Who will be PM AFTER the election?
August 11th, 2004[next planned update - Friday]
-
Would Blair’s scalp be offered as the price for a coalition?
A big feature of the Election run-up will be the questioning of the Lib Dems about whether in a hung parliament they would prop up a defeated Blair Government or do a deal with Michael Howard - probing that could expose deep ideological differences in the party.
Unlike his predecessor, Paddy Ashdown, Kennedy has been much more detached from Labour and if his party picks up significant gains, as we think, it will be in large measure because of the divergance of Lib Dem policy on Iraq with Tony Blair’s. Siding with the current occupant of Number 10 is not a foregone conclusion. In the event of a hung parliament - and other parties like the SNP, PC and the various Northern Ireland bodies also have an interest - the big questions would be over the Prime Minister.
For Kennedy the pre-election questioning could provide a big opportunity to raise issues about “trust” in Tony Blair and keep Iraq and its aftermath on the political agenda.
-
Could the party leadership develop a vote-winning rhetoric that gets over, without saying so explicitly, that the Lib Dems provide a way getting rid of Tony Blair without letting the Tories back? That could be powerful.
All these factors come into play when assessing a market on post-election outcomes with “binary betting” from IG which they say combines elements of spread betting with the flexibility of the betting exchanges. Punters are asked to bet for or against who will be PM after the next election, which has been defined, after representations from Politicalbetting, as “who is asked by the monarch to form a government“. The prices are:
Blair 67 – 71: Howard 14 - 18: Brown 10 – 14: Others 2 – 5: Kennedy 0 – 2
Winner = 100 Everyone else = 0
A possible bet might be against Tony Blair which would also cover you if , as seems less likely now, he steps down before the election. As a long-shot we quite like the “others” option but the pricing is crazy. If you bet for AN Other you get the equivalent of 20-1 and of you bet against then its 50-1. That is a bookmaker being greedy and it’s no wonder that the person who created IG is the Tory party’s biggest donor! A spread of 2-2.75 would be more reasonable.
The other “hung parliament” punt - Labour to get 335 seats or less - has become considerably less attractive since Monday when we said it was good value at 2/1. As so often happens prices change quite quickly after they are mentioned on the site and the bookmaker, Bet365, link from here, has tightened the price to 11/8.
Mike Smithson
Picture http://www.learn.co.uk/citizenship/onlinelessons/government/contentimages/blair_argles.jpg
MessageSpace Advertising
If Labour are the largest party, but fail to get an overall majority, and the Lib Dems have made significant gains, they might well want to force another election as soon as possible, to use the momentum to roll up more Labour seats. We might see at least two elections in a row.
If Labour are the biggest party but without a majority - my current prediction - Blair could try to soldier on and the first challenge would be to get a Commons majority in the vote on the Queen\’s Speech. Harold Wilson did that in 1974 but he was replacing the Heath Government. He went to the country eight months later. A PM who has lost his majority has much less power to ask the Queen for a second election. She would have to ask Michael Howard first to see if he could form a Government. If the Lib Dem contingent was large enough the Queen could also call in Charles Kennedy.
In 1974 Heath sought to do a deal with Jeremy Thorpe\’s Liberals and it took a few days before he gave up and Harold Wilson was called to the Palace.
The critical thing would be getting that Commons majority and you could see all the minority parties being closely involved - not just the Lib Dems. Would all the parties - SNP, PC, DUP, SDLP etc and the LDs - line up together to vote the minority Blair Government out?
It might be that one or more of the minority parties would agree to let Labour carry on for a few months provided that there was a second election in a few months but under a different PM.
Quite likely Blair would go even if he did have a majority. If it were say cut to 20 very hard to see how anything
vaguely like the current New Labour programme would survive. Most of those losing their seats would be New Labour.
On the other hand he might soldier on so that he could resign after the constitution referendum is held (and presumably defeated). If he had already resigned it could be a short miserable premiership for Gordon Brown.
The other factor worth considering if you believe in a deal with the LibDems is electoral reform. I don\’t think there
any chance of a coalition without it, especially , and Gordon Brown is supposedly dead against.
The market title is actually a bit ambiguous. What happens if the Queen offers it to someone and they turn it down (like, I think, Baldwin in 1927)?
Baldwin may well have turned the Queen down on her offer, but not in 1927. In that year, there was a Conservative government, which had been elected with a large majority three years earlier. It\’s more likely that Baldwin turned down the King\’s offer to form a government in 1931, during the economic crisis which saw the minority Labour government fall, and a National government take its place. Baldwin, of course, accepted a place in that government. This was after, though, turning down an offer to form a Conservative government. Apart from any unwillingness to bear the burden of economic crisis without a majority in the House of Commons, it may also have been because he anticipated Labour would split (as it did), or that there would be a General Election in which the minority Labour government was blamed for the economic crisis.
\’Baldwin may well have turned the Queen down\’ - silly me, during Baldwin\’s political career, there wasn\’t a Queen on the throne. Sorry about that.
Sorry. I meant 1923/4 which led to the first Labour Government.
Is Kennedy the new Ramsey-MacDonald? I can\’t really see it but if some of the stronger \”sell Labour\” views expressed by some on this site are right it makes for a very interesting post-election situation with some outlandish results possible - not just a question of scrabbling around for a few extra votes by making a couple of minor concessions as in 1974. It would be interesting to see what odds might be available if a better formulated market title were devised. My understanding is that the Queen offers the chance to form a government to the previous PM first unless he actually goes to her immediately after the election and resigns (which he would do if obviously defeated like Major or Callaghan in \’97 or \’79). Hence I think Heath was asked first in February \’74 despite having fewer seats. So the current market title seems a bit misconceived.
The previous market title was simply \”who would be PM after the election\”. I suggested that they make it \”who would be PM one month after the election\” but they came up with the - who is invited by the monarch. IG could be storing up some problems for themselves.
Has anybody seen the moves to create \”anti-Blair\” tactical voting from the left on this site http://www.dumpblair.co.uk/btactical.html
This notes - \” Hung Parliament could be good news - It has been long predicted: but this time the numbers and the sentiment are right for a hung Parliament. Far from an indecisive result, a Cook/Kennedy administration would wrest power back to Parliament and challenge the Downing Street dictatorship, the servitude to the US, and the dark channels of corporate power.\”
But they don\’t want to do anything that will help the Tories - I think they could find this quite challenging. The site\’s analysis of current polling and electoral prospects is quite good.
You say they don\’t want want to help the Tories - but with these loony left conspiracy mongering types backing a hung Parliament and some sort of rainbow coalition will only help to drive voters into the arms of Blair and the Tories.
Anyone who seriously thinks Robin Cook could potentially lead the next Government of this country is talking out of their arse.
Dan - I was just bringing people\’s attention to the Dumpblair move because it\’s relevant in the context of the next election. It\’s the top Google search for \”Hung Parliament Blair\” which is how I picked it up. I can see the Indy getting behind this and my guess is that Cook/Kennedy is what the paper will come out for at the election.
With the Indy on board another Blair landslide should be a shoo-in!
So you don\’t give the ginger dream team much of a chance then?
I don\’t think The Queen would not have to ask Michael Howard first to see if he could form a Government, because it is very unlikely indeed that the Lib Dems will prop up a minority Conservative government, the Tories will just not have the support of Parliament unless they have a majority.
The convention is that the Monarch NEVER refuses a request from the PM to dissolve Parliament, subject to the Lascelles Principles, which probably will not apply in the event of a hung parliament after 05/05/05. If she did refuse any request from Blair (or if he\’s gone, Brown or whoever else takes over) to dissolve Parliament, it would be a major constitutional crisis.
The Queen is not in a position to second guess whether Michael Howard (or ANOther) is capable of forming a Government. Either he is or he isn\’t and she would probably prefer that to be decided formally via a vote of No Confidence (if he claimed he could form a Government) than for her to pre-empt it.
There would also be the little matter of deciding how to appoint the next Labour leader (in the event that Blair won by a minority and then resigned).
But Edward Heath in March 1974 could not have gone to the Queen and asked for another election after failing to do a deal with the Liberals even though he was still PM for a few days. The key thing is that Blair or whoever would have to win the first vote of the new Parliament - on the Queen\’s speech. A PM has to be able to command a Commons majority on this vote.
As to appointing a Labour Leader anything would be possible in the frantic environment of a post-election hung parliament scenario. What happens if Kennedy says the Lib Dems will support Labour in the Queen\’s speech vote - but only if Blair stands aside as PM because of the war - and they won\’t accept Brown because of his opposition to PR? Maybe the double ginger scenario after all!
I would have thought that if Blair did not win a majority he would resign immediately and then the Queen would ask
whoever led the largest party to try to form a Government. What happens if it\’s a draw though?
the IG market is fascinating and it is a shame about the ambiguity.
The simplest model is to assume the leader of the party with most seats is the next PM, and that the election result is independent of the party leaders before polling. Obviously both assumptions are flawed but this is a starting point.
I take Blair 75 Brown 20 Other 5 for Labour leader, Howard 90 other 10 Tory leader and
Labour 80 Tories 18 LD 2 to win most seats giving
Blair 60
Brown 16
Howard 16
Kennedy 2
other 6
I would have thought that if Blair did not win a majority he would resign immediately and then the Queen would ask
whoever led the largest party to try to form a Government. What happens if it’s a draw though?
So, worth a punt on John Prescott then
The DumpBlair page is interesting enough - but who would be the Blairite Labour MPs to be targeted? People like the incredible Hoon seem almost inpregnable - although in a decent voting system they would not be.
Who are these Labour (but Blairite) MPs who could be safely targeted without letting in the Tories?
Presumably Charles Clark in Norwich South might be one such. And if it works, then more than good……. Excellent!!!
Who are these Labour (but Blairite) MPs who could be safely targeted without letting in the Tories?
That is indeed the point and the reason why the far left cannot run a tactical voting campaign against Blair. It only works if the people you are trying to get rid of are more hated than any of the alternatives - so you don\’t mind if your second or third choice gets in - because your most hated party has been defeated.
Isn\’t this actually getting to the nub of the debate - if Blair is still more acceptable than the main alternative - won\’t he win again? So talk of deals and hung parliaments is irrelevant.
It\’s also why the pollsters (and I assume the Labour leadership) all expect a general election in May 2005 and another Labour victory by a big margin.
Dan, two thoughts which may possibly have an impact on this debate, without directly addressing the issue of whether there will be a hung parliament (a bit far-fetched at the moment I agree)
1) As has has been pointed out, even if tactical voting from the left may not be realised on a large scale (for the reasons given) there is likely to be a decline in the number of tactical anti-Tory \’Labour\’ voters. Given the choice of the devil and the deep blue sea they may return to their \’principles\’ and return to the Libs. All other things being equal this should help to cut Labour\’s majority.
2) Although Labour may achieve a formal majority it needs to be remembered that Blair actually needs it to be quite substantial to command the support of the Commons. As research has shown, any majority under around 60 could leave him at the mercy of his \”enemy within\” - the disgruntled \’old\’ Labour Left - and it may be in such circumstances he will see the writing on the wall and choose to go.
Labour\’s lost its Scottish bonus - 10 seats
It will lose a significant portion of seats won in 97 & 01 with LD tactical voters - 15-35 seats
It will lose seats to LD targeting. 10-25 ?
It will lose seats on the national swing - currently about 40 to the Tories; 5 to the LDs & 3 to the SNP/PC - but will be more as the UKIP effect on the Tories dillutes with time.
This brings us down into the 320-330 seat area. Blair needs 324 for a majority.
This is not far-fetched at all.
What is far-fetched is the idea that all the LD supporters who switched in 97 and 01 are going to stay with Labour.
It is also far-fetched to assume that the LD gains will be limited to the national swing.
Mike - can you back up you 15-35 Labour losses due to tactical unwind please? 35 seems very high.
It will lose a significant portion of seats won in 97 & 01 with LD tactical voters - 15-35 seats
It will lose seats to LD targeting. 10-25 ?
It will lose seats on the national swing - currently about 40 to the Tories; 5 to the LDs & 3 to the SNP/PC - but will be more as the UKIP effect on the Tories dillutes with time.
My point is that of course you are right to identify these factors - but you over estimate their effect.
You identify up to 75 Labour seats that are potential loses due to either the national swing or Lib Dem voters stopping tactical votes for Labour. (I\’n not sure whether there is an element of double counting here too).
My disagreement is about the extent of both these factors. Of course if the general election was held tomorrow Labour would lose - but it isn\’t tomorrow and Labour won\’t call it until the circumstances are better for them. Your conjecture is that Labour always go down in the polls in the run up to an election - others (including me) say it is unlikely to happen this time, beacsue of the nature of the choice in front of the electorate.
My view is the extent of the unwinding of the anti-Tory tactical vote will be much less than you predict, because of the perception of the Tory party - they are still considered less electable than Labour in all the polls.
Where I do agree is that the Lib Dems (and possibly others) will be in a position to pick up seats on low turn-outs in traditional Labour areas where they have a strong local government base. But I still see Labour winning 350+ seats and the Tories -200 - I\’d be surprised if the Lib Dems win more than 15-20 (if that). Picking up General Election seats is far more difficult than by-elections and they only made 8 gains last time (with two losses) so to come out with a net gain of 15 would be a phenomenal achievement.
My understand, re. an earlier point, is that the Queen can indeed refuse a dissolution. She can do so if she can find a leader who can (either in his/her own party, or a coalition) command a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Thus, had John Major lost either of the two confidence votes on Europe (Maastricht, July 93, or the EU Finance Bill, November 94), and asked for a dissolution, the Queen could have turned him down. She could, instead, have sent for a leader (Portillo, Clarke, or a compromise candidate such as Ian Lang) who had the confidence of what was then the largest party in the House of Commons (and, on both those occasions, a majority).
A more relevant example to what we\’re discussing would be Labour losing its majority at the next election. The LDs might refuse to join a coalition government unless Blair went. Blair might then ask for another election. The Queen, however, might turn him down if there was an alternative Labour leader (such as Robin Cook) who could do a deal with the LDs.
Dan - I agree with you that many people still hate the Tories - but, perhaps not quite as many yet, many hate Tnoy Blair\’s Labour. They\’ve \”fallen out of love\”.
Firstly you have to look at what happened between the 92 & 97 elections. Had the movement of votes since 1992 been uniform across the country as a whole, Labour would have secured a majority of 131 rather than 179. The Liberal Democrats, meannwhile, would have won just 28 seats rather than 46, leaving the Conservatives with no fewer than 208 seats rather than 165.
In 2001 the Labour margin over the Tories dropped from 12.7% to 9% yet the Tories put on just two seats which almost totally caused by a reinforcement of the 97 tactical voting and much more so another 15-20 came into the fold.
For your list of seats take the two elections together and then identify those that would have stayed Tory on the swing 1992 - 2001 swing but did not.
Then check the following list of seats that should swing on the UNS based on the current Baxter figures and delete any duplicates.
Then look at previous postings by people on this site to get a sense of the LD Labour targets. I\’m sure that the actual list is a closely guarded secret.
The following are the seat changes based on Martin Baxter\’s current swing. I think that this is very much on the low side - but sobeit.
Bexleyheath and Crayford CON gain from LAB : Nigel Beard
Birmingham Yardley LIB gain from LAB : Estelle Morris
Braintree CON gain from LAB : Alan Hurst
Bristol West LIB gain from LAB : Valerie Davey
Calder Valley CON gain from LAB : Christine McCafferty
Croydon Central CON gain from LAB : Geraint Davies
Dartford CON gain from LAB : Howard Stoate
Dorset South CON gain from LAB : Jim Knight
Dorset West LIB gain from CON : Oliver Letwin
Elmet CON gain from LAB : Colin Burgon
Enfield North CON gain from LAB : Joan Ryan
Finchley and Golders Green CON gain from LAB : Rudi Vis
Forest of Dean CON gain from LAB : Diana Organ
Gillingham CON gain from LAB : Paul Clark
Gloucester CON gain from LAB : Parmjit Dhanda
Hammersmith and Fulham CON gain from LAB : Iain Coleman
Harwich CON gain from LAB : Ivan Henderson
Hemel Hempstead CON gain from LAB : Tony McWalter
Hornchurch CON gain from LAB : John Cryer
Hove CON gain from LAB : Ivor Caplin
Ilford North CON gain from LAB : Linda Perham
Keighley CON gain from LAB : Ann Cryer
Kettering CON gain from LAB : Philip Sawford
Lancaster and Wyre CON gain from LAB : Hilton Dawson
Milton Keynes North East CON gain from LAB : Brian White
Northampton South CON gain from LAB : Tony Clarke
Oldham East and Saddleworth LIB gain from LAB : Phil Woolas
Orpington LIB gain from CON : John Horam
Peterborough CON gain from LAB : Helen Brinton
Putney CON gain from LAB : Tony Colman
Redditch CON gain from LAB : Jacqui Smith
Ribble South CON gain from LAB : David Borrow
Rochdale LIB gain from LAB : Lorna Fitzsimons
Rugby and Kenilworth CON gain from LAB : Andy King
Scarborough and Whitby CON gain from LAB : Lawrie Quinn
Selby CON gain from LAB : John Grogan
Shipley CON gain from LAB : Christopher Leslie
Shrewsbury and Atcham CON gain from LAB : Paul Marsden
Surrey South West LIB gain from CON : Virginia Bottomley
Taunton LIB gain from CON : Adrian Flook
Thanet South CON gain from LAB : Stephen Ladyman
Wellingborough CON gain from LAB : Paul Stinchcombe
Welwyn Hatfield CON gain from LAB : Melanie Johnson
Wolverhampton South West CON gain from LAB : Robert Marris
Wrekin, The CON gain from LAB : Peter Bradley
Cardiff Central LIB gain from LAB : Jon Owen Jones
Clwyd West CON gain from LAB : Gareth Thomas
Monmouth CON gain from LAB : Huw Edwards
Ynys Mon NAT gain from LAB : Albert Owen
Dundee East NAT gain from LAB : Iain Luke
Ochil and South Perthshire NAT gain from LAB : Martin O\’Neill
Despite sharing Mike’s LibDem sympathies and much of his analysis I am much less convinced of the chances of the next election producing a Hung Parliament. In fact I predict a Labour majority of between 20-60. This prediction is based on a number of assumptions:
Assumption 1: The Tory vote will remain basically static between now & polling day
The Tories have been flatling at between 30-33% in the polls (except for the occasional blip like the fuel protest & the 1999 Euro elections) for an incredible 12 years ever since Black Wednesday. Despite the initial attempts of the conservative press to talk him up Michael Howard has made no progress other than to halt a further slide. His poll ratings a fairly abysmal & are only made to look good by comparing them to IDS. There is no reason to believe that the Tories will suddenly break out beyond their core vote, equally though now that they have ditched IDS they have managed to consolidate their base and should hold their vote above 30%.
Assumption 2: Labour will stage a modest recovery in the polls
Virtually every post-war Government has suffered a mid-term slump in popularity and recovered ground by the time of the election (even if they went on to lose the General they have still received a higher % than the mid term polls indicated). This true of every over the past 40 years since Wilson was first elected in 1964, the only possible exception being the first Blair term, when the government’s popularity barely dipped at all except for the fuel protests. We should anticipate that Labour’s vote will be at least 5-6% higher than the current polls indicate, though that would still leave them below the 40% mark.
Assumption 3: The LibDems vote will go up during the 4 week election campaign.
Every election since 1970 bar one has seen the third party vote go up during the campaign, the exception was the confused & confusing 1987 campaign which saw the Two Davids – Steel & Owen – go off in different directions around the country, which led their vote to actually drop during the election. The election campaigns broadcasting coverage rules provide the LibDems with the oxygen of publicity – during the 97 election their vote went up 4-5%, during 2001 it went up 5-6% (that’s a third of their overall vote).
Taking all 3 assumptions together I’m expecting the Tories to continue flatlining, whoever I expect Labour to gain in the run up to the election (it’s not true that Labour always goes down – yes, that has happened in opposition but in government 69-70 & 77-79 they actually went up, even taking into account the Winter of Discontent), and I expect the LibDems to lose ground to Labour in the run up to the lection but regain in during the campaign itself. The question is how much will they regain and what will be the overall swing from Labour to LibDem.
I think that Mike is broadly right about the impact of anti-Blair tactical voting and LibDem targeting and the number of seats at stake due to these factors. However even so the key issue as to whether Labour can retain a majority remains the number of seats it loses on the national swing. The kink in this election is that the swing in question is from the government to the third placed party and not the second. If the LibDems jump they will make gains from Labour but so will the Tories, the question is how many? If there is a large swing with the Tories stuck on around 30%, Labour in the low 30s & the LibDems at 25% or above – then a hung Parliament is a real possibility – however if Labour hold the LibDems to the low 20s and can get over 35% they should be home & dry, even though with a majority under 60.
I agree with almost everything that Bullseye writes. The big issue is whether Labour will recover in the polls. Solid vote shares of 35% or above will see them home.
A lot will depend on Iraq and whether the continue bad news continues. What\’s different between now and previous elections is that the LDs are getting much more media attention and this will increase if they can sustain 24+% until the campaign starts.
Whatever I\’m well ahead with my own betting if the Labour majority is less than 25. And if the Lib Dems should be top party? Yesterday I opened an account with Blue Square and put £10 on at 66/1. For this I got a free bet of £10 and put another bet on the LDs for nothing. So my bet was effectively at 132/1. Still I think I\’m almost certain to lose but the current political situation is without precedent!
Richard - re. Queen \’choosing\’ the Prime Minister - the problem is that the \’democratic\’ methods the parties use for electing their leaders is now all out of sync. with our constitution. The Conservatives got round the problem (of ensuring their leader has the support of the MPs) by simply doing a stitch up. I doubt it would be so simple, considering the myriad of rules and regulations involved, for the Labour Party to do the same. And I\’m sure the republican elements within the party would welcome the opportunity to challenge the basis for our constitution if such an opportunity arose.
The Tories might have got round such a problem by doing what they did in Autumn 2003, ie going back to the Magic Circle, in which a leader \’emerges\’ (then again, given that the honeymoon\’s over for Howard, they might not!)
Alex does, however, make a very good point re. the Labour Party. Even the \’short\’ contest of ten years ago (facilitated by a Special Conference) took a few months. Obviously such a timespan would be less than ideal in the highly sensitive situation I describe where the Queen turned down a Prime Minister\’s request for a dissolution, and sent for an alternative leader who could form a government instead.
The only possible loophole would be the amended (in 1994) Clause 5:4 of the Labour Party constitution, in which if the leader becomes \’suddenly unavailable\’, the Cabinet, meeting in consultation with the NEC, would \’select one of its number\’ until a new leader is elected by the Party Conference. It would be just about possible for Blair, having had a request for a dissolution turned down by Her Majesty, to become \’suddenly unavailable\’ (ie step down) for health reasons, and for the Cabinet to elect a leader who could/would cut a deal with the LDs.
I agree with bullseye about the 1987 scenario - and I can see it being repeated in 2005. It wasn\’t just that Owen and Steel said different things in 1987 - it was the added scrutiny the Alliance was under as a potential \’governing\’ party.
If the Lib Dems continue with poll ratings in the low/mid 20s - that same sort of media (and opposition party) scrutiny will be on them. My guess is that they will buckle under that pressure - and drift down rather than up as the campaign progresses.
It\’s also important to remember that the higher the starting base the more difficult it is to add to your support - you have to start eating into other parties core votes - rather than just appealing to their dissaffected supporters.
So it is by no means certain that the Lib Dems will poll more than they are now - my guess is that they will be squeezed down by (particularly) Labour to around 22% - if labour squeeze 2% points off the Lib Dems - even on their current poll ratings that should be enough to see them home and dry at around 35/36%.
Re. point 27 I think Mike is flattering the Tories slightly. According to the Times House of Commons, they didn\’t even put on two seats in 2001 compared with 1997, just the one (166, as compared with 165). As many commentators noted at the time, had Martin Bell broken his promise not to stand for a second term in Tatton, the Tory net gain in 2001 may well have been 0.
I stand corrected Richard. I was working from a different computer that does not have all my back election files on it and was working from memory. Good to see you have changed your URL!
Media attention might undermine the LDs, particularly if it focusses on the divide between their trying to present themselves as a centre-left party to disenchanted Labour voters in Labour target seats, and as a Gladstonian Liberal party in their Tory targets (promising to get rid of the DTI, condemning increases in the minimum wage, calling for privatisation of the post office).
On the other hand, general publicity (particularly the reputed appeal of Charles Kennedy\’s conversational, \’anti-politics\’ style to younger voters) might see their support drift upwards.
One potential wild card, though, is Charles Kennedy\’s health. The slightest hint of any illness, and the LD campaign will be overshadowed by the flapping of vultures\’ wings, both from the press and from within his own party (Hughes and Tonge were less than helpful during his last health scare).