Punters ignore Tory progress [normal site updates from September 8]
August 31st, 2004
It’s not been picked up by the pundits or the betting markets but ALL four of the main opinion polls have shown Tory gains in August.
YouGov (Aug 27)
34%(+1) L34%(nc!) LD21% (-2%)
ICM (Aug15)
C33%(+3) L36%(+1) LD22%(-3)
MORI (Aug 16)
C32%(+1) L36%(+4) LD21%(-3)
Populus (Aug 1)
C32%(+3) L32%(-1) LD24% (nc)
With the UKIP effect continuing to unwind there is the potenial for further improvements but all this is being ignored by the betting markets.
Latest spread-betting prices.
LAB 343-351 (+1): CON 210
-218 (-2): LIBD 66-70 (NC)
Remember it was the UKIP surge ahead of the June 10 Euro election that caused Michael Howard to falter. Take this away & the Tories might be heading towards their pre-spring position of 38- 40% in the only anonymous interviewer-free poll that we have at the moment, YouGov.
Why anonymous interviewer-free polls? Because these come closest to replicating a secret ballot and have a proven accuracy measuring Tory support - just look at the consistent performance of
the computer-generated phone polls of Rasmussen last time and YouGov’s internet operation.
When tested in real elections non-anonymous interviewer-based polls almost always understate the Tories and overstate Labour. This happened at the last 3 General Elections and in the June 10 Euro elections.
The conventional pollsters say their advanced techniques are now dealing with this better. But two of them in the figures above have boosted the Labour totals to compensate for those reluctant to tell interviewers their allegiance. We understand the mathematics but question the basis on which this is being done. Only time will tell whether they are right.
A LAB BUY spread bet at 351 seats is as safe as one on Paula Racliffe being re-elected BBC Sports Personality of the Year.
MessageSpace Advertising
Even if UKIP fades as a force, this does not automatically mean that the Tories will return to their pre-spring position of 38%-40%. The Tories got to that figure when they had eroded Labour\’s lead on leadership (the gap between Howard and Blair was just in single figures) and the economy (this time last year they had a lead on economic competence, and I seem to remember they had a lead on it pre-spring). Look at the latest YouGov poll, though, and they\’ve slipped on those two measures (Howard is now 10% behind Blair, as IDS was last year, and Labour is in the lead again on economic competence).
Leadership and economic competence are two good \’small print\’ guides as to which party will win a GE. The Tory leads on leadership and economic competence were one sign that they would win in 92 (certainly Professors Tony King and David Sanders of Essex University picked up on this, and were among the handful of pundits who called the result correctly). The only time the party behind on economic competence (Labour by seven points) won was in 1964.
UKIP certainly didn\’t help Howard, but, as Simon Carr (no fan of Labour or the PM) noted in the Independent, even before then, some of the gloss had come off Howard when Blair had figured him out in PMQs (as he did with Hague and IDS).
To take Richard\’s last point, this is one of Blair\’s great strengths that political and press insiders are often blind to - his ability to reach over the heads of Westminster to the public. In PMQs he carries off very well an air of being superior to debating-society style partnership: this is why highly rated Commons performers like Hague and Howard can\’t land many hits against him.
After all, if \”traditional\” Parliamentary ability was a guide, then Hague would be PM with Cook as Leader of the Opposition. What works on TV isn\’t what works in the House.
For \”partnership\” please read \”partisanship\”.
The Tories Summer improvement has all been within the margin of error and except for ICM at UKIP\’s expense. I think it\’s too early to talk of a Tory recovery. I still expect them to be between 30-33% next Spring unless we have another unforeseen event that they are able to take advantage of such as the Fuel crisis or Foot & Mouth, however all that will mean is that Blair delays the election to that factor wears off.
Is a bet on paula radcliffe getting sports personality of the year mean to be a safe one? Surely kelly holmes will get that?
I agree that the Tories are miles aay from being a threat but their May June collapse was largely as a result of UKIP and they will benefit from the decline.
What I cannot work out is the effect of the ongoing attacks on Blair by the Indy and the Guardian Observer. This is reinforcing a more confident BBC and Iraq continues to be there. The key poll numbers are on \”trust\” in Blair and it is hard to see how this can change.
I still see a hung patliament as the likely oucome. My comment on Paula Radcliffe was meant to be ironic!
I disagree about performances in the House of Commons. The point is that Blair IS a good Commons performer (in the modern context ie. as seen on TV). I would say that being good in the Commons (again, as seen on TV) is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for achieving high office. Which is why IDS never stood a chance - he couldn\’t even get over that hurdle - and why the excuses used by his supporters at the time of his election (\”so what if he isn\’t good in the House - that skill never got William Hague anywhere\”) never washed.
Alex - no dispute that Blair is a good Commons performer as on TV. But by traditional standards - of Commons debates only being seen by MPs and a few of the press - Blair would be regarded as deeply unimpressive: evasive and ad hominem. By those standards, Hague and Howard are much better debaters. But those standards are not what counts now. Howard\’s \”forensic skills\” are much praised by political insiders, but they are not nearly as effective as Blair\’s glibness on TV, where Blair comes across as a mature leader, able to ignore partisan attacks, whilst Hague and Howard look like smartarse debating society types. My point is that there is a consistent disconnect between the commentariat\’s assessment of leaders and the public\’s.
Probably correct. Blair\’s style would go down very badly in a courtroom, where the ability to argue logically is at a premium.
But will Blair\’s \”magic\” work again now most voters have stopped trusting him? The only good thing for him is that they have not embraced the Tories although there are signs of a minute shift.
This is why I think we are in uncharted waters.
My instinct is the same as in America. It is very difficult get elected on an incumbent\’s unpopularity alone. To succeed it needs to be combined with a compelling, and clear, alternative message - something which both the Tories (and Kerry) have failed to articulate thus far.
(of course that is not to say that our 3 party system couldn\’t lead to a Hung Parliament, unlike the situation in the US)
I agree with Alex at 11, but am less sure about 12. I think hung parliaments only happen by accident - they are probably the result that voters want least - when it is a prospect they tend to pull behind the government, as in 1992.
But Alex is right to highlight the need for oppositions to have a compelling message - something that Howard hasn\’t found (yet). In a way the Lib Dems have a more compelling message - opposition to the war - but it\’s a factor that is outwith their control. In 1997 Tory sleaze and the feeling that it was time for a change were not time specific and would have been factors in the election whenever it was held.
We got a hung parliament in Feb 1974 in the rarified atmosphere of the miners dispute, the fuel crisis and the 3 day week. Heath\’s government did not appear to be handing the pay policy effectively and there was no great enthusiasm for Labour. The Libs were small and tbere was the yet to be revealed Norman Scott affair affecting Jeremy Thorpe\’s actions.
The Tories simply did not appear competent.
So pretty far removed from the circumstances we\’re in now.
I think the better example is 1992 - a Government with a 100+ majority that had been in for a while and was becoming increasingly unpopular. There was an opposition desparate to make the break through, united in its desire to oust the Government, but with a leader that the electorate had severe doubts about his ability and suitability to be PM. You had a third party on a roll having won a couple of high profile by-elections from the governing party.
I think it is almost impossible for a Government to throw away a majority of 100+ in one election. And I can\’t see Blair - who is a more formidable figure than Major - being one of those who do. So we should expect a comfortable Labour majority (perhaps not the three figures expected by some) with a relatively small number of seats (perhaps only 50) changing hands.
Absolutely re. point 14. It really was an unpopularity contest. Labour\’s share of the vote dropped by 6% compared with 70, but the Conservative share of the vote dropped by 9%. Most, if not all, the drop in the Tory vote went to the Liberals. By all accounts, Harold Wilson was as astonished by his return to Downing Street as anyone else. The party, consumed by Bennite infighting, had won only one by-election (Bromsgrove), lost one to Democratic Labour (Lincoln), and had left the Liberals to register impressive victories in places such as Sutton and Ripon. I seem to remember also that they lost at least one by-election themselves (Rochdale in 73) to the Liberals (rather like the Tories losing Romsey to the LDs in 2000)
This example is probably in Labour minds at the moment. The Tories haven\’t even picked up one seat from another party in a by-election in this parliament (not for twenty two years, in fact), but the Liberals are winning seats from the government with swings (in Brent East and BB Hodge Hill, at least) almost as large as the ones on which they won Tory redoubts such as Sutton during the Heath government.
Hence ministers warning in interviews that if disillusioned Labour voters vote LD in marginal seats, they could end up with a right-wing Conservative government. Just as all those people who voted Liberal in February 74 and October 74 ended up with a Labour government which gave them such joys as tax rates of 83% and 98%, even more concessions to already over-mighty trades unions, and even more nationalisation.
Were the Cons in 1992 really becoming \”more unpopular\”? If anything their popularity increased substantially between 1990 and 1992. (Of course this all changed almost immediately after the election with Black Wednesday etc)
Anyway my point wasn\’t to suggest that there WOULD be a hung parliament, just that the argument about compelling messages etc didn\’t preclude the possibility. (and i agree in the unique circumstances of the scale of Labour\’s majority it is pretty unlikely)
Dan was right, people generally don\’t vote for hung Parliaments (except maybe LibDems) though they do seem to strangely match the \”mood\” of the electorate because although they occur by accident they happen because the 2 major parties support is evenly split.
If we do get a hung Parliament then it will because neither Labour nor the Tories recover substantially from their current position in the polls, which is basically level pegging.
Its inconceivable that we could end up with a non-Labour government, even if Labour lose their majority (& I still believe that we are heading for a Labour majority of between 50-70,) then they will still be the largest party by nearly a 100 seats over the Tories. Which will give us either a Labour minority government or a coalition with the LibDems.
Are there odds for a bet on a Labour/LibDem coalition after the next election?
Alex - thanks I guess in the period in the run up to 92 the Tories were more popular than before - the change from Thatcher to Major - getting rid of the poll tax etc. But in comparison with the longer term there was declining popularity for the government - and as you said their trump card - economic competence - was shattered by \’Black Wednesday\’.
I agree with bullseye - a non-Labour government is inconceivable. A more interesting bet than a Lab/Lib one is what level of Labour loses would end a Blair Premiership? Obviously if Labour lost its majority he\’d find it difficult to continue, but would he go on with 25 losses? Would 45 losses be enough? What if Mike Smithson\’s prediction comes true and Labour end up with a majority of a dozen or so? Would that be enough for Blair to go/be pushed?
Anything under around 40 would leave Blair with an effective minority government for the purposes of major public service reforms.
Alex, Good point there are between 40 and 80 Labour MPs who are generally “anti-Blair” about half of these are from the Bennite “Socialist Campaign Group” and then there are around another 40 or so, who are disgruntled former ministers, those who feel overlooked or some from the “soft left” who opposed the war and public services reform… even if Blair gets a majority between 80 and 110 (best case scenario) tuition fees and other issues show that he would have a hard time pressing ahead with any more radical reform of the public services, the question is would Blair be conciliatory towards to party or would he press ahead with more controversial legislation that could threaten him with a string of humiliating defeats…
The most likely thing that Blair will look to do when/ if he wins power with a workable majority is to tidy up some of his public services reforms and then lead a referendum on the European constitution, some time in 2006, if he wins then he is the triumphant prime minister who can retire and if he loses he can struggle on till May 2007 and retire then.
John Major got a bigger share of votes in 1992 than Tony Blair in 2001. In both elections the polls had huge errors in Labour\’s favour.
In 2001 ICM had two final week polls. One had an 11 point lead - the other one had a Labour lead of 17% even though surveying for both started on the same day and the one that was most wrong had a much bigger sample. The actual lead was 9.3 pc.
And these are the pollsters who are now giving Labour a 2 pt \”spiral of silence bonus\”.
The Tories will get most votes
Labour will get most seats and will be 15 either way of a hung parliament
YouGov or Rasmussen will be the top pollster.
Mike,
What share of the vote will the Tories get - do you think they will break out of the 30-33% band
Also, you\’ve estimated that there are 25-40 Labour seats that are vulnerable to the Tories if LibDem tactical voters switch their support - have you got a list of those ones?
I\’m on a beach in France at the moment but look back through the site archives to see a good discussion on LD targets with a number of lists.
As to vote shares I think that the Tories will get 36+pc, LAB 32-33, LD 22-23, UKIP less than 2. Most pre-election polls will have LAB ahead & the Baxter calculator will have a majority of 50+.
Almost all the media will report it as a foregone conclusion which will not help turn-out.
There will be lots of money to be made on Lab seat markets!
Interesting share forecast Mike. I\’m actually not very far away from you - I\’d swap the Tories and Labour around -
Lab 36-37
Tory 32-33
Lib Dem 21-22
With just a couple of percent either way you go from hung parliament territory to not quite Labour landslide.
Dan - the margins are that close which is going to make it really exciting.
In the end it could come down to whether the ICM and Populus spiral of silence calculation is correct. 2 pc could be critical.
Oh and if the LDs take 25 Labour seats then the Tories need just 219 English MPs to be top party in England. That would be a good target for Howard.
Indeed.
News just in that was relevant to a discussion on another thread - Simon Hughes has defeated Lembit Opik by 70% to 30% in the Lib Dem presidential race.
I\’d put Labour and the Tories on 34-35% each, and Lib Dems on 21-22%. It really is anybody\’s guess how that would translate into seats, and a handful of votes really would be crucial in many constituencies.
If the current polling situation persists, with Labour 1-2% ahead on average, will Blair actually want to call an election next May? Apart from wanting to avoid losses in stand-alone County Council elections, I can\’t see any compelling reason for him to do so.
Hughes quote from the BBC:
\”You can eat in the Conservative restaurant, the Labour restaurant or the Liberal Democrat restaurant - but you are not always going to want the same meal.
\”When we are in the restaurant - we can chose things that are Lib Dem or whatever but there are different dishes. You will want different things in the summer from in the winter.\”
I think this is misjudged: the Lib Dems are reaching the point where straightforward third-partyism for its own sake doesn\’t work anymore. The bigger the LDs get, the more obvious it will be when they vary their message greatly to suit different audiences.
I can - avoiding future interest rate rises and the possibility of an Al Qaeda attack in either Saudi Arabia or Iraq which leads to yet another oil shock. If Blair has seriously contemplated an Autumn election (with all the taunts of cutting and running, and Autumn General Elections not having worked out for Labour in the past, which that would entail), I don\’t think they\’ll want to hang on beyond next May.
Oh, and there\’s the prospect of tax rises before any 2006 election. And the press conjuring up unhappy parallels with Callaghan, who led everyone to expect an election in Autumn 78. OK, Blair delayed 2001 by one month due to foot and mouth, but there\’d be no point in waiting till June 06. And he\’s got Philip Gould telling him that Labour can expect another three figure landslide in May 05. Bad advice maybe, but advice Blair will probably take.
When CLPs have been instructed to have their candidates selected by no later than this month, I doubt Blair will wait beyond next May. PMs also become superstitious. Wilson bought into the whole fallacy about Labour\’s landslide in 66 being linked with England\’s success in the World Cup (never mind that the General Election was in the Spring, and the World Cup didn\’t take place until the summer), and so called the 70 election to coincide with the World Cup. Blair, in a similar way, probably associates firing the starting pistol after four years with winning.
Interesting Sean to see your figures within a fag paper of others - it certainly could be very interesting.
An interesting point about the election date - I\’ve been having similar thoughts myself. Is a couple of percentage points enough for a PM with a year to go to be sure of victory - if Blair calls it wrong then he\’ll make electoral history all right - but not the sort he\’s hoping for!
I expect a pretty ferocious autumn campaign on domestic issues from Labour which will allow them a dummy run for the real thing - if this fails to see labour pulling ahead (even by a couple of points) then the election date will be in doubt.
I guess Blair\’s plan goes something like this - successful conference, Autumn campaign on public services which boosts Labour\’s poll ratings, Iraq elections in January go ahead (without too much violence and bloodshed), then three month focus on domestic issues with election victory in early May. Plenty of potential banana skins there though.
The other interesting factor is the County elections - as the Tories did reasonably well last time - Labour may be able to get through them without too many losses and go for the Thatcher ploy of using the local elelctions as a springboard to the general election. The risk is another drubbing means the general election postponed until the Autumn to allow the dust to settle and suddenly he begins to run out of options.
Who\’d be a Prime Minister eh?
Stand-alone County Council elections would probably lead to Labour losing control of counties such as Northants, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire, which would not be a good platform for fighting an election a few months after that.
OTOH, calling an election when one is only a small margin ahead of one\’s principal opponent (at least when one\’s used to being 15-20% ahead of that opponent) is pretty unnerving.
On balance I think Blair will go for it in May, but I don\’t think its\’ clearcut.
& after the election what are we all going to talk about?
Apropos of the polls, I note that Anthony Wells has posted his lengthy guide to opinion polls over on http://anthonywells.typepad.com/anthony_wells/ .
Definitely worth a read (and bookmark).
2 other predictions -
Tony Blair will not hold a rally in Sheffied & John Prescot will not visit Rhyl
Mike,
I can\’t see what your basing your view that the Tories will be on 36%+ on, is it just drift from Labour or are you expecting their campaigning to start pushing them up? I just can\’t see what would push them beyond the 30-33% band that they\’ve been in for 12 years now.
On the point about Labour marginals, I don\’t think I was being very clear, I meant which seats do you think the Tories will gain from Labour as a result of LibDems not voting tactically. I posted my own list of likely LD gains but I\’m keen to see which Labour seats you are referring to when you talk about the 25-40 falling to the Tories.
For what its worth my own prediction, which is based on the assumption that Labour will recover SOME ground, that the Tories will continue to flatline & that the LibDems will slide before the election but go back up during the campaign - is that the final result will be similar to the current polls but with Labour marginally higher.
Lab 36-38%
Con 30-33%
LD 22-25%
oth 9-12%
Are any bets being offered on the UUP losing all its Westminster seats? The UUP\’s replacement as the largest party at Westminster has already taken place, what with Jeffrey Donaldson\’s defection to the DUP (he\’ll probably hold Lagan Valley under his new colours next time), and will probably be confirmed at the next GE (even if Donaldson isn\’t re-elected at Lagan Valley under his new colours, the DUP will almost gain Trimble\’s constituency and Antrim East, possibly South Antrim as well).
What about Martin Smyth in Belfast South? The DUP has regarded him as hardline enough not to challenge previously: is he standing again, and are the DUP standing aside again?
Bullseye,
Each month I calculate my personal versions of the ICM, Populus & YouGov polls. I take their latest data and make an adjustment. With Populus and YouGov I apply weightings to their Lab & Con numbers based on their accuracy in their Euro election surveys which because of postal voting were also partial exit polls. With ICM I use my assumptions about turnout and the don\’t knows - not theirs - which I apply to their raw data.
ICM is great because, to their credit, they do publish the crude data. It also has the best record with the LDs - a number I always stick with.
Amazingly the current personal versions of all 3 come out at about the same -
C 35/36, L 32/33, LD 22/23.
The reason for the polls\’ pro-Labour bias is turn-out. Tories are that bit more likely to vote than Lab supporters - an element I think will be accentuated this time by the big deline in members, councillors and activists. Judging by this year\’s locals - C 38, LD 29, L26 - this is having a big impact on the ground.
I can\’t claim your expertise on polling, Mike. However, in this local elections since 2001 and the London Assembly elections, the Conservatives have generally polled a better vote share than in the corresponding round of elections in the last Parliament. It\’s a reasonable assumption that their vote share will be up (if only slightly) in the next general election.
Mike,
Very interesting, have you done any work to see if your adjustment work on the polls before the 2001 & 1997 elections.
Mike
Point of fact: Populus publishes as much or more tabulated data than ICM - and far more than anyone else. I\’m not sure what value you can get by reworking our numbers, or those of ICM and YouGov, especially since the tables you can find on our website and ICM\’s are not as you say \’raw\’ or \’crude\’ data - they are past vote weighted, and you can\’t systematically discount for that because the effect of this weighting can vary significantly from one sample to another.
Personally I\’d say one of the most telling measures of voter attitudes to the parties is our question (asked most recently in May, but coming again soon) which found 19% satisfied with the Labour government overall, 39% dissatisfied with Labour overall but would still preferring to have a Labour government than a Tory one, and 35% dissatisfied with the Labour government and preferring to have a Tory one. How these numbers move as we get closer to the election will tell us much about the likely result - more, I suspect, than straightforward voting intention polls will do.
ICM\’s final pre-election poll in 2001 understated the Conservative vote by less than 1%, and they overstated it by slightly more than that in 1997, so I don\’t see where you get your confidence that they are significantly underestimating the Conservative share now - which is a necessary assumption if your predictions of next election shares are right.
In the 20 years ICM has been polling, the Conservatives have done better in a general election than their best showing in a n ICM poll during the Parliament: in this Parliament that figure is, I believe, 35% (that height only reached once, in March this year).
In each of the last 2 Parliaments the average ICM figure for Tory support throughout the Parliament has been within 1% of their subequent election performance: the average ICM rating for the Conservatives in this Parliament so far is is less than 32%.
And though you are right to note movement back to the Conservatives in the most recent round of polls, if you look at the bigger canvas, the Tory share is a bit lower over the few months compared with the previous few.
Re. comment 44, how, Andrew, would you say the Tories dropping 2% in both the July by-elections compared with Brent East last Autumn (despite putting in much more effort), ties into
all this?
Re. point 40, I did wonder about Martin Smyth. As a hardliner (having challenged David Trimble for the leadership) he may just be exempted from a DUP challenge (as he was in 01). Then again, the DUP challenged (and defeated) the anti-Agreement Willy Ross in Londonderry East in 01, so there are no guarantees. I\’m almost certain he\’ll stand again - UUP MPs tend to go on and on. The late Clifford Forsythe (died in 00) and Roy Beggs (defeated in 01) did.
If Trimble is defeated in Upper Bann, the UUP\’s loss could be the Conservative Party\’s gain (though probably not on the right timescale for him to become the next Conservative PM).
No doubt Smyth would switch parties without much agonising if he ended up the only UUP MP.
If Trimble did lose his seat, a life peerage for a Tory in a safe seat could have him back in Parliament soon enough, and Howard could \”retire\” - in fact, isn\’t his destiny to do that in favour of one leader or another?
Richard - Roy Beggs managed to cling on in Antrim East by a few hundred votes against the DUP tide.
Irrespective of the Martyn Smyth situation in Belfast South it is likely that the UUP would also hold Down North, currectly represented by Lady Sylvia Hermon. This has always been one of their safest seats apart from the periods when it was held by \’independent\’ unionists like the Ulster Popular Unionist MP, Sir James Kilfedder and his successor Robert McCartney of the United Kingdom Unionists. It has never seemed attracted to the politics of the DUP and both APNI and the Conservatives have been closer to winning the seat in the recent past.
Belfast South and North Down are the only seats the UUP can be confident of holding next time round.
Agreed Sean. Both are very middle-class with strong support for the cross-community Alliance Party. The DUP have tended to do better in more rural and/or working class areas.
All good points re. Northern Ireland. The middle-class nature of North Down (\’the golden coast\’) is probably why the Tories contested the seat in 92, despite the fact that James Kilfedder (while ostensibly an independent Unionist, and the sole MP for the UPUP which he founded) took the Tory Whip. Re. book value\’s comment (46) that Smyth would probably be happy to switch to the DUP if he was the only UUP MP left, the Conservative Party would benefit from a revival of the old alliance (only broken in the 70s) with the UUP if Lady Hermon was left as the only UUP MP, or one of just two. Having seen her speak on BBC Parliament, I think she\’d make an excellent addition to the Tory frontbench (as would David Burnside if he holds on in Antrim South). After all, a Unionist MP by the name of Chichester-Clark (brother of the Stormont PM, James) served as a junior minister in the Heath government.
I\’m not totally sure about the \’David Trimble wins a by-election in a safe Tory seat made vacant by a peerage\’ scenario, though. I\’m thinking of the unhappy example of the Leyton by-election in 65, when a sitting Labour MP was \’kicked upstairs\’ to make way for the Foreign Secretary Patrick Gordon-Walker, but G-W lost. Then again, on the same day, Frank Cousins won (if with a severely reduced majority) in Nuneaton.
As was seen recently at B\’ham HH (where the swing was larger than in Leicester South), the voters get very irked at being called to the polls for any reason short of a GE or the sitting MP having died, and take out their wrath on the party represented by the departing MP. Penrith and the Borders was a notable example. Just weeks after winning a landslide victory, David Maclean only scraped in (by less than 2,000) votes after Willie Whitelaw (whose GE majority was 16,000 or so) put them to the trouble of turning out all over again by being made Leader of the Lords.
The other potential fly in the ointment is the continuing right of Conservative Associations (which, as a Labour Party member, I quite admire) to select their own candidates. With one exception (Michael Portillo) being seen as \’the Central Office\’ candidate is often the kiss of death (particularly by any Conservative Association put to the inconvenience of being put through a by-election). Even if Kenneth Baker had accepted \’Wales with a peerage\’ (as was offered to him, according to Woodrow Wyatt\’s Diaries), would Mole Valley Conservative Association have accepted Chris Patten as candidate? Being seen as the \’Central Office\’ candidate certainly did Douglas Hurd no good in the selection process for the 1971 Macclesfield by-election.
If, on the other hand, the Tories have changed their procedures to enable the imposition of a candidate (or the imposition of a shortlist) at by-elections, then I\’m sure one of our Tory contributors, such as Sean, will let me know!
Also, if the Tories stay under 200 seats, and lose major figures to the LDs, then I imagine they would be particularly wary of provoking any by-election.
I\’d be very happy to see Trimble return to the House of Commons as a Tory MP in time for any leadership contest (particularly if he beat Rifkind), but such a scenario may be far from automatic or smooth.
Lady Sylvia Hermon would be more likely to be Labour or Lib Dem than Conservative. The UUP is a very broad church, and not all of its activists are on the Right, by any means.
AFAIK, CCO could not impose a candidate on a Conservative constituency association at a by-election, unless the association had been suspended. Constituencies no longer have quite the same freedom to choose that they used to have. They are now compelled to select candidates from the approved candidates\’ list, whereas previously they were only encouraged to do so. Michael Brown, for example, was not on the approved list when he was selected to fight Brigg and Scunthorpe in the late seventies.
In general though, it does not assist one\’s chances of being selected to be seen as the CCO candidate.
Thanks for clarifying that, Sean. I suspected that candidates could not (unlike Labour) be imposed at a by-election, but that the old loophole re. the candidate\’s list had been closed. Labour has followed the Tory example re. the candidate\’s list (except that ours is called the Parliamentary Panel).
Fair point re. the UUP. The party\’s MPs went into different division lobbies during the vote of no confidence in the Callaghan government, and Roy Mason enjoyed far more respect among the UUs than many Tory Northern Ireland Secretaries (for the reason that, as Martin McGuinness ruefully admitted, \’He beat the shit out of us\’). As someone who\’s one quarter Irish Catholic, but does not see why peace on the mainland should be bought at the expense of working-class Catholics in NI being terrorised by Sinn-IRA\’s protection rackets and punishment beating squads, I wish the current government would be a bit closer to Mason\’s position. If Bertie Aherne isn\’t willing to share government with a party that has its own private army and is engaged in criminal activities, why should David Trimble or Ian Paisley? Apart from the political dimension which started with the hunger strikes and Anglo-Irish Agreement (and the networking betweeen John Hume, pro-SDLP Irish-American politicians such as Ted Kennedy, and the Irish government),the main reason PIRA declared its two ceasefires was that a combination of intelligence successes and Loyalist killings made it realise that military victory (as defined by forcing the British to withdraw from NI) was not possible. I never agreed with the Major government\’s strategy of \’no talks till the IRA disarms\’, but the strategy of \’Sinn Fein in government with small acts of decommissioning bought only at the expense of far greater concessions by the unionist community and British government\’ has been tested to destruction.
The comments about the UUP being a broad church are true. While David Trimble is undoubtedly a Conservative his predecessor as MP for Upper Bann, the late Harold McCusker, would have been more comfortable as a member of the Labour Party. Sadly, I haven\’t noticed the voices of too many liberals with a large L, but I can hope.
Sean\’s right about normal candidate selections - local associations have a free choice but MUST chose someone from the candidates list. (In practice if they want to consider a candidate not on the list CCO will normally try to accommodate them at a Parliamentary Selection Board meeting prior to the deadline for applications for that constituency so they have the opportunity to get on the list in time.) However, under the party constitution brought in under William Hague separate rules apply to by-election candidate selection, when rather than the full candidate\’s list, the Party Board is able to present the local association with a \”trimmed\” list.
In practice it depends upon how compliant a constituency is. There are some constituencies that would play along with a CCO backed candidate - there are plenty who CCO would know full well not to bother even trying.
The \’trimmed list\’ sounds remarkably similar to the Labour Party system of presenting a shortlist of approved candidates to CLPs where there\’s a by-election (or, as happened in 97 and 01, the sitting MP decides to stand down at the last moment).
kwaoswfe…
paxqgvgjwo jjrepofi tultbkiaas…
ucccckmqaw…
ovdigprglvk ayikxabv rkhonanqne bqdwtxqwvwa …