Has Blair’s New Labour been permanently damaged by Iraq?
August 13th, 2004
Charter 88 
-
What are the prospects for the “Ginger Alliance”?
Judging by the state of the General Election betting markets and the scores of comments on the site this week the big divide amongst political gamblers is between those who believe that the Iraq War and its aftermath has permanently damaged Tony Blair and Labour and those who think there will be a recovery. Only time will tell which view is correct.
-
The “recoverers” believe Labour will get back with a substantial majority - the “permanent damage” group think that we are heading for a hung parliament and both sides place their bets accordingly. Almost everybody agrees that the Tories are static and won’t move much from their current position.
Both factions will looking with great interest at DumpBlair - an organisation that had its origins in the anti-war movement - that plans to target 200 swing seats with a tactical voting message. They want a Robin Cook-Charles Kennedy government - which has been unkindly dubbed the “Ginger Alliance” - and say they will be supporting anti-war Labour MPs, Libdems and Scottish and Welsh Nationalists.
They will be opposing Blair loyalists and most Conservatives but they emphasise that they do not want to help the Tories. It is hard to see how they can succeed hurting Blair without giving some benefit to Michael Howard. We expect them to have the support of the Independent newspaper.
In 1997 and 2001 the tactical voting element was simple. The prevailing mood was against the Tories which lost many more seats than the national swing because LDs went with Labour where they were best positioned to beat Conservatives and vice versa where the LDs were the main challenger. This time sections of the public have “fallen out of love” with New Labour as well but have not rushed to embrace the Conservatives again. They might want to have an impact by tactical voting.
-
Switching to a different party to stop another party only works if electors know what the position is in their constituency and there’s evidence that many “switchers” only make up their minds at the last minute. This puts a premium on local campaigning and how the message is put over on the door-step.
As well as the new “Dump Blair” move there are three other elements to consider.
Whether anti-Tory tactical voting will continue?. We believe that it will with Labour supporters more than ready again to vote LD the party will be able to hang on to most of the gains from the Conservatives of the past two elections and, perhaps, to pick up a few more seats.
Whether the Labour gains of 1997 and 2001 from tactical switching could be vulnerable? Many supporters of Charles Kennedy’s party are less likely to give their vote to New Labour again because of the war, issues like tuition fees, and the Home Secretary’s less than liberal law and order policies. There are perhaps 30-40 seats in this category and the scale of any “tactical unwind” could determine the outcome of the whole election.
Whether there will be anti-Labour tactical voting from the right? In the by-elections a proportion of Tories have shown themselves willing to vote LD to get Labour out where their party is not the main challenger. Fortunately for Tony Blair the number of LD 2nd place seats to Labour last time was fairly limited. But perceptions of which party is the main challenger are likely to be affected by recent LD local election successes, particularly in some of the cities.
-
From all of this the main beneficiaries will be the LDs, the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, and to some extent the Tories. The big losers will be Labour.
We are solidly in the “Labour’s been permanently damaged camp” and this is reflected in our calls. Even with the recent shift in the number of Labour seats on the spread markets we still think the levels are too high and represent a good SELL opportunity. The Gerneral Election spread markets remain unchanged. LAB 342-350: CON 212-220: LIBD 66-70
We like Bet365’s Labour to get 335 seats or less - try this link - which even at 11/8 looks good value, as does the 7/4 on the Tories for 220 seats or less. In the bookmaker’s size of Labour majority market its 4/7 on 51 or less and 7/4 on above 52 seats. If you are a “Labour will recover” supporter then that price looks less risky than spread betting. It works out at a Labour seat total of 349.
OTHER BETTING MARKETS UPDATE
Peter Mandelson at the EU. William Hill have emailed us about their market on the former Labour minister not lasting the course in Brussels following his confirmation as EU Trade Commissioner yesterday. The price of 3/1 looks quite tempting.
The US Presidential Election markets still have Kerry and Bush at the same price.
[NEXT PLANNED UPDATE - MONDAY]
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
This discussion is informed, but whenever I see a contaversial position posted it is questioned in terms of practicality. There is plenty of local knowledge pread across your correspondents. This dialogue recognises that in practice the national uniform swing is not a good guide. Therefore you should seek to identify the seats that you expect to change hands more closely. Over the next 8 months that analysis will prove invaluable to punters. Which seat would go Tory if the Lib Dems stopped voting Labour? Which seats would go Lib Dem if more Labour voters switched to Tory or to Lib Dem? You and your readers have the capability to start to answer these questions. They need answering.
One seat which Labour could very easily lose if more Tory voters start voting tactically for the LDs is Birmingham Yardley. Estelle Morris\’ majority is just over 2,500. Her majority was cut last time due mainly to Tory (and, incredibly, UKIP) voters doing exactly this.
Labour is very worried by the LD challenge - West Midlands Euro MP Michael Cashman is spending a lot of time in Yardley.
Labour won\’t be helped if, as is rumoured, Estelle Morris stands down before the next election, thus depriving Labour of any personal vote she has.
Hi Mike, on Wednesday you specified the number of 25 Lib Dems gains from Labour due to Lib Dem \’targetting\’, plus 5 more \’on the national swing\’ - a total of 30. Could you provide a list of those 30 seats which you expect to change hands from Labour to the Lib Dems?
Well, actually I have made a list of the 30 Labour seats which are most vulnerable to the Lib Dems. The list (subject to human error!) shows the Labour majority in 2001. Some realistic prospects at the top - Birmingham Yardley, Bristol West etc… but once you get beyond about number 8 on the list, I have to say it starts to look like wishful thinking, faced with Labour majorities of over 20% at the last election. Anyway, punters can decide for themsleves, I\’m sure you\’ll agree.
1 Cardiff Central Lab maj 1.9%
2 Inverness Lab maj 5.0%
3 Oldham East Lab maj 6.0%
4 Bristol West Lab maj 7.9%
5 Birmingham Yardley Lab maj 8.5%
5 Aberdeen South Lab maj 10.6%
6 East Dumbartonshire Lab maj 13.0%
7 Rochdale Lab maj 14.3%
8 Edinburgh South Lab maj 14.5%
9 Cambridge Lab maj 20.1%
10 Blaydon Lab maj 21.1%
11 Edinburgh North Lab maj 21.5%
12 Hornsey and Wood Green Lab maj 24.1%
13 Oxford East Lab maj 25.9%
14 St Helens South Lab maj 26.5%
15 Islington South Lab maj 25.8%
16 Midlothian Lab maj 28.2%
17 Inverclyde Lab maj 29.8%
18 Glasgow North Lab maj 31.1%
19 East Lothian Lab maj 31.8%
20 Durham Lab maj 32.4%
21 Edinburgh East Lab maj 32.6%
22 Manchester Withington Lab maj 32.9%
23 Newcastle Central Lab maj 33.3%
24 Sheffield Hillsborough Lab maj 34.2%
25 Sheffield Heeley Lab maj 34.3%
26 Wansbeck Lab maj 35.0%
28 Blythe Valley Lab maj 35.3%
29 Liverpool Garston Lab maj 38.3%
30 Liverpool Wavertree Lab maj 38.3%
Missing from the T Adams list, of course, are those seats where the Lib Dems wera actually in third place last time, but in fact closer to unseating the sitting Labour MP than most of the seats on the list…
in the case of Falmouth, Colne Valley and Leeds North West, for example, they are only about 15% away from taking the seat. This puts them on the list at about 9th……..
I counted 4 of these: Leeds North-West, Falmouth, Colne Valley, and a long shot Dumfrieshire and Clydesdale (Lib Dems 17% behind there)
To get 30 seats from Labour, Lib Dems will need to break all records. Good luck to them!
The big mistake is to look at these in terms of percentages because many are small innner city seats with low electorates and low turnouts. Best to look at how many extra votes the LDs need beyond the current national swing from Martin Baxter.
Taking T Adams\’s seats in turn from 9 downwards and applying Baxter swings to the 2001 figures we get the following list which looks far less daunting. In many of these seats the LDs are the dominant local council force and have good organsiation. Many are in Univeristy cities where Tony Blair\’s flagship policies of taking the nation into the Iraq War; imposing university fees ; and and his Home Secretary rarely missing a day to talk about more repressive law & order policies to appease the Daily Mail, don\’t always resonate.
Cambridge Lab maj 20.1% - votes needed 5496 - Tory vote to squeeze 9,000+.
10 Blaydon Lab maj 21.1% - votes needed 2492 - Tory vote to squeeze 4200
11 Edinburgh North Lab maj 21.5% - votes needed 8144 - Tory/SNP vote to squeeze 13000+
12 Hornsey and Wood Green Lab maj 24.1% - votes needed 6557 - Tory vote to squeeze 6920
13 Oxford East Lab maj 25.9% - votes needed 3926 - Tory vote to squeeze 7400
14 St Helens South Lab maj 26.5% - votes needed 3538 - Tory vote to squeeze 4675
15 Islington South Lab maj 25.8% - votes needed 2352 - Tory vote to squeeze 3860
16 Midlothian Lab maj 28.2% - votes needed 8622 - Tory/SNP vote to squeeze 11000
17 Inverclyde Lab maj 29.8% - votes needed 10,856 - Tory/snp vote to squeeze 10000
18 Glasgow North Lab maj 31.1% - votes needed 7404 - Tory/snp vote to squeeze 6700
19 East Lothian Lab maj 31.8% - votes needed 12,004 - Tory/snp vote to squeeze 14000
20 Durham Lab maj 32.4% - votes needed 5891 - Tory vote to squeeze 7200
21 Edinburgh East Lab maj 32.6% - votes needed 10,324 - Tory/snp vote to squeeze 10700
22 Manchester Withington Lab maj 32.9% - votes needed 5285 - Tory vote to squeeze 5400
23 Newcastle Central Lab maj 33.3% - votes needed 5360 - Tory vote to squeeze 7400
24 Sheffield Hillsborough Lab maj 34.2% - votes needed 6716 - Tory vote to squeeze 7800
25 Sheffield Heeley Lab maj 34.3% - votes needed 5406 - Tory vote to squeeze 4800
26 Wansbeck Lab maj 35.0% - votes needed 6110 - Tory vote to squeeze 4700
28 Blythe Valley Lab maj 35.3% - votes needed 5502 - Tory vote to squeeze 5500
29 Liverpool Garston Lab maj 38.3% - votes needed 6004 - Tory vote to squeeze 5050
30 Liverpool Wavertree Lab maj 38. votes needed 5823 - Tory vote to squeeze 3100
IN ADDITION applying the same formula to the following seats where the LDs were third in 2001 in three-way marginals we get the following
Colne Valley - 967 votes needed
Falmouth & Cambourne - 939 votes needed
Leeds North West - 475 votes.
Taking 6716 extra votes above the national swing as the cut-off point I make that 26 Labour seats which would go Lib Dem.
IN ADDITION on the current national swing the following Tory seats are listed by Martin Baxter as going LD
Dorset West
Surrey South West
Orpington
Taunton.
IN ADDITION they should hold onto the by-election gains
Brent East
Leicester South
??Hartlepool??
So what you are saying is that if we take a list of seats, assume the Tory vote will crumble under the slightest pressure from the Libs, apply the swing at a time when the polls are bad for Labour and then add 7,000 odd-votes to the Liberals then they might take some seats.
If only real eleciton were so easy!
On the subject of US markets economic news today was simply astonishing - beyond what even the most pessimistic
forecasters (me) expected. this is terrible news for Bush and its repercussions will be felt in the UK. An early
election might not be that ridiculous as once you take away Labour credibility with the public there isn\’t much left.
T Adams’ list is a bit of an Aunt Sally, and I think Mike is being over optimistic in the LibDem ability to squeeze the Tories in some of those seats but I have a list of 17 Labour seats where I think the LibDems have a better than even chance of winning next time round.
· Aberdeen South – The boundary changes leave this seat pretty much unchanged and LDs hold this seat in the Scottish Parliament, gaining it at last years election.
· Birmingham Sparkbrook & Smallheath – A majority Asian seat, the LDs have been winning the Asian wards with 60% of the vote since the Iraq war and have been winning the white majority wards with similar majorities for years.
· Birmingham Yardley – Been on the verge of winning this eat for last couple of elections, though with Labours vote going down they should finally win it. The candidate, multi-millionaire John Hemming was the man who put together the Rover deal and is now Deputy Leader of the City Council.
· Brent East – I expect the LibDems to hold this by-election gain
· Bristol West – Another perennial LibDem near miss – the Tories are likely to be finally out of the running here, which should allow the LDs to snatch it.
· Cambridge – University seat angry at the war & tuition fees, tuned in to tactical voting, the LDs already run the Council & the Leader ( A Cambridge Don) is the candidate.
· Cardiff Central – Close near-thing last time round in University seat which the LibDems hold in the Assembly.
· Dunbartonshire East – A new seat where Labour only have a notional 6% majority over the LDs.
· Edinburgh? – the LibDems held the old West seat & gained South at the Scottish elections last year but I’m not too sure what the boundary changes do to their prospects this time around
· Falmouth & Cambourne – A classic 3 way marginal but the LDs are looking good here with a strong young local candidate.
· Hornsey & Wood Green – on the surface this looks an unlikely prospect but Labour’s majority flatter to deceive, the LD candidate is the Leader of the LibDems on Haringey Council and GLA member. She has a massive profile & is a relentless campaigner and has almost single-handedly made the seat a real prospect. LibDem HQ will be putting money & people into this seat.
· Inverness, Nairn & Lochaber – I think the LDs have a an outside chance of retaking a seat they held for 30 years, but it could even go to the Nats. The highland seats vote as much on personality as party & the LibDems have a strong candidate in Danny Alexander.
· Islington South – the home of “Guardian Man & Woman” the Islington trendy. With Labour veteran Chris Smith standing down and the local Labour party is disarray having been wiped out in the seat. This is a real possibility.
· Leicester South – I can’t see Labour coming back here – the Respect vote will go almost entirely to the new LibDem MP who should hold Labour off.
· Oldham East & Saddleworth – frankly a toss-up who will take it but I suspect the LDs will steal it – BNP vote is the joker in the pack here.
· Rochdale – A longstanding Labour/LibDem marginal – held by Cyril Smith & then Liz Lynne, won by Labour in ’97 – again a toss-up.
· Watford – A seemingly unlikely punt but Watford is the home of the LibDems’ only directly elected Mayor – the constituency extends into the Tory villages beyond the Council boundary but this just provides more votes to squeeze and of course there is a sizeable Muslim vote in the town itself.
I agree the 7/4 220 seats & Under CON must be fair value if 212-220 is anything near the mark.
Put it this way - if it isn\’t value then you have to be a buyer at 220…
Re. Hornsey and Wood Green, I seem to remember the LD candidate, Lynn Featherstone, managed a 13% swing to the LDs in 2001.
T Adams has a point. For the Lib Dems to win more than a dozen or so Labour seats at the next election would be unprecedented.
I don\’t agree with his complacency - but no party since the war has ever lost in one elelction the sort of majority Labour has. And there are a lot of Labour seats that you wouldn\’t associate with Blair - and my guess is that there\’s enough of them (plus the ones that a damaged Blair can reach) to see them home and dry.
For some context - in 1983 Michael Foot\’s Labour Party won 203 seats - which shows the strength of Labour\’s core support - for the Tories it\’s about 50 seats lower.
T Adams (is it Tony?) is right to point out the actual seats that Labour are under threat in. That\’s where the debate needs to be - if we can identify close on 100 Labour seats to change hands then some of the predictions on this site may come true
Dan\’s assertion that 1983 showed \”Labour\’s core vote\” is wrong - it showed the gross unfairness of the electoral system. They got their 209 seats from 27.6% of the vote. The Alliance got 23 MPs from 25.4% of the vote. In the landslide of 1997 John Major still got 30.7%.
Labour\’s huge majority on seats last time, not much different from \’97 came after its vote majority dropped by nearly a third because of tactical voting. It does not take many of the LD switchers from the last two elections to stop supporting Labour and you have disproportionate losses. Assuuming that the Tories are only going to recover by a maximum of 2% after the UKIP dilution the key poll numbers to focus on are the LDs and Labour. Can Labour pull back a bit - will the LDs fade?
My list is just a list of verifiable election results from 2001. I compiled the list out of interest, to see how far the claim of 30 seats from Labour might hold true. I do expect a fascinating contest at the next election, and some unprecedented results (the operative word being \’some\’). I\’m not sure where the charge of complacency comes from - I am not a member of any political party, and certainly not a Blair fan. No, Dan, my name is not Tony!
Politically, as far as I\’m concerned, the more seats the Lib Dems can take from Labour the better. But we\’re here to discuss what is realistic, not what we hope will happen, aren\’t we!? My point was that to say 30 Labour seats change hands from Labour to Lib Dem would really be a massive upset the like of which we have never seen.
Bullseye\’s list of 17 target seats in #12 certainly seems in the realms of the more realistic.
However, I would say that in most of the seats where the Lib Dems are strong in local government, but miles behind in parliamentary terms (eg the Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester seats, Watford, Cambridge, Islngton South, Hornsey) we are more likely to see a close fight at the coming election time, but will not become realistic prospects until the election after next, looking at the way seats usually change hands.
For me, at the next election, the following 13 Labour-held seats are realistic prospects for the Lib Dems - based on close past results, and where Lib Dems or Liberals have won or come close in the past :-
Aberdeen South, Birmingham Yardley, Brent East, Bristol West, Cardiff Central, Colne Valley, Falmouth, Inverness, Leeds North-West, Leicester South, Rochdale, Oldham East, East Dumbartonshire
I hope they surprise me by taking more.
I think the LDs may well surprise T Adams in Cambridge and Hornsey. Far from being \’miles\’ behind in parliamentary terms, they would require swings of, respectively, only 10% and 12% to take those two seats. Even in 2001 (before Iraq), they managed swings of, respectively, 9% and 13% in those seats.
As a Labour activist, I hold no brief whatsoever for the LDs. I don\’t, however, underestimate them.
By the way, Nick Cohen gives this site a lengthy mention in his column, which can be read at http://www.observer.co.uk, then click on \’Nick Cohen\’.
The Mandelson bet is simply a raid by William Hill on punters\’ pockets. It\’s extraordinarily difficult to crowbar a commissioner out of office, and he only has to last five years to lose you the bet. Furthermore, as trade commissioner he doesn\’t have any real opportunities to do anything embarrassing; his only job will be to negotiate the Doha round of WTO talks, and that will take five years during which the EU would be more or less insane to change horses in midstream. You\’re basically making a bet on Bobby the dog\’s bowels and bladder not taking to Belgian living conditions or Mady steping under a tram. I\’d want much better odds than 3-1.
I think Nick Cohen does rather miss the point though - the bookies\’ prices are simply a reflection of what \’punters\’ are doing - so the fact that people on this site are recommending selling Labour does not mean that there are no people willing to put their money in the opposite direction.
But the price pressure is downwards. The current spread sell level on Labour, based on what punters are doing, is the equivalent of an overall majority of 36 which is not the three figure one that many pundits are talking about and does not represent a comfortable margin.
His main point is that punters have a gloomier view of Labour\’s prospects than the pundits which is true.
To T Adams - sorry about the implication of complacency - one of the less joyful aspects of the internet is the lack of nuance in bald facts - I read your post as \’look at the size of our majorities\’ rather than \’these are difficult seats to win\’.
But you point is a good one - if the Lib Dems are to win more than a couple of handfuls of seats (particularly from Labour) it would be unprecendented.
Majorities of 150+ take at least one election to unwind - so the chances of Labour losing its overall majority are slim. I\’m tempted by the bet 365 odds on 350-259 and 360 and above for Labour. If Labour won 350 seats it would still mean they lose over 60 seats - a huge number in historical terms. That\’s one of the reasons why I\’m unconvinced that we are any where near hung Parliament territory.
DumpBlair
Is a pretty extreme organisation, its website is pretty low-key and it has a clear and visceral hatred of the Labour leadership. This organisation should really not be given much credence, the idea that the Independent will support its efforts seems bizarre to me, is this simply because the Independent allowed the group to buy an ad in their paper? If so that seems pretty weak evidence to suggest an endorsement by the paper.
In short this is a pretty silly little group to invest any expectations in. Nothing has been heard from them nationally and in order to pull off the kind of tactical voting coup on a scale that would simply be unprecedented and at the same time not assist the Conservatives would require massive support across the country which this group clearly doesn’t have, it is merely one of a plethora of far left anti-Blair groups that have sprung up since 1997. I predict its impact on the election will be precisely that of a leaf falling from a tree next Tuesday.