What Hartlepool result does Michael Howard want?
September 30th, 2004
- Tory tactical voters hold the key
The more we think about this the more we believe that it will be the Tories who’ll decide how this by election will go. The thinking that they will follow their allegiance is based on the July 15 contests when they kept within 2-3% of their General Election peformance.
But two things are different: the Conservatives have put a lot less into the Hartlepool campaign and Labour’s campaign strategy to make the LD candidate the issue has made the party the undisputed challengers.
- If you want to give Blair a bloody nose Labour campaign manager, Fraser Kemp, has told you how.
We guess that the 20% who were Tory at the General Election are more likely to turn out today and that they might react to the highly personalised nature of the campaign.
So what result does Michael Howard want? Our guess is that he’ll see that a Labour humiliation even with a terrible Tory vote is best for his party.
The betting exchange Labour price looks ovevalued at 1/4.
MessageSpace Advertising
I suspect Tory voters will make little difference. They will either vote Tory, or (more likely if the campaign has been as lacklustre as suggested) they will stay at home.
Big spreads on Betfair at the moment. Better off laying the LDs than backing Labour if you want to bet in that direction.
A Lib Dem win. The common perception (although not here of course) is that Labour is cruising to victory at the next General Election. For Labour to do so badly in Hartlepool would open up the possibility of defeat next year. Suddenly Labour looks vulnerable and the Tories must benefit from this. If I were Howard I would say that the voters want to send Tony Blair a message and they chose the party best placed to do that but there will be many more seats where the Tories are better placed. Slightly disingenuous of course but if this had been a real Labour-Tory marginal could we really say that the Tories wouldn\’t have won? On that subject wasn\’t there rumour that the Labour MP in one of the Reading seats who had been deselected would stand down to force a by-election. Can\’t see the Lib Dems winning that one if it happens.
Jane Griffiths has said she would quit if she finds a job - that really would be interesting. Potential disaster
for Labour if the Tories were to win, potential disaster for both L and C if the LibDems managed it. I
suspect this is just another factor which means the GE will be sooner rather than later.
Looks like there is very little expectation of a LD win.
laid Labour at 1.1 when IG offered 1.23 - they have now adjusted back to 15/85 which is still better than prices being taken on Betfair.
Either the lemmings KNOW they have won - in which case thanks for the free bet - or they are guessing - in which case they are MUGS and deserve to lose.
Hmmm… I think someone is pretty confident of a big bundle of Labour postal votes.
Howard would prefer a Lib Dem victory to undermine Labour but also to encourage the Liberals to go left thus maing it easier to attack them in the Tory(ish) seats they hold.
From the look of the bookies he\’s not going to get it.
IG shortened again…looks all over bar the gloating.
Well obviously he\’d like a Tory victory! But short of that I\’d have thought it is in his interest to have a Labour victory - and the bigger the better.
A Lib Dem win keeps their bandwaggon rolling and will result in an opinion poll boost. What Howard doesn\’t have is time - so the last thing he wants is to go into the election in a three party fight - yes the Tories will pick up Labour seats, but he\’ll lose at the same time. In an ideal world Howard would like the Lib Dems to slide back down to the teens with the Conservatives and Labour polling in the mid to high 30s. That way he can portray it as a two horse race and garner the biggest proportion of the anti-Blair vote. A Lib Dem surge means that the anti Blair vote is more likely to be split.
A Labour win allows both Conservatives and Labour to say Kennedy\’s bubble is burst. My view is that the Lib Dems will be in trouble if they don\’t win tonight - they started as pretty much favourites - the political circumstances for Labour are truly appalling - in all normal circumstances they should lose. A Lib Dem defeat also shows they haven\’t learnt the lessons of Hodge Hill about rebuttal - which will impact on their general election campaign. If they can\’t fight off Fraser Kemp and the milky bar kid in Hartlepool - how will their general election campign stand up to the scrutiny of Labour and Tories big guns (and more importantly the media).
The Sun and Mirror\’s conference front pages are a taste of what the Lib Dems can expect in the first few days of the genereal election. My guess is that they will crumble (like the Alliance in 1987) when put under pressure. Today could be the high point of the Lib Dems this parliament.
Personally, I\’d have thought that Howard would want the Lib Dems to be polling in the mid-20\’s at the next election. Yes, he\’ll lose a few of his front bench colleagues, but the Conservatives will pick up many more seats from Labour than they\’ll lose to the Lib Dems in the event of a straight switch from Labour to Lib Dem.
I admit, fellow Conservatives that I\’ve spoken to are pretty evenly divided about whether a Labour or Lib Dem victory is preferable in Hartlepool.
My gut feeling is that Labour will cling on, if only because it is one of the very few seats where they made progress in this year\’s local elections.
\’they started as pretty much favourites \’
pardon…
I see the spin machine is kicking in even before the result
Let\’s get real here - this is a SAFE LABOUR SEAT we are talking about not some marginal.
PUH-LEASE.
I don\’t really see how a large swing to the LibDems will lead to their bubble bursting… I don\’t see any chance
of this not being a result realistic LibDems will be quite happy with.
On the other hand I do think that the LibDems will learn some lessons about fighting the \”big boys\” from this
- but I think that is entirely a positive thing.
Certainly agree it is all over though… I was just given at 15 on betfair in tiny… noone would do that unless
they will sure of a comfortable win… must be 10% I\’d have thought.
Whenever a political market gets close to a \”finish\” it attracts a lot of other punters in who might not have given this the close attention that many on this site have. They see the opinion polls and see the prices so they assume it\’s a sure thing and lots of money rolls on.
We have not had a comment yet from somebody working on the election either from the LDs or Labour. Whatever the margin is going to be a lot less than NOP\’s 33%. I am having to fight off the temptation of backing the LDs at these prices. Currently I\’m flat on Labour with a big profit on the LDs.
I\’ve been unable to get any feel of what happened with the postal votes but recent betting levels suggest it must have gone well for Labour. A very experienced Lib Dem agent has just told me that turnout among Lib Dem voters is very high, so the result may now depend on a mixture of differential turnout and tactical voting by supporters of the Tories and to a lesser degree UKIP.
Reports I\’ve heard from Hartlepool say there\’s poor weather there today, so that could have an effect on turnout and mean it\’s down to whoever\’s voters are most determined to vote (and postal votes, of course).
Betfair currently have Labour at 1.03, LD at 16, though the LD price has dropped from 18 in the last ten minutes, and when the £11 available at 16 goes, the next stop is 7.2
IG at 1.00 pm
LAB 89 - 94
LDS 6 - 11
Odds on offer are
LAB 6 - 94 1.06
LDS 89 - 11 9.1
there is always a lemming like rush for supposed free money and on most occasions they pick up.
Labour can only be a certainty if the postal votes are a very substantial proportion of the total to be cast.
My agent contact has just told me that knocking up Tory and soft Labour supporters shows that a significant majority are voting for Dunn. The question is whether the assumed Labour lead from postal votes is enough to hold off a probable lead for the Lib Dems at the polling stations today.
I just don\’t see how there can be a probable LibDem lead at the polling station today. If there were even
a sniff of a shock LibDem win today Labour supporters would be hoovering up those LD offers on Betfair. 25-1
gives you a very attractive way of drowning your sorrows.
I did notice the Guardian came out for the LD\’s though which is a first!
however you look at it betting over 2 grand at 25/1 ON when there are better odds elsewhere is the sign of the true MUG PUNTER. We are talking about 80 quid profit before commission.
This is very seductive and I\’m taken with Dean\’s comments.
Pity there is no market on the vote share… what do you think the chances are of another 20% swing?
I see a £24 has been traded on Betfair today at 24/1 on the Lib Dems. That looks really good value. I can\’t believe the Lib Dems are that far behind Labour in Hartlepool. Especially given the quieter Tory campaign when compared to the July byelections.
I reckon it\’ll be much closer than those odds suggest and give those who between them have put £30 K on Labour today a nervy time.
There\’s going to be a huge swing towards the Lib Dems, but Hartlepool is the safest seat imaginable. Odds were short on a Lib Dem victory because everyone\’s imagination ran away with them, now they\’re more realistic. I\’m expecting such a surge for the Lib Dems that the next election starts to look like a three horse race, but that shouldn\’t obscure the fact that Hartlepool is safe Labour territory.
Sorry Mike, I wasn\’t meaning to lead you into temptation! It would be nice to have some info on the postal votes, if only the number cast.
Ian - gbp 4000 went through on Labour at the equivalent price so about 80 quid equivalent at 25-1. I did a little
bit but not sure it is great value… I just expected the price to move back a bit to enable me to get out.
I also think the Labour have staked so much on this and been so arrogant for want of a better word that
they must be absolutely certain they are going to win - and have the evidence to support that view. I
think a defeat with all that has happened would be far more serious than the previous by-elections.
LD\’s coming back hard now… whoever did that 4k will be feeling a bit nervous
I can\’t help notice that the price is changing… now at around 10-1 on the LibDems
The Betfair price has moved quite a bit in the last hour or so - LDs have come in from 12 to 5.5 while Labour have edged out from 1.06 to 1.1
25-1 down to 5-1… value plays or does someone know something?
A last log as I have to go to a council meeting, but my contact says the Lib Dem vote is coming out.Most voters canvassed as Tories are switching to Dunn as are many identified as soft Labour. He feels that while Labour are still probably narrow favourites the Lib Dems are still very much in with a shout of pulling it off.
Dean - I was tempted. Thank you. I laid a pile at 1.08 and I could get out now and double my money.
Within two hours the Lib Dems have moved from 25/1 to 9/2. The Labour price has moved out by the same proportions. This reflects growing condfidence which should become clearer by about 6pm.
I seem to remember the jockey fell off the hottest ever favourite in a horse race.
As about the only Conservative activist here, I can assure you we\’ve spent virtually nothing on this campaign - I was not even asked to go which is a first! - and I am sure we would be quite happy to see the Liberals win. This is a safe Labour seat - if the Liberals are seen to be making inroads here (as at Brent) it makes life a lot easier for us in the Southern Tory/Lib marginals where the Lib Dems will find it harder to portray themselves as \”soft Conservatives\” when they are getting high profile media attention for out-Labouring Labour.
I have several contacts in the northeast who have worked on the campaign. They told me of the large Labour lead in the postal votes which I guess is redoubling Liberal efforts today. When pressed early this morning my contact said he thought it would stay Labour but at lunch time has revised this now to Liberal.
IG update 4pm
LAB 84 - 89
LDS 11 - 16
Odds
LAB 11 - 89 1.12
LDS 84 - 16 6.2
T
Betfair 1730
Last matched prices - Labour 1.26 (just over 1/4)
Lib Dem 5 (4/1)
So the trend is continuing. The punter who backed Labour at 1/25 must be feeling a little sick.
Indeed Mike. I really hope it was one of the Labour lemmings who have been posting spin on here.
The 5 point spread has protected IG from most of the volatility but even so they offered 8/1 in the middle of the day.
I\’d like to know
1. When the postal votes were counted…and
2. Who exactly gets to find out about them
They are counted tonight, they are validated a few days before.
The validation processs involves the political parties seeing that they come out of the envelopes and into ballot boxes that are then sealed. i.e. the electoral workers get no chance to fake them.
Some electoral officers go to great pains so that party workers can\’t see who the votes are for, only that they are in order, others don\’t mind and parties can get a feel for it (a lot of the minor parties won\’t bother to turn up).
All the parties are given the numbers of postal ballots regarded as valid.
No one knows what the balance of the postal ballots are, but if the returning officer was relaxed they\’ll all have some idea.
All the parties are given the numbers of postal ballots regarded as valid.
thanks…so does anyone here know what that number is…
Betfair has moved back to Labour quite a bit. LDs now 6/1. Is this the lemmings returning from work or real info?
it\’s a tricky market to call Mike. Most of the time it\’s been weak - as it is now - and the prices set by IG have had some influence. There was certainly a strong move for Labour this morning and obviously some insiders thought it was game over. Now there isn\’t much money either way - perhaps there\’s no-one left who wants a bet on this contest.
Hmmm… this is a bit more tense than i would like, that said Wright should be ok, for the same reason that Bryne was ok in Brum HH, the really anoying thing is there\’ll be no living with my liberal mates if they win this…. [mutters]… right I\’m off down the pub and I\’ll get back to see the result after closing time… cya
IG eased LAB at 6pm
82 - 87 meaning you can back at 1.15
approaching the level at which they opened the market 80 - 85
biggest price LAB has been 76 - 81 this morning and shortest 89 - 94 at lunchtime. Nice 8 pt trade if anyone read it right.
now they\’re shortening up again - maybe the compiler is reading this forum…
Lab 88 - 93
LDs 7 - 12
about 1.07 LAB
8.3 LDs which is a point off their best price…not bad for any late players out there.
I guess they close at 10pm
No John. Betfair go on trading until there is a declaration.
I was talking about IG mike.
Why is The Times Online wittering on today about a Ladbrokes book? It\’s news to me that they were ever taking bets on this market. Stunning spin/ignorance too. The Liberal Democrats aren\’t even mentioned. Only that no-one had bet on the Tories, Labour were favourites and the MRLP had put more money on themselves than anyone had on the Tories.
Couldn\’t find the Times article, but it sounds like a garbled version of this: http://www.readabet.com/index.php/other/article/5830
Less than an hour til polls close and Lib Dems still available at 6-1, so can we now assume they are not confident of an upset?
IG are the only book who have quoted throughout the day although Ladcrooks may have made a one off quote for PR purposes.
Looks like the Labour backers are lumping on now
90 - 95 the shortest price ever. When they close as I assume 10pm the remaining money will have to pile into Betfair and I expect LD supporters will soon know their fate.
The 10pm money on Betfair seems to be piling onto Labour - they\’re now down to 1.01, but if you want it you can get 20 (19/1) on the LDs right now.
That must be curtains now — I can\’t see the prices recovering from the latest slump to 1.02.
Thanks for the blog BTW — it has nudged me into using Betfair for the first time, and it\’s certainly a very different experience from normal bookies.
I understand that Chris Rennard is saying it is too close to call, so don\’t count your winnings or your losses yet.
Rennard always says that! My best guess is Labour have held on - interesting to see what the news on the Prime Minister\’s health would have done had it been announced earlier.
Perhaps this is the reason for bringing the by-election forward by a week.
Shamefully, I\’m going to bed (and here I\’d been with a plan of staying up to watch the Bush-Kerry debate). I look forward to some gloating/ word-eating to read through in the morning.
it wouldn\’t be the first time a 1.01 shot got beaten but all the market signals point to Labour.
While IG were offering good prices the backers stayed off Betfair - perhaps encouraging the layers to push the price a little. As soon as IG closed the price collapsed.
I suspect the news about Blair\’s health and his decision not to go for a fourth term was embargoed by the media until 10pm, in order not to distort the Hartlepool poll, which would probably have breached the Representation of the People Act and other legislation, if it had been announced while the polls were still open.
Why is Michael Crick saying on Newsnight that he doesn\’t know who has won - but Betfair odds say pretty clearly Labour has got it (thank you Paddy Power for 1.57!)
It all seems like it was a bit unnecessary for Blair to schedule his heart operation for tomorrow - I\’m sure everyone reporting on his revelation was itching to mention the coincidental nature of the conflagration of it with the Hartlepool by-election. I suppose nobody will ever get a good chance now if Labour romp home
I think there must be some interesting news coming out of the count - anyone heard anything? Betfair\’s prices are swinging again - Labour are out to 1.06 and LDs in to 12.
Doubt if the RPA would be an issue. You are voting for the constituency candidate not Blair. Hell the LDs lost a candidate a few years ago on the Eve of Poll. I suspect that any fears about Blair\’s health and a confirmation that Brown won\’t get a look in for 5 years would have hit Labour in Hartlepool. Hence the 10pm embargo.
The latest info I have is that it is within 1,000 either way. The Lib Dems have almost certainly won the vote at the polling stations as I predicted earlier. However, this may be a repeat of Hodge Hill where the postal votes saved Labour from defeat.
Labour backers are moving in again…looks as if the postal votes have swung it.
Bliddy postal votes - Labour usually manage to get ahead on them, I know for a fact that badger old grannies to sign up for postal votes, and then go around and stand over them virtually threatening them until they tick the \’right\’ box. Really annoying, but unless you catch them at it, there\’s not much you can do. But I suppose vote-nobbling is the least of Labour\’s gutter-level campaign tactics… I think it looks like a Labour win unless a miracle occurs. I suppose I\’m naive, in thinking that policies and a fair fight win elections these days!
Cyberbub - you sound like a very bad loser. I\’m not saying the Labour Party is full of saints, but I\’m pretty sure we don\’t make a habit of threatening old ladies. I agree that we should have run a more positive campaign \”be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly\” may be the mantra of the Lib Dems, but the party of government should have tried to rise above it.
bad winners, bad losers…nobody got much to be proud of over this campaign.
Choppy - one thing worse than a bad loser and that\’s a bad winner
I have it on good authority that UKIP have beaten the Tories.
Labour have romped home. Tories in 4th - only themselves to blame.
Incidentally I think it is no coincidence that the only by-election under Blair where the Conservatives have performed at all well was Uxbridge in 1997, where - surprise, surprise - they selected a Local candidate, and campaigned on local issues.
Good result for Labour, awful for the Tories but the risk they were running trying to throw the result to the Liberals.
Glad I got my money on Labour when they were 1.7.
Time to start betting on this: \’The procedure does not involve a surgical incision and will be carried out under local anaesthetic and sedation . . A catheter - a long, thin wire - will be introduced through the skin into large veins and moved inwards under x-ray control until the tip lies inside the heart chambers.\’ so says that unreliable source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3205978.stm
Balls, of course: the catheter is introduced by into the vein by cutting into it with a scalpel, not by looking for its loose end or by magic or spin or the power of prayer or self-belief. That said, this sort of interventional radiology is truly marvellous, scientific medicine at its best, and we should be glad of it because if we live long enough we too will need it. The procedure carries some risk of death and of other adverse events (haematoma = local bleeding), so we may yet need a new PM sooner rather than later. The risk is much less than of a conventional surgery, but not nil. I wonder whether the PM has made time in his busy schedule to give his full and informed consent? who will be PM and licensed to start WW3 while he is being operated on? Etc., etc.
The first political event I recall was Eden\’s resignation, announced on the tannoy when I was I was visiting the Boy\’s Own Exhibition, late in \’56. He was brought down by a surgeon\’s blunder, cutting thro\’ his gall bladder duct.
Got back from Brighton already in a good mood - the Tory fourth place has made it even better.
Good result for Labour - cracking victory speech - complete with heckles and what appeared to be a \’Sutchite\’ in full TV view - just like old times.
Despite calling him the milky bar kid earlier in the day - I can\’t see how Iain Wright will not have a long and successful career as local MP for Hartlepool.
The result leaves some interesting questions:
1) UK party leadership - the Tory result was truly dire - I can\’t see Howard going - but he needs to if they are to make any progress. Kennedy\’s position is a bit more dodgy tonight.
2) A third Labour landslide(ish) is on the cards - anyone who thinks the Tories can win more than 200 seats needs to think long and hard.
3) The Lib Dems will struggle to win more than a handful of Labour seats. Spread betting markets with a Lib Dem range of 67-71 must come down. My view is an interesting bet would be will the Lib Dems win more seats than the Liberal Party did in 1929 (59) - I think they\’ll struggle to get more.
\’… cracking victory speech\’, well may be for my eardrums. The words were fine, but he came across as an aggressive ranter.
That\’s because Hartlepool MPs are fighters, and not quitters…
Dan,
Amazed that you think a 19% swing swing to the LibDems indicates that the LDs will struggle to make more than 7 gains on their 2001 total.
What matters is winning - Labour now have a strategy to beat the Lib Dems and they seem incapable of responding. Activists in every Labour seat under threat from the Lib Dems will now know what to do.
I also can\’t see the Lib Dems maintaining any sort of opinion poll momentum - the only way is down - Labour should now creep up as the Lib Dems slip back - and that\’s before the media and the other parties turn their fire on the Lib Dems for real. A general election vote in low twenties for the Lib Dems might now be considered a good result.
Anyone seriously now think a hung parliament is likely?
Dan I\’ll have at much money with you as you want at EVENS that the LDs get at least 60 seats.
Rational analysis here please not MORE SPIN
John - sorry you think it\’s spin - I\’m only trying to put my views across.
I agree that 60+ seats is entirely possible for the Lib Dems - but my point is the spread markets have them in the high 60s/low 70s - which is a significant increase - particularly when winnign general election seats is far harder than by-elections.
The Lib Dems more than the others rely on the oxygen of publicity that by-election wins bring them. While I wouldn\’t argue that the momentum is now against the Lib Dems - it\’s not exactly with them anymore. If the Lib Dems start slipping back in the polls (as I expect them to do) I can\’t see this vote going Howard\’s way - it is most likely to go to Labour allowing them to open up a gap between them and the Tories.
I\’ve predicted earlier that the next general election vote shares are likely to be along the lines of Labour 37/38%, Cons 32/33% and Lib Dems 21/22% - nothing about last night convices me of anything different. And on those sort of figures a comfortable Labour win should be expected with minor gains by the other parties.
On a different note - UKIP victories are now a distinct possibility - the question is can they sneak a couple in the West Country in addition to RKS? If so where?
Hartlepool was 410th Liberal Democrat target seat - We all read too much into by-elections but a few facts: turnout was 45.8% (gen elec 56.3%) equivalent in leicester was 41.5% (general 58%) Respect got only 1.8% (the same candidate got 1.15 as an independent last time. Still knackered from polling day - at one point fell asleep in a committee room! But spent a couple of hours on a polling station labour in H\’pool have same problem as Tories in most other places - They are all old!!! Lessons of it all - didnt bet enough on Libs at s leic. bet too much on Libs at Hartlepool - I expected price to shorten on the run in. Markets still vulnerable to next by election (Reading East?)where Tories comfortable second but if tories lost another one (UKIP factor) then spread bet no. seats market would be all over the place. Best market for me at the moment is date of election - in the money on all dates by good timing of bets on Oct - Dec 05.
I would like to find someone to bet by region that UKIP will not take a single seat in Devon and Cornwall… Torbay
probably their best result.
Dan interesting comment re: Labour having \’worked out how to beat the Lib Dems\’. I suspect that you mean that throwing muck at femal candidates (ie Hodge Hill and HPool) seems to be effective. I would argue that this is a simplistic and staggeringly inaccurate analysis. Winning is everything but actually its the size of swing that says most about the significance of the result. Hodge Hill saw a 27% swing- bigger than in Leicester South - HPool saw a 19% swing which is still pretty seismic. The fact that we have got use to the Lib Dems getting this huge increases in their vote doesn\’t make it any less significant! With UKIP picking up 5% here and there at the next election and with a little inside knowledge, I\’d stab at 80 seats plus (including half a dozen gains from Labour) for the Lib Dems at the general. Cheers
Indeed Josie - I\’d have thought that Tim Collins is one who might be a little worried
Dan,
Labour\’s tactics weren\’t new - go to most urban places that are Lab/LD marginals (local & Westminster seats)- Oldham/Rochdale, Islington, Liverpool, Sheffield, Lambeth and you will see that this is tried & ested. Both parties can get down & dirty, Labour struck lucky with the \”weblog\” quote & were effective in using it - but as for wider lessons, its that negative campaigning works - well thats not exactly news & you are being very naive if you think that the LDs don\’t know that.
Of course I know negative campaigning works - I\’ve organised a few in my time!
The question is why are the Lib Dems not being more proactive in rebutting it? There was an easy way to get round the weblog incident - allowing it to become a festering sore was not the thing to do. I\’m surprised M\’Lord Rennard hadn\’t worked this out from Hodge Hill.
Peter Hain quite clearly said on the by-election programme last night that the party was going to use these tactics nationwide - what is the Lib Dems response?
What about Howard in Folkestone - Lib Dems need a 6.5% swing to take it - UKIP are going to field a name.
Is the Tory party finished?
The easiest way to get round it would have been for there to be no blog in the first place! The LDs do have to combat the naivete that allows a first-time candidate to broadcast unvetted comments to the entire internet, if they want to progress beyond perpetual third-party status.
The \”angry dogs\” farrago is one thing, but JD also inadvertently let out on the blog she wasn\’t living in the Hartlepool Marina flat of convenience. (A perceptive Labour blogger somewhere picked up a lot of references to pet cats.)
WRT Folkestone, the European election result suggests that Howard should win easily. Being party leader generally gives one a boost in one\’s own constituency.
I don\’t think the Tory Party is finished provided they fight election campaigns seriously. Their behaviour throughout this campaign has been a mystery.
Re Folkestone: The European election is much less of a guide than by elections. There is a 20% labour vote to be squeezed - Howard is dead unless he changes constituencies quickly. In 1997 The referendum party got 8% with that nut John Aspinal standing.
LOL at book value\’s comment 75.
WRT Folkestone, if UKIP got 8% in 1997 and Howard still won, he\’s going to do so next time around. If anything, the European elections represent the absolute maximum UKIP vote (the UKIP vote in Hartlepool was half their vote in June). If they couldn\’t take enough votes away from the Conservatives to threaten Howard in June, they certainly won\’t do so next year.
Ah yes, I\’d forgotten they needed a sidekick to make Goldsmith appear sane and well-balanced.
That\’s a lot of Labour voters - and there must be an awful lot of temptation for them to vote tactically and get the ultimate scalp. OTOH, it\’s hardly as if Howard was a popular figure across party lines in 1997 (when, on the other other hand, the LDs didn\’t field a notably warm and sympathetic candidate in the constituency).
Before the last election, several commentators made the point that the Lib Dems could beat William Hague in Richmond if enough Labour supporters voted tactically. In the event, Hague increased his vote share by 10%, in line with what usually happens when one becomes party leader.
Correction to comment 87:
[from Decca Aitkenhead\’s article]: \”Ed Fordham had checked the copy [with the \”angry dogs\” remark] as usual before posting it online. Nothing he read had sounded alarm bells.\”
The question then is more who vets the vets, but it still speaks of a party machine much more naive than its opponents\’.
Indeed - but even having made this mistake - it was perfectly possible for Jody Dunn to apologise for any offence caused by her \’lighthearted remarks\’, but attack Blair over his lack of apology over doctoring intelligence over Iraq.
Labour would not want to get into a debate over apologies I would think at this time.
BV… I\’m sure David Laws would be proud if he read that.
I quite like him (well, his ideas) - I was just repeating what most Lib Dem posters on here think
He does look uncannily like William Hague, though.
It was a political blunder bv…I wonder how many votes it cost. Interesting that no one has come clean on the postal votes total…surely some of you hacks and shysters out there must know…
Just about every town in Britain has areas where you really wouldn\’t want to be knocking on doors. To make out that JD was putting the whole of Hartlepool down was a disgraceful slur but it\’s what should be expected of a politically bankrupt outfit.
I agree the LD campaign was shown up in terms of coping with negativity. They may have lost a skirmish but it would be incredibly foolish to write off their future prospects…unless you were a Labour spinner with no regard for the truth whatsoever and certainly unwilling to put money behind wild inaccuracies.
I think the Lib Dems should assume that in any close-fought fight between them and Labour, Labour will hurl every piece of mud they can at their candidate. And to adapt Enoch Powell\’s comment about the Press, for a politician to complain about that is like a ship\’s captain complaining about the sea.
As I said at the time, Jody Dunn\’s comments about canvassing were funny, but it was foolish to put them on her blog during the campaign.
I\’m no Labour spinner and I lost next week\’s housekeeping backing the Lib Dems in Hartlepool - which might have possibly coloured my views!
Overall it confirms my views that Labour will win the next election comfortable - a government on the way out would have lost all four of the last by-elections. Labour didn\’t - people don\’t show the sort of anger against Labour they did against Major\’s Tories - but the sheen has definitely worn off. Blair is no longer some sort of political super hero - turning everything to gold. He\’s an ordinary mortal politician who is as trusted as much as other politicians (ie very little).
Normal service has definitely been resumed with Labour as favourites to win again. The election after next however…
No government in modern times has become as unpopular as John Major\’s Conservatives. But no-one here, however partisan, believes that Labour will be reduced to 165 seats after the next election. The worst that anyone might predict for Labour would be c.270 seats.
I\’d have thought Labour\’s by-election performance is more on a par with that of Ted Heath\’s government in 1972-74. The government was pretty unpopular, but the official opposition made no real headway either, even losing two seats (Lincoln and Rochdale).
To be fair Sean, Lincoln was a special case. Do you think that even now if a Tory MP resigned to fight a by-election on the UKIP ticket, the official Tory candidate would win it back?
John, sure JD\’s comments were blown out of proportion, but the reason they were toweringly unwise was that they fitted a story Labour must already have been constructing about a North London public schoolgirl selected to fight a working-class north-eastern constituency. I think the LDs now really need to focus on building a white working-class base nationwide (as they have in Sheffield and Liverpool).
All in all this is not a negative result for the LDs but it says to me that 2005 will be a consolidation election for them, getting strong second places from which they can challenge Labour seats in 2009/10.
If we agree that the General Election will be decided by Labour turnout, Hartlepool must count as a very good result for Labour. 12,500 votes compared with their high point of 27000 in 1997 represents the best Labour byelection turnout since Glasgow Anniesland in 2000.
If they had only got 1/3rd of their voters to turn out as in previous by-elections, the LibDFems would have won.
LibDems
ok Dan I believe you…better luck next time. Try playing it like Mike and the shrewdies trading around your estimate of the correct odds. The most reliable way of winning long term.
I agree with bv and I don\’t expect to be collecting on the 100/1 Lib Dems to win most seats.
Howard has a good chance of losing his seat here in folkestone, we have 80 retired gurkhas helping, they are a formidable help, we also have already got more delievers and poster sights than last election