base from which to go again after three or four Tory years in which any number of very unpopular decisions will have been taken. A lower majority also means that Cameron & Co will have to spend a lot more time looking inwards to ensure that MPs are kept onside - this could be tricky on Europe, for example.
My guess is that were you to offer Labour a 50 seat Tory majority right now they would bite your hands off.
90 bono. Carrots !!
109, what was Thatcher’s majority? Also, don’t neglect the importance of preventing Labour channelling funding into the union modernisation fund and the correction of electoral boundaries.
89 There was no real enthusiasm for Blair amongst normal people, just the left wing media and lots of staged managed labour supporters. Remember he got far fewer votes than Major in 92. Having said that people are far more bleak today because the state the country is in now in comparrison to 97. In 1997 the country was fundamentally ok, people were just tired of the tories. Now we are in a real crisis where we are in massive debt. People are not only sick of Labour they know that Labour have screwed it up so badly that there is no nice option after the next general election.
Using Glasgow NE as a predictor for the National elections is about as useful as using sales of the SUN in Liverpool to predict National newspaper sales.
Using Glasgow NE to predict anything nationally is not worth the candle.
103: slackbladder, touche, though I’m not alone in that here… Actually, to be fair, Stuart Dickson sometimes posts links that aren’t helpful to his view. I can’t think of anyone else who does.
In the same vein:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/13/sun-apologises-misspelling-soldier
No comment!
108. What I’m afraid this does show is that the public are right to distrust ‘experts’. On so many subjects, so-called experts are unable to keep their own hopes and prejudices out of the way. The Professor Nutt case is an even clearer example, of course, and then we have the climate change mob…
There’s no substitute for robust debate - the media wheeling out biased ‘experts’ to tell us how we should think on various issues is simply a soft form of propaganda.
Mr Thrasers logic - Conservative support its up but its not in safe labour seats - so that must be bad ?
113 “Using Glasgow NE to predict anything nationally is not worth the candle.”
With the possible exception of Gordon now staying to the bitter, bitter end.
114: Sorry Nick..I’m picking you out when 95% of the people here do the same.
However there is something amusing when a Labour MP picks a Daily Mail commentator to support an arguement, when the general attiude amongst labour towards the Mail and the views of most of people which write for it is probably unprintable.
Paul Linford gives a very good analysis of the week
“The Prime Minister may have garnered some public sympathy this week. But regaining the public’s sympathy is a long way from regaining its trust”
http://paullinford.blogspot.com/2009/11/regaining-sympathy-not-same-as.html
Continuing with the Jedward theme, there’s a great picture of Brandy (Gordon & Mandy) over on Guido of them as Little Britain’s “want that one” duo
111 - Thatcher was far from popular in her first few years and benefited hugely from the formation of the SDP and the Falklands War. The Tories can’t hope for anything similar when they are elected, though they may get a degree of the former. The other thing that would help them would be Scottish independence, but that may take a bit longer - though an SNP surge in 2014 would do the trick in terms of delivering another term.
114 Er, comment!
“Earlier this week on a My Sun discussion block, the surname of Jacqui Janes, the mother of guardsman Jamie Janes, was spelled incorrectly,” said the Sun in an online apology. “As soon as we became aware of the error it was corrected. We are happy to apologise for the mistake.”
It’s called an apology - used for something really embarrassing, Nick. Cleanly done, soon forgotten. If Gordon had been aware of the basic concept, perhaps he would not have been troubled by the events of the past week…
Of course, with so much to apologise for, he might be kept quite busy. Perhaps that is why he blocks the notion from his mind.
118 - It’s rather like PB Tories picking out a Polly Toynbee article to support their views.
101. Jack, A man after my own heart, I sincerely hope you enjoyed it.
120. Correction
Brandy = Brown & Mandy
109 - this argument is clearly false. In 1951 and 1979 the Conservatives won smallish majorities but got bigger ones in the subsequent two elections. 1970 produced the opposite result. If history, based on such a tiny sample ! can teach us anything then the Tories will be happy with a small majority. But they are going to get a very big majority.
NP. You can always tell when a paper doesn’t like you by the photo they use. Cameron’s looks like he’s rehearsing for a gurning competition. This was interesting ”
“…….Although there is no reason to believe that the Tories were in any way connected with the red-top tabloid’s vicious smearing of
Gordon Brown, they have been damaged by association with their new-found media ally”
As I said last week if you sleep with dogs you catch fleas. A big onslaught on Murdoch wouldn’t do Brown or Labour any harm at all’
‘The Tories are in bed with Murdoch and want to destroy the BBC’. If that became a battleground there can be only one winner.
113. Don, for once I totally agree with you.
121: Which was my point SO. People weren’t enthusictic for Thatcher in 1979…far from it..but events (and there are always events) allowed to go to and win 2 further elections.
People and experts seem blinkered that 1997 is the only year in which things need to referred or compared to. It isn’t.
OT
Not sure if this has been posted up yet but I do dispair of this country and the principle of responsible behavior.
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
Note that no where in the article or reported comments does there seem to be any question that the accused was lying. Simply that the strict interpretation of the law is that he was guilty no matter what.
Bloody stupid.
127 - It’s strange that Labour used to consider the Sun’s support so important if all it does is damage the Tories.
129. Slackbladder, Correct and conditions are almost the same for this election as for 1979, Labour in power and the country wrecked, it would be crazy to expect anything other than a similar result and you do not need to be an expert to work that out.
89
Nick What are the Comparative figures for Labour’s membership?.
The story I get re memberships renewal is that people are not renewing because of money worries(mainly the lower cash subscribers)
It’s tough out there , every penny counts, and they are not blaming the Conservatives.
Oborne was also repeating the same myth about Blair being on more than 50% in the polls.
96. That the postal voting system is wide open to abuse is beyond doubt. What is laughable ‘Tapestry’ is your belief that it’s Brussels which is manipulating it all. I don’t like the EU at all but the idea that they could rig the election is a joke. Yes Labour have used postal votes to help win by-elections in 2 heartland seats but why didn’t they do the same in Norwich North, the sort of seat they need to hold if they are to deny the Tories a majority?
Do you have any evidence that the EU rigged the 2005 GE or have The Iluminati destroyed it all???
119. Reading the piece by Paul Linford and then the one by Polly Toynbee it seems hard to believe that one hadn’t read the other before writing. They’re just so similar.
126 and 129 - And my point is that post-1979 Thatcher relied on a combination of things that are unlikely to help the Tories this time.
As I said, a 50 seat majority i clearly good enough, but it will not cement them in power in the way a Blair-like 97 majority will. I suppose the other side of that is that it will mean they are insulated against complacency as the opposition they fce will be much stronger than the opposition Labour got aftr 1997.
However, I do beliee that if you offered labour a 50 seat Tory majority today they would grab it with both hands.
130 - How does the law define “possession”? Surely since it was apparently found on his property, “not touching it and calling the police” would have ended with him in the same predicament?
Thrasher must read PB.com surely? Or at least be aware of it. Not to be so would be like football managers not watching Match of the Day
Can you not get him on to do a guest slot? To explain his laughably wrong opinions?
124 malcolmG. Indeed so. I felt the need for a more than usual ample sufficiency of Scottish scoff in preparation for a long luncheon and then my virgin thread contribution.
Mrs W …. stock up the Iron Bru !!
137 - I think it extremely feasible that Labour will split in the aftermath of an election defeat.
I think the historical trend is that once Governments start to decline they cannot turn it around. A Conservative Govt elected at the next election largely on the back of Labour performance, with ongoing certainty about their own capability, could still be on the way up.
141 - I think it will depend on the size of the defeat.
I think that too many people are allowing their hatred of Brown and Labour to colour their judgements.
The tory lead is perhaps 5% above hung parlament territory.
It is not inevitable but very possible that the gap will narrow over the next few months.
Thereby a hung parliament is probably more likely than the pundits would suggest.
And a difference with 97, is that in 97, Blair did not need to be 10% ahead to win a majority. With all his huge popularity and everything going for him, he only finished 13% ahead. Given that Cameron has not sealed the deal in the same way and has a weaker front bench (at least in perception), I think there is much to play for.
115 Almost everything that I now know about opinion polling has been learned either from Anthony Wells, or from this site. Some political commentators would do well to study both.
That’s an excellent article David. Every point is well taken.
What I think is often overlooked, in discussions about the Conservatives’ poll results, is the fact that 6-10% of the voters are saying they’d vote for parties to the Right of the Conservatives (UKIP or BNP). No previous Conservative opposition has had to contend with that - yet still, the Conservatives have a lead of 10-17%.
I don’t know if that 6-10% is people switching away from the Conservatives, who in turn, are more than making up for it among people who previously voted Labour and Lib Dem, or people switching directly from Labour and Lib dems, or (probably) a bit of both. Either way, the overall vote share for right wing parties is currently ranging from 45-50%, compared to 35% in 2005, a huge shift in voting intention, comparable to the swing to the Left in 1945.
What we know from the Yougov mammoth poll in June is that UKIP and BNP voters identify as right wing, and while they may not like the Conservatives very much, they loathe Labour . We also know, from the London Elections, that given a choice between Labour and Conservative, they’ll very strongly back the Conservatives.
That represents a huge “reserve” vote, potentially, for the Conservatives in the marginal seats. It also helps explain (along with a shift in outlook among Lib Dem voters) why Yougov’s “forced choice” question has gone from showing a Labour lead of 15% in 2005, to a Conservative lead of 16% today.
134. 136. Pitiful isn’t it? This is the cheap cut and paste that passes for journalism these days.
Hayek used to refer to journos (among others) as ’second hand dealers in ideas’ - what we now have is warmed up cr*p off the back of the sh* cart.
Re Smithson vs Oborne et al
Mike is clearly right on the pooling evidence an Oborne horribly wrong.
On the impact of the Sun story the positions are reversed.
1 - 1
130, If the circumstances are exactly as laid out it does seem ridiculous. However I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye. Why would he have rung to make an appointment with a Superintedant, why not just take it in to the front desk?
The big danger from this is it puts doubt in the public’s mind. If in future someone finds a loaded weapon in a public place (let’s say a playground for the full Daily Mail flavour) do they just leave it there because they fear arrest. Do they take possession of it and let someone go and ring the police or do they slink off and leave it there?
Incidents and reporting like this, leave dangerous doubt in peoples minds. Why was the opportunity not taken to give the correct advice on what to do in a case like this?
146 - With reference to Paul Linford, I don’t think it’s a cut and paste job, it’s more he’s come to the same conclusions as Polly, and speaking as a Tory, Paul Linford is one of my favourite non Tory political writer/blogger. I always look out for his weekly article. It’s very perceptive.
“Oborne was also repeating the same myth about Blair being on more than 50% in the polls”
It was not a myth. It’s just that this site has chosen to ignore the several pollsters that put Blair up to 70% because they didn’t use ICM’s methodology.
Once a new Govt is elected they have the advantage of holding the best electoral position. By being able to dominate the agenda they can shift their position with incremental shifts in public opinion, and the Opposition are always stuck with lack of differentiation (if they follow the Govt) and unpopular political positions if they seek reasons to vote for them.
Of course over time the new Govts general political positioning will become inflexible due to the weight of past decisions which they have to continue to justify, at which point opportunities will begin to open up for the Opposition. Govts are helped by large Global uncontrollable shifts which allow them to disown many of their past decisions and start afresh.
150, you mean pb.com only considers accurate pollsters to be relevant? Shocking behaviour.
145 - I don’t think there is any doubt that the Tories will win a landslide maybe even greater than the Blair one in 97, thanks mostly to an almost complete Labour wipe-out across the midlands and the south. I think most Labour people know that too, which is why I think that they would take a 50 seat Tory majority very gladly indeed.
However, as a non-affiliated person on the soft, wishy-washy left, I am hoping that the Tories do win big, do not punish non-Tory parts of the UK as they did between 79 and 97, and so cause the left to look at itself properly and to conclude that the Labour Party just does not work as the main player on the left in the 21st century. It has to happen at some stage, so why not sooner rather than later?
144
Your comment suggests that the nation knew who the Labour shadow cabinet were at the time of the 1997 GE. I doubt many got beyond Blair and Brown.
As to weaker in perception, thats your theory alone, its just spin.
153, hmm. My own view has long been a Tory majority of 50-70, and I stick with that now. I’d be surprised if it topped 100.
151 - Good governments need good oppositions.
143 - A Conservative majority of 50 would see Labour losing about 2/5 of their Parliamentary Party. We are no longer in the traditional 2-party position where one party has to secure a landslide for the other to go down to a crushing defeat, with all the internal faction fighting that that would generate.
This is the great unspoken in all these debates. It is always “hung Parliament vs Conservative Majority” - it has already been decided that we will probably have a Conservative Government. Labour MPs see hope in the Conservatives not gaining a majority, as if the corollary is that that would represent a Labour victory.
152 - Mr Dancer, further to last nights link
Those representing Button say they find it “hard to believe” the Formula One team cannot afford to match the new world champion’s wage demands, and rejecting suggestions that their man is holding the team to ransom
Button took a voluntary pay cut of over 50 per cent – from £8 million to £3 million – to stay at Brackley after Honda pulled the plug last winter, apparently with a verbal agreement that his salary would be returned to pre-Honda levels if everything went well.
However, team owner Ross Brawn said earlier this week that he could not meet Button’s demands, thought to be in the region of £6 million, but would instead be prepared to offer the driver more freedom to negotiate his own sponsorship deals.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/jenson-button/6564741/Jenson-Button-advisers-find-it-hard-to-believe-Brawn-cannot-meet-6m-wage-demand.html
156 - And long term Governments need bad oppositions.
155 - I just can’t see how Labour is going to win any seats at all in the south and midlands outside of the inner cities - and a few inner city seats look vulnerable too. And if Wales is turning too, the best Labour can hope for is to stay where it is in the north and Scotland.
AnneJGP The sad situation in Glasgow was summed up for me by the voter who said he voted Labour as they were the party of the working man and then complained he and his family had been out of work for ’some time’.
The irony escaped him.
115. Modern society has certainly opened its arms to the ‘tyranny of the experts’. There is no room for the ‘amateur’ anymore. Indeed, it is considered a dirty word.
135. http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2009/02/problems-with-postal-vote-fraud-in.html
Storm, you acknowledge voting fraud in some instances, and presumably you know about the evidence of largescale postal voting in 2005, concentrated in marginal or pro-EU seats like Ken Clarke, David Miliband.
I would ask you this simple question?
Why would anybody engage in voting fraud if they didn’t expect to change the result of the lections they are rigging? What would be the point? Would they be thinking ‘let’s go and rig a few seats for a bit of sport, chaps’? No, they rig to win.
159 - Do we share the joint prize for the stating the bleedin’ obvious?
163 - Sorry, Never in a million years would postal fraud be needed to ensure a Tory won in Rushcliffe or Labour won in South Shields.
You could put up Osama bin Laden as the Tory Candidate in Rushcliffe and he’d win, and A donkey with a red rosette in South Shields, and the donkey would win.
164 -
Of course I think almost all oppositions are routinely derided as “bad” until the point at which everyone assumes that they are on the verge of Government.
No, it really was the banks and it really wasn’t the government.
by John L November 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Indeed and whose regulatory system failed to control them?
That is right, this government.
142. That is correct - and historically, the chances of governments coming into power increasing their majority at the next election is quite good. Since WWII, the split is close to even:
Increased: Con 1951-55, Lab 1964-66, Lab 1974(F)-(O), Con 1979-83
Decreased: Lab 1945-50, Con 1970-74(F), Lab 1997-2001
Perhaps one of the more notable features of that sample is that the split of parties who entered government without a landslide split 4-1 for Increased (Heath’s 1970 government being the exception).
If Cameron does become PM after the election, I don’t expect him to have an easy time of it by any means. On the other hand, life for Labour would be no cakewalk either. Many in Labour seem to have mentally adjusted to opposition already - but to the opposition years of 1993-7, not those of the late eighties when the serious thinking and regeneration was done. Reheating New Labour (especially without a Blair-equivalent leader) will not be sufficient.
I think that things are a lot closer than people think. Also, if anyone should be reeling from the by-election result - it should be the libdems. (http://philippalatimer.co.uk/home/?p=126)
David
You are very hard on Thrasher (rightly)but then go on to make your own howler about Glasgow North East being “near identical” to next door Glasgow East.
It ain’t for t arange of reasons which affect its poltics. The best clue comes at the European elections in June where the SNP were just behind Labour across Glasgow, well ahead across the country (10 per cent) but got hammered in Glasgow North East.
158, very interesting stuff, Mr. Eagles. A Button-Hamilton McLaren team would be an intriguing prospect.
Oh, and I’ll try to get my F1 review done today.
169 - Ah but it is a mistake which only strengthens his argument once pointed out! Do you see what he’s done there
165. The point about these two seats is that they are the most heavily rigged (or postal vote supported) seats in Britain, and coincidentally are key to the (e)utopian programme - keeping Miliband and Clarke in very safe seats.
Clarke has faced deselection attempts and I understand Miliband’s would not be all that safe without the postal programme.
These are less relevant to overall election result rigging, as to keeping EU-favoured politicians with nice big majorities.
150. “It was not a myth. It’s just that this site has chosen to ignore the several pollsters that put Blair up to 70% because they didn’t use ICM’s methodology”
Roger, could you name one published poll from anyone even resembling a recognised pollster who ever gave Labour a 70% share of the vote. Blair may have had personal approval ratings of 70% or ‘Best PM’ ratings at that level (I don’t know but I’m willing to accept that it may have happened during the Summer of 1997); I’m not aware of a single poll that put Labour even close to that level.
164 - Actually i think there is surely some good reason to question the old cliche about Good Governments and Strong/good opposition. Isn’t the corollary of that that Hung Parliaments make for excellent Government?
It is not difficult to go too far to find very bad Governments facing good opposition, and what makes a “Good Government” tends to be in the eye of the beholder.
175 - Gallup peaked at 61% in 1994 (Blair’s first honeymoon) and 63% post election (his second).
174 - LOL - it’s a bit difficult to have foreseen Miliband as “key” to the EU project in 2005. He wasn’t even in the Cabinet!
That Oborne article has the annoying meme :
The newspaper failed to give any concession to the fact that Brown is blind in one eye and has poor sight in the other, which would go some way to explaining his spelling mistakes
It is so insulting to partially sighted people to suggest that condition weakens their intellectual capacity, particularly their ability to spell.
And of course Brown denies the description of his sight in that paragraph.
Morning all and David another excellent thread with some first class comments on it. Like others I await Jack W’s epistle with interest.
Probably in common with many of you I was so appalled by Michael Thrasher’s nonsense yesterday that I emailed SKY News thereafter to complain that it was misleading nonsense.
On Glasgow NE, the constituency in which I was born (because that is where Stobhill Hospital is located) it is sadly a hellhole but it has many thousands of decent people. Sadly thy are just outnumbered by mega scumbags.
I do think it does tell us some things about Scottish politics though and as Stuart has said, the SLD are struggling badly. In 3 by-elections on the trot, 2 in constituencies neighbouring seats they have either won since 2005 or hoped to win in 2010, their vote evaporated. This was the party which in 2005 secured more than 500,000 votes in Scotland, more than either the SNP or Tories.
Labour clearly is entrenching in its heartlands and it is worthy of comment that the SNP’s excellent candidate who had the tacit backing of the Roman Catholic church only added 2% to the party’s score in 2005.
On PB2 last night I put up a list of all Scotland’s 59 constituencies with the winner and runner up in 2005, winner in nearest equivalent seat in 2007 and my hunch as to who will win in 2010. I also put in the table a second hunch as to who else might win if not the same party. Sadly the last column has been clipped out but I am happy to email it to anyone interested.
As a result I expect Labout to end up in the 30-35 seat range (including gaining East Dunbartonshire and Dunfermline West from the LibDems) the SNP in the 9 to 12 seat range (including the possible loss of Perth and/or Angus to the Tories) the Tories in the 7-8 seat range and the LibDems in the 7-9 seat range.
My original prediction and new predictions are therefore:
Labour -14, Labour -10
LibDem -4, LibDem -4
SNP + 12, SNP + 7
Tories +6, Tories +7
Now you can all shoot me down in flames!
Funny how Brown offers sympathy to a tubeless and talentless, crazy Scot like Susan Boyle, yet slams Jedward for their lack of singing prowess, the tries to use them in his political games against the Conservatives
174 - Oh you’re officially talking bollocks now. Ken Clarke has never faced deselection issues in his life. He’s immensly popular with Rushcliffe conservatives.
and in 2005, Miliband was a junior minister, he wasn’t essential to the European project.
175. David. Perhaps I was confusing Blair’s ratings with Labour’s but this rather argues with your point about Labour not doing better than the Tories.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/opinion_polls/newsid_1173000/1173903.stm
“In March 1997 there were nine published pre-election polls and these gave Labour an average lead of 24% over the Conservatives”.
171 - I have a feeling that we’ll see a replay of Hamilton/Alonso stuff of 2007 if we see Hamilton/Button as partners.
It will be fun though.
154
You are way off beam. I havent made up my mind who to vote for and am not spinning for anyone.
But I do, like many have an anorak like memory and the reality is that Gordon Brown in 1997 was infinitely stronger than George Osborn is in 2009. It may look like the worst judgement ever made but Gordon was perceived as very strong as were people like Robin Cook, Jack Straw, Mo Mowlam et al.
I agree it all looks very different now.
But my view is that Labour is not doomed to a 1997 style defeat. A poll lead of say 8% is very plausible for the tories and as we all know that would probably mean hung parliament.
Time for everyone to start making some calls to Nick Clegg?
As I said last week if you sleep with dogs (the Sun) you catch fleas. A big onslaught on Murdoch wouldn’t do Brown or Labour any harm at all’
by Roger November 14th, 2009 at 9:37 am
And Labour are so flea bitten with that association over the last fourteen years that the kindest thing to do is take them to the vet next year and put them out of their misery.
170. OK, ‘near-identical’ may have been overstating it a touch but they’re still pretty close. In the Euro-poll, Labour won NE by a touch over 2000 whereas they won E by around 800. It’s difficult to compare Westminster seats because of the complicating factor of the Speakership and non-candidatures of the Tories and Lib Dems (who though marginal, should still take at least 10% between them) and impact of minor parties.
The short history of the seats also makes comparisons difficult but the old consituencies of Shettleston and Springburn had very similar results (about 72/16/6/4) in 1997, for example. Such differences as there are aren’t enough to account for anything like the difference in the results of the two by-elections.
Another one for MD
Jenson Button faces a mighty dilemma as McLaren show their hand
The world champion would play second fiddle to Lewis Hamilton if he leaves Brawn, but will probably fade if he stays
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/nov/13/jenson-button-dilemma-mclaren-brawn
185 - If it was found out before the election that Nick Clegg was talking to Labour, it would play straight into Tory hands that
“Vote Yellow, Get Brown”
I think Nick Clegg will play this very wisely.
There are many reasonable arguments about whether the Conservatives or Labour are doing quite as well but the point is that polls showing Blair 50%+ were just wrong so the argument needs to go beyond the level of Thrasher and Oborne.
183 -
March 1997 - Average lead 24%
May 1997 - Actual lead 12.5%
Do you see a problem here?
180 Easterross. “Like others I await Jack W’s epistle with interest.”
It might turn out more an epissedle !!
185/189 - And anyway on an 8pt Tory lead the only thing Brown and Clegg would have to talk about, at best, would be Opposition tactics to a Tory minority Government.
Mike is right about the Lib Dems failures in by-elections since the election of Willie Rennie. While trougher Rennard was an excellent by-election orchestrator, the day he was inflated to Lib Dem Chief Executive was the start of the rot. Matters have hardly been helped in Scotland where a number of MPs, as well as the national party have been dragged into covering up ‘Trumpgate’ - a sordid Aberdeen affair which has led the Lib Dem leadership to cling ever-tighter in their beds with the Tories while lifelong Liberals have deserted to the Greens in disgust.
The Lib Dems will make some unpredictable gains in the next General Election (just as they did in Westmorland, Withington and Solihull) due to the quality of teams in certain constituencies, effective third-party squeezes and aplling ‘big two’ candidates, but their national performance will do well to flatline due to the aggregation of ‘no-marks’ around the centre of the Party, and around the Parliamentary leadership. The Scot Nats may also have a parallel experience. Basically, these two anti-establishment parties have been sucked into the complacency of comfort and become part of the establishment. The amount of fire in their bellies and inspiration which they collectively possess seems to be bear market stuff.
192 - Will there be any reference to the Jacobites in your magnum opus?
#145, by Sean Fear November 14th, 2009 at 9:52 am/b>
Yet again Sean has it right,
We all know OGH view on polls - and why Labour blowhards try to convince otherwise is beyond me - and the analysis provided by Anthony Wells seems to be of a similar viewpoint. Add to which URW - a man who is staking a lot of his money on Blue - does not yet see any cause to do otherwise. Should any of these parties change their opinions I would be concerned.
After Monday’s Yak [ © SeanT ] story I was thinking of voting with my English Democrat heart at the next GE. The postings of Gabble, Nick and others soon convinced me to vote with my head.
The damage Labour has done to England over the last three terms is too much to allow another term of failed left-wing Scottish-Unionists and assorted quislings. I compel all English eurosceptics to pinch-their-noses and do the same!
#196, Sorry for the shouting…!
174. Tapestry you are bonkers.
The, ’seeds of destruction’ of the Cameron government, have already been planted.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100016829/the-case-for-leaving-the-eu/
re 183. But only one of those pollsters was ICM Roger - the ones that had the biggest over-estimates of Labour’s lead and the ones that had not, by then, been reformed.
2001 was another disaster for this latter group of pollsters. Gallup soon got replaced by YouGov at the Telegraph and MORI lost the Times contract to Populus.
The new firms had methods to ensure politically balanced samples.
Since then MORI has undergone a huge transformation.
Just look at the 2001 polls here remembering that Labour’s eventual margin was in single figures.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/historical-polls/voting-intention-1997-2001
127 ‘As I said last week if you sleep with dogs you catch fleas. A big onslaught on Murdoch wouldn’t do Brown or Labour any harm at all’
Roger, attacks on the free press are normally the behaviour of governments of dubious morality and corrupt dictatorships. Would you be happy to see what would effectively be a form of state censorship take place in this country?
Morning All and great article David.
My isnt’ it windy outside
Am just reading some more of Mullin’s view from the Foothill’s, and it’s fascinating stuff - in 2000, Gordon was already considered to be running HMG from the Treasury and it was common knowledge that he didn’t get the military…
Reaping what you sow…
194.
Whops, it’s David, not Mike. But the article is basically sound throughout. The only issue is whether the present opinion poll levels will drop off and a largely-useless government, whose ‘clangers’ are pretty-widely-known, be replaced by a totally-useless one whose idiocies have been successfully-concealed.
Can we have some hard facts on postal voting please. Mike, maybe it would be a useful article with some stats. I am not convinced by some of the arguments which tend to suggest that lots of postal votes is inherently good for Labour. It just depends on which party ensures that their pledges have the opportunity to sign up for postal votes and which seat is being fought. My gut feeling is it only reinforces a trend. Also some stats on how many postal votes were issued and used in a number of seats across the UK as I am not entirely convinced that some of the seats claimed to have unusually high numbers of postal votes, have, when compared across the country.
184, what makes you say that?
I hope Massa kicks Alonso’s arse at Ferrari.
188, ah, right. Hamilton’s the better driver, to be fair.
Vettel’s probably the best of all though. If he cuts out silly errors he’ll be world champion.
Incidentally, this Sun article on Professor Nutt’s son is truly disgusting. To try to humiliate and destroy someone who has not at all tried to be in the media limelight, just because of who his dad it, is incredibly unethical. What did this bloke do to deserve this? He’s just an average uni student, telling non-PC jokes like uni students do.
This John Coles guy is clearly a t***. The Sun is a disgusting paper, and I think very badly of Cameron for courting it and its odious owner.
Sky News. Steven Byers to stand down.
Another one bites the dust…
#150, by Roger November 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am
It was not a myth. It’s just that this site has chosen to ignore the several pollsters that put Blair up to 70% because they didn’t use ICM’s methodology.
Wodger,
Are you still in advertising? Should OGH now publish polls showing that: condom X was voted by you as the best barrier-product in the UK in the second weekend of May, 2009…?
195 Scream. Jack W’s After Lunch Thread - “Will there be any reference to the Jacobites in your magnum opus?”
PB in Need Charity Donation :
Yes or No
Losers donate £5 to PB via paypal.
201
Murdoch runs a ‘free press’ does he? Free to advance Rupert’s campaign for world domination, perhaps.
You’d better have a word with Oborne Mike.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1227718/PETER-OBORNE-As-Brown-survives-hellish-week-dawning-Cameron-victory-isnt-bag.html
206 Agreed - picking on the children and relatives of those in the news is beyond the pale.
205 - I think you’ll have two drivers competing to be number 1, and that may cause some friction, as Hamilton is already at McClaren, i think Button may feel that he’s an outsider, gatecrashing in.
Perhaps my analogy to Hamilton/Alonso isn’t apt, as I forget, Alonso is an utter cock.
206 What did they say?
202 Plato. “My isnt’ it windy outside”
It’s a bit ripe in here at times too !!
wage slave November 14th, 2009 at 10:35 am
i understood that! It made sense! And a very good post, too.
What happened? Did you escape from the Mad-O-Speak monster this morning.
201. That’s a ridiculous interpretation. If the Government banned the Sun, that would be an assault on press freedom. To criticise them is completely justifiable. You seem to be suggesting people in government shouldn’t be allowed the right of criticism.
213. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2729905/Drugs-professors-son-in-spliff-pic-on-net.html
212, I agree they’ll compete, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Webber and Vettel aren’t best friends forever, but they never had serious rows or suchlike.
207.
“Steven Byers to stand down.”
I wonder if his constituents will even notice?
The list of retired Bliarite Brown-tongues is getting to be of almost Bullingdon proportions. If Gordo goes down with flying colours, there won’t be many hands on deck left from among those who drove SS Nu-labour onto the rocks.
209 - I’ll go for at least one reference to the noble Jacobites.
216 - The pathetic thing is Labour launching repeated attacks on the Sun, for no other reason than they have now decided to back the Tories rather than Labour. And having the nerve to argue that “a deal must have been done”, without saying what the quid pro quo for Labour support was for 12 years.
I suspect that almost all posters on here have no particular regard for the Sun, but can’t abide the hypocrisy of Labour’s new found hatred of the paper.
Interesting, I guess I’ll have to move my no meetings between 12 and 1 on a Wedneday to no meetings on Thursday between 12:30
David Cameron is planning to move Prime Minister’s Question Time from Wednesdays to Thursdays in a Commons shake-up.
The Tories hope the idea will keep MPs in London for more of the week, scrutinising bills and working on committees.
Even though Parliament sits five days a week, many members leave for their constituencies after lunch on Thursday.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227695/Is-PMQs-David-Cameron-plans-Commons-shake-up.html
Hmmm GB may have lost the Sun, but the Mail?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1227705/MAIL-COMMENT-Mr-Brown-war-test-character.html
Then again there’s the Indy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-prime-ministers-black-week-suddenly-turns-rosy-1820370.html
Hmmm perhaps that Nomaj may be on the cards.
223 - Or the peerage for Dacre.
Candidate for Polling Dunce Award?
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1227718/PETER-OBORNE-As-Brown-survives-hellish-week-dawning-Cameron-victory-isnt-bag.html
He trots out almost every polling fallacy:
Blair regularly topped 50% in the polls…
Blair’s lead in high double digits…
‘History shows’ that Governments always recover in the polls at the election date draw near…
I’m slightly surprised that this poll
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6916648.ece
In this mornings Times has received no comment from PB.ers.
Is that because its findings are thought pretty predictable?
Certainly such opinion was predicted
; http://www.harwoodlevitt.com/thinkingabout/lifeaftercopenhagen.html
Interesting to see what impact such polling has on the argument between David Cameron and some of his back benchers on his commitment to green policies.
210 ‘Murdoch runs a ‘free press’ does he? Free to advance Rupert’s campaign for world domination, perhaps.’
No less free than any of the other newspapers groups Coldstone. They all have an agenda of some kind.
216 Roger suggests an ‘onslaught’; definition ‘a violent attack’. That sounds a step up from ‘criticism’ don’t you think? Maybe he should choose his words more carefully.
223 coldstone - Nomaj are rubbish.You never hear a word about their policies and all their front bench are totally anonymous.
When was the last time a Nomaj Shadowy Minister faced Paxman or appeared on QT ?
In November 1978 Labour were ahead in the polls.
MIKE SMITHSON - POLL ALERT - SORT OF !!
Mike as it’s a quietish Saturday perhaps before my thread is published you might care to set up one of your PB polls :
Jack W’s After Lunch Thread - How many references to Jacobites in the magnum opus?”
None
One
Two
Three
More than three
Losing voters invited to donate £5 to PB via the paypal link below.
Stephen Byers previously called for Gordon Brown to stand down. Evidently, he now does not expect him to do so.
We have rehearsed all these arguments ad nauseam, and David does a good job in summarising the counter-arguments to Thrasher. However, Thrasher and other psephologists know their onions and their arguments are stronger if only for one overriding reason.
In 1997 the electoral system would have given Labour a majority with less than a 1% vote lead over the Tories. Their poll lead was in the teens, so they had a comfort zone of at least 10%.
In 2010 the Tories need something like a 10% lead to achieve a bare majority. The polls are showing their “comfort zone” is around 1%-2%.
That is no comfort zone at all, and putting it bluntly, if the Labour “corpse” manages to twitch before polling day a hung parliament beckons.
That is the correct perspective for punters to adopt…
With Alan Milburn, Charles Clarke, John Reid and now Stephen Byers standing down, will there be any Blairites left in the next House of Commons
URW, I won’t have a word said against Spanish ham, even if it is upside down.
233 - Sorry, remove Charles Clarke from that list.
233. Michael Gove.
I think it’s relevant that quite a few left leaning commentators are talking about likely hung parliaments but, with the exception of Nick Palmer, those who are knocking on doors, or seeing canvassing returns seem much more pessimistic about Labours chances.
I know which I’d give more weight to.
233 Charlie’s standing down ?! I missed that one
238 - He’s not, my mistake, though he may lose his seat.
For those who simply want to live out their days in a fug of dole and beer, voting Labour is a rational decision. There’s nothing Cameron can do to win them round, so he must win other people round instead, and he can only do this by offering a credible vision of a better future to those who aspire. Labour’s best strategy is to perpetuate an air of hopelessness and inevitable decline, and for this purpose they have the ideal leadership.
It will be hard to sustain a positive vision against a backdrop of economic reality and mud-slinging, so Cameron’s tactic - keeping his powder dry until battle commences - is surely correct. That the Conservatives have not sustained 45% in the polls is an unconvincing criticism because their strategy is to peak on election day, not before. The key question is, will it succeed?
On the other hand, Labour’s push to diminish aspiration and ’stir up apathy’ has been in full swing for the last two years. Many people are remarkably content as long as they have a council house, a packet of fags and a doctor’s surgery around the corner. No-one should imagine they can just walk into these neighbourhoods and galvanise the populace with hope for the future. For them the war is over.
Whoever wins in 2010 will inherit the most divided country since the middle of the 19th century.
From the Times:
“In Britain, researchers from the School of Management at the University of Bath analysed 315 responses from people shown a picture of Kate Winslet, the Hollywood actress, with the caption “I vote Conservative, do you?” against those presented with an equally attractive non-celebrity.
Among those interested in politics, there was no statistically significant difference. But for the rest of the group, 67 per cent said that they were more likely to back the Tories, compared with 48 per cent of people who saw the non-celebrity.
Dr Ekant Veer, who conducted the study, said that with 40 per cent of the electorate not voting, parties used celebrities to “tap in this bit of the market” that might not be reached through other means.
He also pointed out that he did not know how Winslet voted. She is much too smart for that.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6916499.ece
226 - It’s going to be impossible to prove to Joe Public that climate change is man-made. Especially when the debate is so based in high-level science. This is a case where governments have to lead opinion, not follow it. And that means being brave. Which in turn means that nothing much will happen.
180. Easterross - “… including the possible loss of Perth and/or Angus to the Tories”
Here’s Mark’s theme tune:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nViC0K-zifk
Shadsy, put the poor guy out of his misery: let’s have a market on:
- Angus
- Perth & NP
- Ochil & SP
- Argyll & Bute
- Dumfries & Galloway
- Inverness, NB&S
- Stirling
It’s money where mouth is time folks!
227
You can’t compare Murdoch to any other press baron in either scale or ambition.
The tragedy is that politicians of any party, court that man.
Never smile at a crocodile
No, you can’t get friendly with a crocodile
Don’t be taken in by his welcome grin
He’s imagining how well you’d fit within his skin
Never smile at a crocodile
Never dip your hat and stop to talk awhile
Never run, walk away, say good-night, not good-day
Clear the aisle but never smile at Mister Crocodile
You may very well be well bred
Lots ot etiquette in your head
But there’s always some special case, time or place
To forget etiquette
For instance:
Never smile at a crocodile
No, you can’t get friendly with a crocodile
Don’t be taken in by his welcome grin
He’s imagining how well you’d fit within his skin
Never smile at a crocodile
Never dip your hat and stop to talk awhile
Never run, walk away, say good-night, not good-day
Clear the aisle but never smile at Mister Crocodile
233. Is Charles Clarke standing down? I wasn’t aware of that?
Well all week we’ve been hearing about how the public has become sympathetic towards Brown after lettergate. How Glasgow North-East is a sign that Labour are coming back, etc…. Well, this evening we get our first test of this theory with YouGov’s Sunday Times poll. If the commentators are right we should see quite a pronounced narrowing of the Tory lead.
Lets wait and see….
“Whoever wins in 2010 will inherit the most divided country since the middle of the 19th century.”
I can’t have that,History Boy, unless you further specify.
My recent reading of local mid-19th century history leads me to believe that we were a far more politically cohesive society then than now.
240 - Only fag smoking, dole claiming losers vote Labour. I am not sure it will work as a Tory slogan, even if it is what many Tories believe.
246 - The rich ruled and the poor knew their place.
The only thing I can agree with Thrasher about a hung Parliament is that it would be a good idea especially if the current government and all of the troughers were hung from the nearest available lamp posts outside Westminster thus at the same time reducing their carbon footprint instantaneously and giving the whole world a lead in how to deal with the greatest threat of our time “punitive taxation scams dressed up as global warming psycho babble”
John Hutton, who got it so right with his ‘Brown will be an effing disaster’ soundbite, is also stepping down.
232 - So why don’t you adopt it, then Rod?
Nobody would have a problem with your views if you presented more like that, rather than the certainty you adopt, and the statistical mumbo jumbo that goes with it.
For several months/years now you have tried to portray yourself as some sort of lone “giver of the truth” on here, seeing everyone who takes issue with your posts as evidence of their certainty of a Conservative landslide.
There is nothing wrong with arguing, rightly or wrongly, for the likelihood of a hung Parliament. There is something wrong with using erroneous or statistically suspect “evidence” to do so.
Of course it’s not as dubious as Nick Palmer’s simultaneous views that “there won’t be a hung Parliament” and “Labour have a chance”, but not far off.
pb2 F1 2009 season review: http://politicalbetting.blogspot.com/2009/11/2009-season-review.html
244 coldstone, it’s odd how you never seem to criticise the favourable relationship that appears to exist between Brown and the editor of your chief source of ‘cut and paste’, The Daily Mail. Funny that.
245 - You Gov seem to be producing polls every couple of days at the moment. Has anyone used, say, their last 4 polls (to reduce the margin or error) to produce a detailed prediction using the regional predictor at Electoral Calculus, which is based i think on YouGov regions.
246. URW - I had in mind Disraeli’s Sybil, which which I’m sure you are familiar. But I agree, society was probably more cohesive in 1845 than it is today.
DH. I agree in principle with your prognosis.
The usual problem with members of academia who tend to follow a cetain line, like Thrasher and Prof Nutt, is that their line of thought and conclusions are often based on a chosen set of results that fit the trend analysis that agrees with their often pre-experimental conclusions.
When others then use those results as a basis for their own published papers then it becomes very difficult to acknowledge a fault in one’s own initial conclusions.
However, ntowithstanding that the Conservatives may gain 6-12 seats in Wales and Scotland and Labour lose 12-16 there (now that the SNP seems to have peaked) the real battle is still to be fought in Engalnd for its 533 seats.
At the 2005GE, the \english vote was split:
Cons: 34.6%, LAB: 34.4% and LD 21,5%
The two most recent polls that show the England only split are:
Angus Reid:
Cons: 40%; LAB: 23% LD: 21% Others 16%
IPSOS MORI
Cons: 47%; LAB 24%; LD 21%; Others 8%.
We need to keep a good eye on the England only polls.
246 - The rich ruled and the poor knew their place.
by Southam Observer November 14th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Sounds good,SO, but consider this.In Victorian times the rich were opening up libraries and swimming-baths for the edification, health and cleanliness of the poor.
Nowadays, same are being closed down under Labour and Conservative alike.
If the Tories come to power we will see a further acceleration of diminishing facilities for the poor.
I suppose my main point is that it is a cosy fallacy that everything progresses in linear fashion.
It doesn’t !
253
I live for the day, (I’ll never see it) when the leader of any political party, will say f**k off to the lot of ‘em.
The Daily Mail is interesting, as for its entire existence, its been the Tory Party House Magazine. I have never known it treat a Tory Party leader with the indifference it shows towards Cameron, very unusual.
247. Southam - it could equally be Labour’s slogan with a core vote strategy.
254. YouGov are certainly very active now.
258 - And yet bizarrely Labour supporters cite it as proof of Cameron unworthiness of the position of PM!
Just been listening to some Labour numpty on Sky who whilst being skewered about youth unemployment decided it was all due to the Tories in the 1980’s and 90’s………….
Words fail
Sky interviewed a young girl from Barnsley, only 1 in her circle of friends (15) had a job.
1. Good Morning lovers of a weekend argument everywhere.
What Thrasher does not do is make any attempt to work on the impact of the rise of other parties and what that does to conventional seat calculations. This is the key matter which should be being examined and which I’ll be dealing with in the coming days.
by Mike Smithson November 14th, 2009 at 3:35 am
I have just been perusing the BNP site this morning. Their Scottish division is really cock-a-hoop over the Glascow by-election results and claim that this is the start of an advance into other Scottish areas.
The party are also holding their annual conference today (somewhwere in the wilds of Wigan) and will discuss changes to their constitution so that skins of a darker shade may join the bretheren.
And if you hold your nose and think that so called ethinics wont join them, then you are in for a big surprise.
The fact is as Mike states in his paragraph (above), and I fully concure, the smaller parties like The BNP, UKIP and the Greens throw all fine polling calculations into the pot this time round.
I feel that we are entering new territory with the BNP making inroads in the Labour hartlands and beyond, UKIP doing ditto to the Tory towns and shires and the Greens affecting the L/Dems.
Oh, I have no doubt that the Tories will have a majority in the next parliament, but they will probably be accompanied by the most entertaing body of MP’s in recennt British history.
242 Southam Observer
You and I agree, I think, and our point is well made by the fact that no one cares about the Times poll. Experienced people knew climate change would make no difference to the voting, therefore……….
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6916648.ece
http://www.harwoodlevitt.com/thinkingabout/lifeaftercopenhagen.html
When is the next poll due anyway?
That would stop a lot of the tittle tatle on here, no?
257 - I agree with the idea that progress is not linear, but at the same time I do think that cohesiveness in and of itself is not a good thing. It was great to be wealthy in Victorian England, it was horrific to be poor. It is still great to be wealthy today, but it is far less horrific being poor. That is a good thing and if we have lost cohesiveness in the journey towards that outcome, it has definitely been a price worth paying. Of course, that is not to say you can’t have linear progress and cohesiveness - both would be ideal. But if you ask me to choose, progress wins every time.
261
Really! who?
It’ll be interesting to see how the Mail treats Dave once he’s PM: very interesting.
264 - When you think about it, the Times headline could just as equally have read that more people think climate change is man made than not, and only 15% believe it is not happening at all.
232
but surely the comfort zone was enlarged for Labour by anti-tory tactical voting, which ensured they lost a lot of seats they “shoudn’t” have
This time there will be anti-Labour tactical voting, and a smart tory campaign will hammer home the message that it’s them or Brown, and that Clegg hates the tories as much as Brown. Those who voted tactically against the tories will help them next year
Tory majority 40-60 looks most likely to me, with a 10-12% poll lead.
267 BTW coldstone, did you post this admittedly unfavourable article during the weekly trawls of the newspaper that graces your breakfast table?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1227421/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Brown-spin-weve-lost-sight-truth.html
266. We were never more cohesive and never poorer than in the ’40s.
Was this a good thing or a bad thing ? Everyone got on the bus or on the train and we all bathed two to a bath. Citizens were never healthier.
36 - from the link
“After that, back to business as usual. Shortly after his completely implausible defence of the war, we were told that “Gordon Brown will try to persuade other European leaders to commit more troops to Afghanistan”. Don’t hold your breath – but do wonder what on earth the purpose of this Government is, and how much longer we can bear to watch this self-destruction of a creature of flesh and blood.
A book has been published in America called The Bush Tragedy, and I myself wrote an essay for The Atlantic Monthly five years ago called The Tragedy of Tony Blair. In truth, neither of those begins to match the tragedy of Gordon Brown.”
Now, what were roger and gabble trying to sell us, oh yes… Gordo the human, sober and serious statesman………
A point that seems to have passed commentators by is that on the basis of the ILO figures unemployment has begun to fall slightly. In the 3 months to August it rose 88,000 to 2.47 million, whereas in the in the most recent 3 month period to September unemployment increased by 30,000 to 2.46 million. This rather implies that in the 1 month August to September the total fell by 10,000 - though I am aware that the claimant count continued to rise by almost 13,000.
Thrasher may be senior, but he’s just not that good, having extrapolated too far beyond his orogins as a collector of local election statistics (and I’ve had my spats with him in academic journals). He’s also I presume your standard political science academic: left-leaning sympathies. Still, he’s doing a useful job if he’s keeping the odds on a Tory majority etc. higher than they otherwise would be.
“Its the economy, stupid”
What this, and most, academics are not smart enough to understand, or maybe they are just too biased to admit, is that this government has been a catastrophe economically. The idea that we had an economic genius in the treasury for ten years is hilarious and just shows how stupid the people are that think that. Gordon Brown may actually have a peanut for a brain.
Even the “good times” were a mirage. Just like they were individually for some idiot that bought a house and a holiday he couldnt afford with a 125% mortgage. And the current left wing Keynesian nuttiness that is policy is wasting, yes wasting, billions. And hurting, yes hurting the economy. Not helping. It will leave us underachieving for years.
Its pleasing to see the polls showing enough people are now alert to this. And that its mainly just the incompetent leeches on society that still dont understand it. That is, most academics, most journalists, left of centre politicians, and public sector employees in general.
“There will be no more boom and bust”
“We are best placed to weather the down turn”
“I will sell all our gold at the bottom of a 20 year bear market.”
-by Economic Genius.
Oh, BTW, Thrasher’s a duffer at economics.
226. Considering there is 0% of independent verifiable evidence that shows either that what we are experiencing is anything out of the ordinary, and that man is responsible, that 59% of people think it exists.
I suppose there is no proof of God, yet most of us believe in that.
274. Bournville Observer.
Good points. Also Thrasher will help ensure the Tories don’t get too complacent or inward looking before the GE.
273. The margin for error on the sampling process that produces the ILO unemployment figures is +/- 83,000 as well, so watch out. That is one of the reasons the figures are generally reported as three month averages compared to the previous three months.
Looking at all the evidence, it seems most likely unemployment is still rising, albeit quite moderately. The key question is whether this is a short-term plateau - one reason for thinking it may be is that productivity and unit labour cost have risen sharply over recent quarters as employers have hoarded labour.
That will OK provided final demand picks up fast enough over the quarters to come, but if it doesn’t then firms will have to start shedding labour again to restore profitability.
A couple of other interesting nuggets from the latest labour force stats are that male full time employment is still shrinking while female part time employment is growing - a rerun of the 1980s - and that hours worked are still falling. Part of the price being paid for keeping employment up is shorter hours and therefore less money. It’s altogether not a recipe for a feel-good factor, as yet.
167 re City regulation (Witan)
This government’s regulatory system is pretty much the same as Mrs Thatcher’s after Big Bang.
The real problem is that although we can all point to factors like asset bubbles and leverage, it is still not clear why this time we had a global meltdown rather than the previous localised (geographically or to particular market sectors).
Consequently, no-one can be sure what, if anything, should be regulated to prevent another global meltdown.
Hence all the froth and bubble about bankers’ bonuses. They may be insensitive or even outrageous, but they did not land us in the deep and smelly. Still, the politicians have to be seen to be doing something.
None of this affects the chance of the Conservatives forming the next government but it does mean we shall not be safe when they do.
Or if the other lot hang on.
“Next Wednesday is the Queen’s speech, but unless the cabinet goes for a proportional representation referendum on election day, dull it will be.”
Do get real Polly, Brown & Labour are just going through the motions as regards PR - they’re hardly likely to change a system which delivers them an overall majority with just 35% of the vote. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
Neither are they about to dump Brown just 4-6 months before an election. Labour had 2 or 3 ideal opportunities to do this, most notably after the Euro elections last June, but they completely bottled it. It just ain’t going to happen Polly, get over it and get used to the idea of a Tory Government for at least the next 8 or 9 years at least. Be happy!
275 re genius in Number 11 (Frogger)
“… the current left wing Keynesian nuttiness that is policy is wasting, yes wasting, billions”
Actually, quantitative easing is Monetarist not Keynesian.
So does that make it right wing nuttiness?
279. I do accept your points - though the deceleration in the claimant count figure has been quite marked over several months and IF it continues could well also turn downwards early in the new year.
This Labour thing about the Sun is hypocrisy. I doubt we would have heard any complaints about the Sun hyping something about Cameron as they have about this sloppy letter from Brown.
This ‘there must be a deal’ stuff comes from the usual Labour mind set of assuming all parties are as crooked as theirs is. It is the other side of the Labour meme which has done so much damage to politics that ‘they would have done the same’, and ‘we are only as crooked as the other politicians’ both of which are patently not a universal truth.
On This Week Brillo smacked Campbell about the Blair deal with Murdoch.
Campbell was in full flood about Labour never did a deal when Brills pipes up and says Blair told him in an interview there was a deal. It was a simple one of you do right by me and I will do right by you. But a real deal nonetheless.
Campbell was stunned and could only whine about ‘Well Tony never told me’ sob, sob.
History Boy at 240 raises an interesting point
That the Conservatives have not sustained 45% in the polls is an unconvincing criticism because their strategy is to peak on election day, not before.
There is much talk about what Labour needs to do to close the gap, there is almost no discussion about what the Tories might do between now and
MarchMay to widen the gap.To assume they have no plan seems unlikely.
I have posted, very infrequently, on previous occasions and stated that my money is on a hung parliament, with Labour getting most seats.
Whilst there have been occasions in the interim when I have mentally written off my stakes, as of today I am reasonably comfortable with my position.
Forecasting the result of a May 2010 general election from the starting point of historic polls, and by-election wins for the Tories in 2008 and 2009, sounds a little odd to me, coming from those who treat this exercise as a quasi-science, which I don’t.
So yes, I will admit that my bets - which are fairly modest - are largely based on hunch, and how I consider the next few months will pan out against the backdrop of a recovering economy and an improving credit market if the banks can be persuaded or forced to resume lending.
The changing public perception of Gordon will be worth watching. Major was likeable but could not persuade people to respect him. Thatcher was regarded as cold, but was respected. Brown will never be liked, but if enough people become convinced that his repeated public humiliations have become grossly OTT, that will be worth a few marginals.
I think, as people reflect nearer polling day on the net achievements of Labour over the three terms, they will pull some support back.
Finally, I read the betting threads on individual seats, earlier this week, with some surprise at the bullishness around the Tory gains. I think they will struggle to pick up much from the Lib Dems, and gains from Labour in the east Midlands, north and Wales will be harder work than people are forecasting.
271 - It was a good thing that we were cohesive as we were fighting a war for survival. I am not sure that it was good that we were poor. But poverty is often the result of a six year fight for survival against huge odds. I hope we do not have to go through anything similar again and I doubt many others do either.
130. Re Solider and the case of the shotgun, it would appear that said soldier has been in trouble with plod before:
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html
I’m disappointed in the Jury though, just because he was banged to rights under the law doesn’t mean they have to find him guilty.
Have Michael Thrasher and Rod Crosby been seen in the same room? Are they perhaps just the same person?
We have a right to know!
286. Chris “The changing public perception of Gordon will be worth watching. Major was likeable but could not persuade people to respect him. Thatcher was regarded as cold, but was respected. Brown will never be liked, but if enough people become convinced that his repeated public humiliations have become grossly OTT, that will be worth a few marginals.”
On a betting site it makes sense to talk in terms of probabilities not absolutes, so there is a non-zero chance of your scenario coming true. Having said that, on a day when Polly pens yet another “Gordo must go” article, the chance is slim.
Sadly, she does speak for the Guardianista voters who elected New Labour. It doesn’t matter how many
long term unemployedof the working class in Glasgow vote Labour, they needs the votes of Polly’s tribe to form a government.**** STOP PRESS ****
Th “STJOHN”, (St.John’s, The Jumps, Occasional Horseracing Nod), tipping service has been resurrected!!
STJOHN 09/10 first tip of the season.
BALLYFITZ, 1 pt each way at Cheltenham @ 6/1
291. stjohn. That’s Ballyfitz to beat PtP’s early tip of Chapoturgeon?
Let the games begin
Sorry if already posted.. the title says it all really.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/6562795/Gordon-Brown-The-wrong-man-in-the-wrong-job-at-the-wrong-time.html
270
It’s amazing, you a totally dedicated Tory, should expect even handedness from everyone else. The Mail does not grace my breakfast table, (I don’t buy a newspaper) I read it on line.
As about 75% (perhaps more) of the posts and links on this site are either pro-Tory or anti-Labour why should you object to the few that aren’t.
As a believer in Chaos Theory, (everything turns to shit eventually) any government in its third term will be going through the travails that the present one is. Only one government,(In my lifetime, I won’t see another) the last Tory one, managed a fourth term, didn’t do it much good did it.
Although I’m still backing a Nomaj, Cameron will probably end up as PM, I’ll be in my element when things turn to shit for him; Oh yes!
This government’s regulatory system is pretty much the same as Mrs Thatcher’s after Big Bang.
by John L November 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
You tempt me to sarcasm.
The ‘tripartite’ disaster was created by Brown in 1997, long after Mrs T resigned, and even longer after the Big Bang.
On a debate about the bill creating the ‘tripartite’ disaster, Lilley said in 1997:
.
The Bill will hive off debt management to a new quango under the Treasury. We know that funding policy is an intrinsic part of monetary policy, and the Bill will leave the Bank as a one-club golfer without even a putter left in the bag.
How will the Treasury, the Bank and the new board co-operate to handle monetary policy? If they need to get together, why is it necessary to separate them in the first place?
With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse….
The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day. We shall observe closely what is going on in the development of the proposed legislation.
Rather prescient of him.
“Chaos Theory, (everything turns to shit eventually)”
I think it’s a bit more complex than that Coldstone but lets not quibble of semantics.
293 - That is a truly exceptional article. And completely fair, I would say.
286. chris Read
“I think, as people reflect nearer polling day on the net achievements of Labour over the three terms, they will pull some support back.”
An unbalanced economy drowning in debt
Failed foreign wars
Multiculturism and political correctness
Immigration
“gains from Labour in the east Midlands, north and Wales will be harder work than people are forecasting.”
Presumably because people in these areas wear cloth caps and keep pigeons? These are exactly the areas that the swing to the Conservatives is greatest in.
For Labour to be the largest party at the next election they would have to win constituencies such as Leics NW, Brigg, Ribble South, Hendon, High Peak, Blackpool N, Bristol NW, Bedford, Yarmouth, Lincoln, Rossendale, Wirral S, Gloucester, Pudsey, Keighley, Dover.
The sorts of constituencies where the Conservatives have been leading by around 20% and/or Labour has fallen into third place in local elections.
A hung parliament is possible but I think the Conservatives look pretty certain to win 300 seats at least.
If it is indeed the case that 75% of posts here are anti-Labour then that is completely in line with the party’s 25% share with ICM.
296
Always cut to the chase.
299
Does that mean that if this was ‘97, 75% of the posts would be pro-Labour?
New thread - JackW “Against the Grain”
300 - No, about 45%. 75% would be anti-Tory.
295 - What happened to Lilley shotly afterwards? Where were the warnings and the commitment to change the regulatory system in the 2001 and 2005 Tory election manifestos? Where are all the speeches forecasting catastrophe, the promises to curtail banks’ ability to speculate in secondary markets and to lend money, the commitments to reining in house prices and so on and so on and so on? Before all this happened the Tories were complaining there was actually too much regulation. The critics saying there as too little or not the right type were on the left - Will Hutton in particular.
282. John L
Who is talking QE nut job? Im talking about the borrowing of billions to be the employer and consumer of last resort. Im talking about things like the subsidised destruction of perfectly fine productive assets like cars in the name of “investment.” QE didnt pay for all that. However QE is more ridiculous free lunch thinking so I am not at all surprised Crash Gordon went for that too. Oh right, the “independent” BoE did that didnt they.
The PBR which is now promised in early December, but which leaves little time for Parliamentary scrutiny before the Christmas break, could be a key factor in a Labour revival or not.
Firstly will Darling be allowed by GB to tell the truth about the real state of UK’s present and future financial position?
Secondly, will he be allowed to put forward his plans to remedy that financial state - real public sector cuts and all! If his policy is just more QE and long term and ill-defined efficiency savings then the markets could take fright and the UK AAA status could be threatened.
At present, the market is being held up by the prospect of a change in government - just a real threat to that prospect could realise a strong bear market.
Whilst the GDP for this quarter may level out, the impact of redundancies already announced will been seen in QI 2010, along with more public sector strikes.
In my area the council is increasing council tax by 2.5%, receiving an increased gov. grant of 2.1% and yet talking of cutting services whilst giving a 1% pay increase to staff. Apparently its not in their culture to cut costs and not to increase pay to staff. I expect many people to start refusing to pay their council tax next April - watch out for the court cases.
Chris Read.. “improving economy… net Labour achievement…”
Another naive fantasist.
305 - What is your evidence for this claim?
“At present, the market is being held up by the prospect of a change in government - just a real threat to that prospect could realise a strong bear market.”
One can talk until the cows come home about swings and marginals, but one of the best ways of imagining what might happen in the near future is to imagine yourself in that future, looking back. Imagine it is May 2010, a Friday mid-morning, and we are all looking at our TV screens (a few are swinging from the nearest lamp post), Gordon Brown is standing outside No 10 saying, ” . . a few months ago noone could believe this would happen. I am humbled to receive this endorsement from the people, which proves that I have always been right about everything . . .”.
The next polls may or may not be better for Labour, but seriously, is that going to happen ?
I think it’s a shame that someone like Thrasher is making so many mistakes at the moment.