Has the Tory price bottomed out?
January 26th, 2005
-
Howard’s immigration plans please the punters
After weeks of steady decline on the spread markets the Tory price has staged a small recovery as punters seek to get in at what they see as bargain prices.
IG Index this evening marked Michael Howard’s party up two seats as punters took stock of the policy line-up on immigration and Labour’s two point drop in the Guardian ICM poll. There’s also a realisation that a Labour buy bet on 364 seat - a majority of 81 - is much riskier with the party only being nine points ahead of the Lib Dems, as seen in the weekend’s YouGov poll.
-
We think that a Tory buy bet at 192 seats is good value. If you want to bet on the Tories now might be the time to do it.
A number of potential Tory buyers who’ve been in contact with me have been waiting for the price to bottom out and I expect further moves in Michael Howard’s direction - particularly on Friday if the January Yougov poll in the Daily Telegraph, the first survey to be taken after the Tory immigration plan, is similar to the one at the weekend or shows a further move away from Labour.
This will be reinforced by a big change that’s likely in Martin Baxter’s uniform national swing prediction which has not yet factored in the latest ICM poll and is still using the December YouGov poll which had Labour higher and the Lib Dems on 21%. We expect this to get near or even go below a predicted 100 seat Labour majority for the first time in months.
Sentiment could change a bit in the other direction on Sunday with the Communicate Research survey due in the Independent on Sunday but the markets tend to take less notice of this pollster than YouGov or ICM.
Latest IG Index spread prices: LAB 357-364 (-1): CON 185-192 (+2): LDs 71-75. There will be 646 seats in the next House of Commons so to win a majority a party needs to get 323 seats or more.
To bet you “buy” at the high figure in the spread and you win the level of your unit stake multiplied by the number of seats in excess of the price you bought. Thus if Labour got 380 seats and you bought with a stake of £20 at 364 you would win 16 times £20 = £320. Your losses are calculated in the same way if Labour ended up with less than 364 seats.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I agree that Howard’s immigration remarks, which so enrage the trendy intellectual left, will play well with the key swing voters that the Tories need to win. Labour were sensible not to oppose him. When will the LibDems learn that everytime they come out swinging for the CRE that they tarnish themselves with looking both more bonkers than Howard (a tricky task) and soft on immigration? The polls should shift in favour of the Tories and I expect prices to rise too.
An interesting conversation with a colleague today that is worth sharing:
Ellie:”Everyone hates Michael Howard and we particularly hated him over his immigration nonsense. Nobody liked that at all.”
Marc: “Who is ‘everybody’?”
Ellie: “Everyone … in my house.”
Marc: “Who’s in your house?”
Ellie: “… me.”
Marc: “And you’re a member of the Liberal Democrats?”
Ellie: “Yes.”
Marc: “Oh.”
Funnily enough the quieter members of our team said that they all thought the plans were good. Maybe MH is on a winner?!?
He certainly is in Enfield (where I work).
He seems to be winning the Sun over more and more, as well.
In addition, it seems that Blair is not quite the political steamroller he once was - a few years ago it would have been inconceivable that he wouldn’t have merely brushed aside whatever Tory announcements there were. Has MH finally got Blair on the back foot?
It it that the resurgent Lib dems are “pincering” Blair’s famous “triangulation”?
If he moves towards the Tory line he’ll become:
1.Vulnerable to allegations by MH that he’s merely saying the words and is not to be trusted (Blair’s credibility is one area that most of us expect the Tories to use as an attack)
2. Vulnerable to the Lib Dems moving in from behind him and claiming the “progressive” vote.
But if he does nothing, the “Big Mo” of momentum could move towards the Tories - his biggest danger - for the first time in a decade and more.
What does he do?
In the past, he’s always managed to dance out of any political trap laid for him and vault effortlessly over electoral minefields. At the moment, I don’t see a way out other than to try to weather the storm. Then again, just because I’d be stymied by this doesn’t mean that he will - it’s why he’s in Downing Street tonight and I’m here in front of my keyboard
Proper Opposition has finally returned in British Politics. After Hague’s years as a leader when he struggled to make a mark and IDS term when he was too derided by the media and his party to make a mark, Howard is starting to really hit home on Blair. Combine this with the effective opposition from CK and the Lib Dems on the left and TB is suddenly facing a bit of a storm. His performance in PMQs today was very weak and his tired remarks about the Tory past and the economic achievements of his government are no longer hitting home.
The difference now is that the Lib Dems have managed to establish an effective voice on issues from the left such as the war, civil liberties and taxation, and the Tories likewise from the right, on law and order, asylum and immigration and taxation. He is suddenly getting badly squeezed in the middle. This is not to mention the fact that he has lost a lot of his supporters in the media (escp the BBC) over Iraq.
There may be a good demonstration of the effect of “others”i.e the Green Party on the LD vote in tomorrow’s local by-election at Richmond LBC –North Richmond Ward.
At the last election in May 2002 – 3 councillors the result was
Tory 1335,1313,1279 – all elected
LD 1129,1059,1004
Lab 317,313,312
Independent 145
UKIP 123
The death of one of the Tory councillors has caused the by-election.LD ‘s must have high hopes of taking this seat- squeeze the last Labour votes etc.
However there is a Green Party candidate standing so in my opinion the LD vote share will go down. UKIP & Ind are not standing.
I know people will say you can’t read anything on the results of one local by-election but it’s such good fun especially if the result turns out the way you said it would.
A thought on the Conservative asylum policy. While I have little doubt that it will win over voters, I wonder if it might lose voters as well. For one many liberal tories like myself feel uncomfortable with the idea of putting a quota on the number of asylum seekers we will take (a particular dilemma if your a guilty Christian as well) and two might the policy reinforce in some people’s minds the idea of the Tory party as the nasty party. Comments please?
Vino, if you are interested in extrapolating by-election results, may I offer you the recent House of Lords LibDem Hereditary Peers By-Election? Following the death of Earl Russell, an election was held for his successor. There were four (4) voters, of whom three (3) were candidates. Turnout was at an Albanian level of 100%; similarly, the winning candidate (Lord Glasgow) gained a Soviet-style 100% of the votes cast.
(Assumes Robert Mackenzie voice) “If this result was repeated across the country, we would be governed by Whig Aristocrats from the Smoking Room of the Reform Club.”
Talking to-night to a friend who is an ESL teacher - in his class he has an Iranian obstetrician who bribed his way out of jail (3 years ago) two days before he was due to be executed… is this the sort of person that the good voters of Enfield want to keep out, Sean?
I hope to be in Richmond tomorrow so will report back what I find, if I can get away from work!
Excellent point: Innocent Abroad
While I get the logic of the Tory policy it disturbs that there are no safeguards that I have heard off about sending these people back to there countries. I would be reassured by some sort of holding system or dispersal system to other willing and democratic nations.
Probably not Innocent. I should think they’re more concerned about Kurdish drug traffickers in Enfield Lock.
In Reference to my previous point, does anyone know roughly how many genuine refugees we accept at the moment. Would 15,000 be a decrease on the numbers we already take or an increase. This raises the question of whether all the asylum seekers we accept are genuine refugees facing persecution at home (or starvation etc as is the case in some parts of Africa)
7 Augustus Carp - Good point but I’m on a hiding to nothing if the result goes the other way i.e LD vote share goes up or they even take the seat - Can you imagine the ribbing Tabman Steve will hand out to me?
Well, people have been criticised on this site for getting excited about one poll, but posts 3 (Andy) and 4 (Andrew) are getting excited without an especially interesting poll at all. Having correctly predicted the last Guardian poll as showing an only modest Labour dip, I’ll predict a bit more - the Telegraph will show the lead within the margin of error and the media will get more excited, but the one after that will show it widening again, and we’ll be back to ‘can the Tories survive?’ stories. The underlying position of Labour upper 30s, Tories lower 30s, LibDems lower 20s, has been stable for so long that I think we should assume it’s a plausible prediction. What it means in terms of seats is another matter.
The Sun *is* interesting, though - after 24 hours to think about it, they majored on Howard and immigration the next day. I think that they are trying to establish themselves as the tabloid for the uncommitted working-class voter (quite a smart move in these disengaged times): sometimes they praise or bash Labour, sometimes the Tories (though they’re always nasty about the LibDems). It makes them more interesting than the committed papers (let’s spend some time debating the intentions of the Express and the Mirror - hey, you blinked and missed the debate), and that’s more fun for them than being taken for granted. I think they’ll go for the party they expect to win in the end, though.
Meeanwhile, the loon…er, radical Tory immigration proposals appear to be firming up anti-Tory tactical intention on the Guardian reader flank. I was talking to 120 students tonight at a non-party (overseas development) event at Nottingham U, and from the reactions estimate that the Tory vote there was in low single figures. In general the polls should now start to show a hardening intention to vote all round.
BTW, Kilroy’s gone all quiet again, hasn’t he? Max two weeks before he’s on the front pages again.
Nick
Andrew, in 2003, out of about 65,000 cases decided, 6% of applicants were granted asylum, with another 11% being given humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain. Of the reamaining 83%, about one fifth established their right to remain, on various grounds, on appeal.
I think the point of humanitarian protection is that although the applicant does not qualify as a refugee, he is entitled to remain because his home country is dangerous.
Nick, how do you think the students will react when Charles Clarke reveals his proposals for increasing the number of deportations?
I believe that Michael Howard’s parents wouldn’t have been allowed in if his policy had been in existence in the thirties. They would presumably have perished at Auchwitz. All the people I’ve spoken to are quite shocked by his pandering to the racist vote at this particular time. And the Jewish papers are unanimous in their condemnation.
Andrew at 12: The figures are roughly 20% approved as genuinely having been tortured or otherwise maltreated (typical example: victim of Mugabe, white or black), and hence due to get asylum; 25% declined for asylum but given temporary leave to remain because it would currently be unsafe to send them back (typical example: an anti-Saddam Iraqi Sunni), 55% declined and due to be sent back (which may include many who were fleeing hunger or natural disasters, but not political oppression). This is on a total of currently around 45,000/year (was 100,000 at its peak). A direct calculation of the 15,000 comes to 33% of 45,000. Note however that the Conservatives propose to approve 0% (zero) of those who actually come to Britain - the 15,000 will be from UN camps. Anyone who makes it to Britain will be refused asylum and presumably in principle sent back to be shot, no matter how good their case.
There are two areas that I’ve not seen clarified. First, it’s not absolutely clear that the Tories will abolish the ‘temporary leave to remain’ category. If they do, then the above statement stands. If they don’t, then all 20+25=45% of those currently deemed unsafe to return will need to be allowed to stay, *plus* 15,000 extra brought in from UN camps, which is not quite what the average Tory voter will have had in mind. I therefore think that they will abolish it, but if anyone wants to correct me I’d be interested.
The second open question is where all these hospitable places are that will maintain transit camps for us. We used to joke about the Tory fantasy island which would house all our refugees, but we now appear to be looking for a fantasy archipelago. Why would anyone want to do it for us, unless we offer them vast sums of money, which is not part of the scheme (remember, the savings from all this are supposed to pay for lots of extra police).
My personal opinion (just as an aside, since the site isn’t about opinions) is that the basic policy is completely appalling, mitigated by being probably unworkable. I wouldn’t say that most people don’t want tougher policies, but when this stuff sinks in, the reaction will not all be favourable.
Nick
I was going to give Labour a miss this year and give the Lib/Dems my vote but Michael Howard’s latest policy statement on immigration has energized me to vote for whoever is most likely to ensure he never gets anywhere near No 10. Which means it’s going to be Labour again. I don’t know whether I’m typical (and I am a sometime reader of the Guardian!) But I do wonder whether Mr Howard is very tactically astute. I can’t imagine many people voting for him on the strength of these policies particularly when they are unravelled but I’m sure it will harden the vote of those who will vote against him and who had almost forgotten what a nasty Home Secretary he used to be.
Nick at 14 - as a recent graduate who has just spent three years in student politics I’d say the views of any meeting such as you described are worse than worthless as a gauge of wider opinion. They are full of people who have already made their mind up.
Hmmm Interesting point Nick Palmer. I suspect that there dare not abolish the temporary leave system while in government. The horror stories would create a massive backlash against them. As for the numbers game, no doubt they will get to 15,000 in whatever way they wish, despite there comments. If they are going to get rid of that rule, then even I a natural Tory might have to abstain at the next election (by spoiling my ballot paper).
It is not something that or I think other young Tories particularly like, the idea of Asylum and Immigration being such as major part of the Tories policies. It seems to run contrary to there economic principles and the One Nation tradition of looking after the needy. It also reinforces in some voters minds the image of the nasty party.
Re Nick: As regards the questions you have raised as regards the temporary leave to remain category I have just emailed the party to ask what they propose to do about it. I will post the reply on this website when I get a response.
Nick 14 - when you say that the poll after Friday’s YouGov poll will show a return to Labour - are you talking about YouGov? The poll after Friday will be Communicate Research in the Indy on Sunday which does not prompt on party choice, has no past vote recall, and does not weight for turnout. Of course that will show a big Labour lead.
Your statement that “the underlying position of Labour upper 30s, Tories lower 30s, LibDems lower 20s, has been stable for so long that I think we should assume it’s a plausible prediction” is based solely on the telephone interview polls which when tested against real results inflate the Labour position. The alternative polling method - the internet - has Labour in the lower 30s and declining with the Lib Dems rising. It’s when the different methodologies are showing the same trend that you can use terms like “plausible prediction”.
As I’ve been saying - this election is about which polling methodology you believe. For what its worth I will be betting big and YouGov will be my main guide.
More insomnia! Many thanks to those who responded to my previous point…
I think Howards’s immigration proposals are - apart from anything else - impracticable, it certainly outght not to be beyond the wit of the FO to get a statement out of the UN saying that isn’t what they do - and I bet Blair is lobbying religious leaders to unite in condemnation, which may be irrelevant to Sean’s mates in Enfield Lock but won’t play well for Howard in the press…
I will also repeat my earlier suggestion that this is one of the issues (Laura Norder being the other) where the true fault-line is between the 2/3rd of us who would never vote BNP and the susceptible minority - and add the thought that the more salient these issues become, the harder it will be for parties to seek votes across the fault-line.
A further thought on the upcoming polls - will the main parties be boosted by the likely fall-back in the UKIP position? A year ago YouGov had the three main parties with 94%. In June it was 88% and since then it has risen to last week’s 90%.
Communicate Research, which does not prompt - a technique that tends to favour the main parties, was last at 92%.
ICM’s January survey was on 90% compared with 93% at the start of 2004.
Of the main pollsters covering UK politics on a regular basis ICM has not been tested against real votes in a real election since 2001.
If enthusiasm alone were enough to win the General election the Conservatives on this site already have it in the bag, carried along on a tide of deported refugees. I have been (subtly) trying to gauge reaction to this policy (in an extremely unscientific way - although I could claim it was ‘participant observation’ - a social researcher’s gag that ;-)).
Anyway, I’m not sure I get the sense that it has had a huge impact in changing votes. Those who are bothered by race issues have appeared to be more vocal, but the general feeling seems to range from not noticed to uncomfortable to annoyed. I could be wrong on this, as I don’t go battering on doors bothering people having their tea, on the other hand I also don’t get the skewed view of those that do. My real point is, is that regarding the debate that we had Sean and others - I think that the Great British public (on all sides) regard it as ‘playing the race card’, in as much as that is the terms it is being discussed (if at all).
Which leads me (rather neatly) back to the point I (and Nick separately) made the other day. The Conservatives have played ‘the joker’, it needs to give them a real bounce. If they get a proper bounce out of this in the polls they are right back in it. If this doesn’t move the needle for them - we can all be back in the pavilion in time for tea.
Vino - As I’ve mentioned on a previous thread there have been three previous byelections in Richmond-upon-Thames BC since the 2002 elections and in each case there has been a swing directly from the Tories to the Lib Dems enabling them to gain the seats. In two of the byelections the Greens stood and had little or no impact. Egg on face time but expect the LDs to make it four out of four tonight. I’m temporarily affected by a Ben/Sarah-like confidence.
Sorry, but I just don’t buy Graham’s thesis about the immigration/asylum policy being the Tories’all important ‘joker’. When was the last election ever won or lost on the policies of the Opposition than the collective failures (or success)of the incumbent Government? And by far the single most determinant of how people cast their votes is the state of the economy and how it broadly affects them and their families. In May 2005 of course there will be another important (though less significant) factor relating to Iraq and the ‘trust factor’ that also underpins it. I do accept that the principal opposition has to be seen as broadly credible and I believe that both the tax and immigration proposals help that process, but here again the incontestable reality is that the Conservatives are by no means out of the water.
So, rather than this policy or that Tory policy being the ‘joker’, I’ll be much more focused on interest rates, the Budget, the fiscal deficit etc and developments in Iraq as the key determinants on May 5th. And my view - with gritted teeth - remains that Labour is on course for a comfortable (but not landslide) overall majority with the Tories making somewhat larger gains than is sometimes forecast (but not in the main because their policies are loved).
Sean at 16 and Iain at 20: yes, Iain, it’s an untypical sample and ancedotal anyway, but I would was struck by the supportive tone of what I’d think would be a strongly Guardianish audience. The Lib-Lab floating vote has been the only major, separately identifiable, segment of the electorate still making up its mind, in my opinion. Sean, I expect many in this type of group will dislike any toughening of the rules. But I find it very much easier to defend rapid expulsion of people who have failed both the asylum test and the temporary leave (’danger’) test than the compulsory repatriation of people whom we think *are* in danger, a policy I think hitherto only espoused by the BNP - not sure about UKIP.
Andrew at 22: Thank you - that will be very helpful. I suspect that you won’t get a clear answer, as I think it’s been deliberately left obscure, but I may be being too cynical.
Mike at 23: My prediction related to the next two YouGov polls. Cross-poll analysis is a mug’s game, as you say.
John O. I agree with you. I am saying only that they have played it to try to ‘get back in the race’. The Conservative Party are currently ’stuck’ in the polls. The perception is amongst commentators (and the country at large) that they are going to lose, as they do not appear to getting any further forward. My thesis is that they are trying to close the gap at this point, and have played the ‘joker’ early in an attempt to alter that perception, and thus make the race tighter- not that it is going to be what decides the election.
Vino at 5 - I think you’ll find that the by-election in North Richmond ward in LB Richmond is caused by the resignation of a Lib Dem Cllr - defector from Tories - subsequently found in breach of Code of Conduct by the Standards Board
Mike at 23 - interested re your comments about methodology and your ‘fessing up to betting on YouGov. But you are wrong in one respect about CR as they do seem to weight by turnout (they give weighted values according to certainty to vote). Also the past few months don’t bear out your view that CR will inevitably give Lab a huge lead. Since they started doing IOS polling they’ve only got the biggest Lab lead once:
Dec - ICM
Nov - CR
Oct - MORI
Sept - ICM
…all of which begs the question why weight by past vote recall or indeed prompt on party choice if it seems to make no difference?
Nick – 18 – Good post and for genuine asylum seekers I think everyone will agree with you however taking your typical example: victim of Mugabe, white or black s/he escapes Zimbabwe and then travels through Zambia, Zaire, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Algeria, Morocco ,Spain and then France to enter Britain.
Why is Britain the preferred county after passing through these safe countries? Are you saying they are not?
Unless of course they fly in – I can understand Britain having a good reputation among asylum seekers but the country [and I am one of them] is totally confused by economic migrants who enter this country from France and then claim asylum – the genuine one is classed the same as these and it appears on the surface a good idea for the UN to say who is genuine or not.
As I ‘ve said previous the whole immigration system as undertaken by the Labour Government is a total disgrace and I ‘m sure they will be punished for it at the GE.Whilst the Tory UN plan might not be as good as I first thought at least it appears to me they have recognised at long last that the electorate are very concerned about all aspects of immigration and the blame for this can be fairly laid on your Government.
You have allowed the public perception of claimant seeker and asylum seeker to become blurred, don’t forget 2 Ministers have resigned over immigration – both conveniently forgot things – an euphuism for lying. Labour’s spin of deception in immigration matters have been exposed by whistle blowers telling a different tale such that many people myself included do not believe a word the government says. It is definitely not a managed immigration policy but what appears to be total chaos. The losers are the genuine refugees who are tarred with the same label as the fit young men seen every night on television trying to gain access to this country. However the main loser as a result of the government immigration policy is the country itself – we are becoming more divided and racist.
The top five countries asylum seekers come from are Iran, China, Somalia, Zimbabwe and Iraq which is understandable apart from China– I hope Nick you are telling the Government not to trade with China but I some how doubt it.
One last dig - why are failed asylum seekers who turn out to be economic migrants being allowed to remain in the country? Government figures say 9 out of 10 disappear.
Sarah - I think you’ll find the resigning councillor in Richmond was an independent - he didn’t match the high standards needed to be a Lib Dem cllr!
A stronger example, Vino, would be the Ruandan woman I once met who spoke no English and when I put her to the question in my broken French (I was an evil bureaucrat at the time :)) she admitted that she sought asylum in the UK because she thought the French secret police were after her and would find her in any Francophone country but would be unable to do so in the city of dreaming spires…
Dan - No he WAS an Independent - before going over to the Lib Dems. Check out the Richmond and Twickenham Times
Dan - the councillor in Richmond was a serial resigner. This time he resigned from the Conservative Party for the fourth time in his political career and has sat as independent, independent Conservative, Liberal Democrat and his own Penarth People’s Party (or a similar name).
Richmond is well rid.
27 - Dean - I think you could be right - the Greens have stood and had little or no impact - however this could be the exception to prove the rule.I live in hope.
31 - Sarah J - Information was obtained from association of liberal democrat councillors.
Andy, I’m told the former councillor in question wants to rejoin the Conservative Party.
Nick at 29, I don’t think asylum would be an issue at all, if people who were turned down were actually deported. The problem over the past few years that the large majority have not been.
Sarah - if it’s in the ‘Rich Twick’ it must be true! Whatever the case (and he is not a Lib Dem - although I beleive he tried to join) Richmond politics appears to be well shot of him!
Let’s have a little rationale on the asylum argument. To take Vino’s example (33) of a Zimbabwean who claims asylum in Britain, I would think the reasons why they would choose to claim asylum here rather than in Zambia, Zaire, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Algeria, Morocco, Spain or France are pretty clear: Britain is the former colonial power, they speak English as opposed to Arabic, French or Spanish, and they may well have family or friends already legally living here. If you were fleeing persucution from the Blair government Vino, my guess would be that you would claim asylum in somewhere like America or Ireland, rather than Estonia…?
Re 31, 34, 36 & 37: The resigning councillor was an independent, had joined the Lib Dems as an individual and would have been admitted to the Lib Dem group on the Council in due course. He was respected as a hard working councillor but it is evident he is by temperament better suited to a non-party set up where he could be an Independent; the ‘breach of conduct’ rap was a minor local affair with resulted from too much zeal on his part with no hint of dishonesty.
The Lib Dems have a strong local candidate and Sir David Williams is the agent running his 29th by-election campaign. He has won 24 out of 28. Last time, in Hampton, we stuffed ‘em with a 15 % swing. So the a priori odds of another victory must >= 6. My advice: don’t believe everything you read at politicalbetting.com!
Re immigration - Millions of overseas Britsh Passport holders and all EU citizens from 23 countries can come to UK (total 300m plus ?) so cutting a few asylm seekers wont make much difference - Howard is very wrong to attack immigrants with different social or religious backgrounds, for failure of Government to provide Hospitals etc for UK residents. Blair has said (at PMQs) that Howard is not a racist but an oportunist - I think Howard should be distancing himself as quickly as possible from the racists who seem to have liked what they heard.
Talking of serial resigners has David Owen come out for Howard yet?
Re: David Owen’s view on current political situation. The GMTV Sunday Programme interviewed him last weekend and here’s an edited version of what he said:
I’m out of domestic politics. I stay away from it. I stay only interested in international affairs. I’ve been round that loop many times before. I’m broadly sympathetic to New Labour. I think they’ve mad some terrible mistakes but then most governments have. But it’s for the electorate to decide what they want between Liberal Democrats I think. I have only one view and that is I don’t want a large majority again. I think we’ve had two parliaments with very large majorities. I think that has allowed the government to get away with things that have been very damaging like the absence of Cabinet government, the total shutting out of a serious dialogue within government which has led to some of these very bad decisions and I think a parliament which is more balanced would be a very good thing. Irrespective of who eventually wins. Obviously I haven’t changed my positions, I’m a social democrat so I tend to support New Labour but I don’t want them in there with a large majority.
STEVE RICHARDS
So New Labour with a smaller majority?
DAVID OWEN
Yes at the moment, if you judge the polls then they’re heading for a large majority. But I have a feeling that the great British public are more sensible than that. Whether there’ll be a change, certainly I think it looks impossible for the Conservatives to come out as the Government, with an overall majority. The most there would be would be a Liberal Democrats if they were ready to work some arrangement with the Conservatives but I think Charles Kennedy is quite wise to say that he won’t actually form a formal government with either Conservative or with Labour. But at the moment I think it’s the polls are probably can’t be ignored, that it would be unusual for Labour not to win. But the size of the majority I think is still in the hands of the British people.
You did ask!
Vino - I am nothing if not magnanimous in victory. Rest assured there would be nothing except some gentle ribbing.
Sean (40), it is a lot easier to talk about removing people than actually doing it. Many of those who are not granted asylum but are not removed (which for 2003 was approx net 50%) are from war zones (Somalia and Iraq being the two countries with the largest number of applicants for 2003). Even if someone is judged not to have a genuine asylum claim, it is often the case that it is judged to be too unsafe in their home country to return them there - not an unfair decision I think most would agree: you can’t just stick them on an Easyjet flight to Mogadishu or Baghdad. Michael Howard is counting on the fact that the Telegraph, Mail etc. don’t give consideration to these sort of facts, and just concentrate on the headline figures: a tactic which will, I suspect, result in slowing down tactical unwind, and ultimately may do his cause more harm than good.
Well, we’ll take one word from your party and one word from my party. / Which words? / From mine Social Democratic, and from yours, Party. / So we’ll be called the social democratic party? / Has a ring, don’t you think, David? / Oh yes, it’s very fair, thank you very much indeed, David. But who will be the leader? / Again, one word from your name and one word from mine. / I see, which words? / From yours, I’d thought we’d take the word, David. / And from yours, David? / What about Owen.
But you’ll see from my earlier posts Chrisco, that I’ve distinguished between those granted asylum, and those granted leave to remain for other reasons (such as their country being unsafe). The point is that there are a very large number of people who have no claim to remain here, on any ground, who are not removed.
How on earth does David Owen expect the British people to vote to secure a government with a SMALL majority? The only weapon at our disposal (a cross made with a blunt pencil) is not even sufficient to ensure that we get the MP we want, never mind the Government of our choice. His view is as unreal as David Steel campaigning for a Hung Parliament - as if it is possible to bet that when a coin is tossed it will land on its side!
How is it possible for the Good Doctor to be so ignorant of the British political process? Perhaps it’s no wonder he is out of domestic politics.
T Steve, Are you a “certified” accountant? There must surely be two doctors and a social worker visiting this site who could accompany you to the Orangefield Sandal Home for Distressed Anoraks….But unlike Sarah J, I thought your recent send-ups were a hoot. By the way, I’m in Ward 4….
I also thought your send-ups were pretty good.
I reckon MH is making an early fuss about immigration so that he can gain solid Brownie points with those people to whom Labour’s failure in this area is important - yet leave it off the agenda for the real campaign where Schools’n'Ospitals policies will concern the majority.
Those to whom I was referring do not include people granted leave to remain; I was referring people who have claimed asylum, failed, failed their appeals, been denied leave to remain, but still can’t be removed because of (to quote the Home Office) an “absence of a travel route, lack of co-operation from receiving countries or scheduled flight services (resulting in lengthy documentation processes or use of charter flights)”.
54 was in ref to Sean’s 49!
John O - I’m currently benefiting from “Care in the Community”. If, however, I should prove dangerous (to myself) as opposed to just absurd, then reserve me a spot next to your in Ward 4 and we’ll bore the other inmates back to sanity.
Sean - I’ll take that as a compliment
I’ll give you a shout from the ward where I’m being treated for the double hernia
Personally, I found them as funny as a double hyena. Which is many laughs indeed.
Steve. I think your send ups were not only funny - but disturbingly show that we are all going around in circles. Which leads me to the next point - I think I am going to abandon my ‘the Tories are going nowhere’ line - listening to this site you would think that they had just gone up 3 or 4 points in the polls. ‘We’re winning here, there and everywhere’. I’m starting to suspect a conspiracy (duh, duh, daaah - that’s dramatic music by the way!) by the aforementioned Lynton Crosby (duh, duh, daaah) - here goes -This site had been trundling along with the sort of regular contributors all sort of trapped in the cycle of before - Ben ‘Labour are doing oh so well’, Sean ‘But we’re doing well in London’ and all the Lib Dems ‘We doing well in the polls, but the British electoral system will punish us again, like it always does’. But gradually a sort of narrative started to develop - which was ‘the election is dependent on whether the Liberal democrats hurt the Conservatives or Labour more’, with the ‘bolsheviks’ (as it were going for the latter) and - well - me ‘the mensheviks’ (in the strictly russian sense of ‘minority’) for the former. However, the site was getting more and more recognition in the media - and the story that was begining to be picked up was the ‘Lib Dem story’. And then suddenly lots of Conservatives have piled in saying - ‘We’re winning here, there and everywhere’? Is this coincidence?
Blimey O’Reilly (for it is I), but now Graham is seeing Leninist conspiracies. The Reds may even be in his bed. And as for those Blue Meanies. Sorry, Steve, your admission will have to wait, we have an Emergency on Ward 10…
Re 45 David Mills - thanks for that “David Owen thinks Charles Kennedy is Wise” must be a first.
Graham dont worry about the Conservatives on the site - if they cant be positive now when can they. Whilst we are all, almost all, fairly frank on this site posters must be expected to accentuate the positive.
I think Sarah J is as positive as an Exocet but you know where you are with her.
Graham, I would not know whether there was a conspiracy or not, but I do like your summary of the “Who will the Lib Dems Damage Most?” debate into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Me, I’m a Bolshevik. (Somehow, I just never expected me to make that sort of declaration!)
The emergency happened ages ago John! As for care in the community - you lightweights !!!!. Having said that, it was a relief when they loosened the straight jacket. It made typing that much easier.
Interesting comparing Sara to an excoet…..as an exocet can be positive or negative depening on whether you are dispatching or receiving….
another bad typing/spelling day
Graham - which Conservatives on this site, other than Sarah (and I don’t think she’s gone as far as your suggesting) have said we’re winning ‘here, there and everywhere’? Having never met Lynton Crosby or anyone else particularly high up in the Conservative ranks I can assure you I am not part of a Conservative conspiracy. I think most Tories on this site think we’ll win in the range of 190-210, which is hardly wildly optimistic.
61 @ Icarus - David Owen praising Charles Kennedy makes me want to sell LibDem.
I don´t think it is just a coincidence, Graham.
You can hardly mention a constituency without some Tory or other coming along and telling us how well they are doing there. When you add them all together, it seems as though they are going to end up with about 400 seats….
But then, if they are doing so well in all the seats, why does it not show up in the polls? Along comes the answer - that it the fault of the pollsters, whose figures are somehow mistaken.
When I made a comment before along these lines, Max got very upset and claimed that he had spoken in favourable terms about only one constituency. Likewise, I seem to remember that on one occasion, Sarah cited a report by T&R to the effect that the Lib Dems were set to win Cambridge and Norwich South. But that was only one occasion, and those seats are , of course, currently held by Labour.
In general, Lib Dem and Lab contributors (even Ben, at times) do seem to recognise that there are some weak spots, which may lead to losses. But certain Conservative posters, hardly ever.
So is it a conspiracy organised by CCO? I have long suspected it - and accordingly take the comments from Rik, Iain, Iain and Sarah with all the salt they deserve.
On the other hand, Sean, Max, Augustus, Andrew, John O and others seem not to be part of the plot. Their comments are much more rational.
John
You carry on in your ignorance and arrogant complacency! I can assure you that I am no part of any CCHQ conspiracy. I have my own views based on involvement in politics going back many year and having studied opinion polls since 1983!
On the contrary to your baseless assertions I have never made any of the statements or adopted the attitude you claim. I have made a precise seats prediction based on my judgement and have made some arguments that dont fit your thesis. Get over it!
Remember the polls of 1992.
Remember the polls of February 1974.
Remember the polls of june 1970.
Three elections out of the past nine where, with one or two notable exceptions, the pollsters got it wrong.
Thus two out the past four changes of Government were missed by the pollsters.
Mike at 69 - absolutely right. BUt John will cover you in salt shortly!
Iain @ 66: David Owen was only saying that Charlie K was wise to promise not to work with the other party leaders. IIRC, Dr Owen is something of an expert in not working with other people!
So Sarah is claiming Cons are winning “here, there and everywhere” by…
… claiming that the LibDems are set to win in Cambridge and Norwich South!
John. Unforunately the guiding light of PB.C is supposed to be evidence, so unless Rik, Sarah or someone else fesses up, we will just have to accept that they are mere punters like my good self! I was trying to highlight, that everyday the Conservatives on the site are hailing their brilliant performance in the media, seat x or y, which seems at odds with their stagnation in the polls. I work from a theory (as I am sure that everyone is bored of hearing) that electoral politics is about momentum and perception and that in a modern democracy the primary driving force for those factors are opinion polls. On those grounds, I believe that the Conservatives would have to be going into the campaign proper at around 40% (give or take) to stand any chance of coming away with a victory. With the polls showing them stuck at between 31 and 33%, they are in my opinion a good 7 or 8 points shy. More to the point, there does not appear to be any signs that that has changed or is going to change. In fact the only poll showing movement recently had them going down 1%. I am therefore questioning the reason for Conservative posters out breaks of optimism. I wonder if any of them could explain, without resorting to calling me biased.
I don’t see how it would be in the interest of the Conservative Party for us to be exaggerating the party’s performance.
It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of a particular campaign, and think you’re going to do better than you will do. That is particularly so this year, because almost all opinion polls are pointing to a reduction in Labour’s vote share, and quite a few seats are likely to be won or lost by small margins - thus individual campaigns may make a bigger difference than usual.
I don’t think the majority of Conservative contributors are wildly overoptimistic, but then we’re not overpessimistic either.
#73 - Possibly because it is only recently that the Tories have made big announcements about their policies, and that message still needs to be hammered home.
RE Graham.
1. As far as I’m aware no Conservative poster has ever said we are going to win the next election.
2. If labour’s support drops then the Conservatives will win seats regardless.
3. Most seats that conservatives predict they will win are very marginal labour or lib dem seats (majorities of 4,000 and less)
4. The Tories have improved there performace at every national election since 2001 (local elections, Scottish and Welsh elections) with the exception of European elections, which they still won.
5. The pollsters based on past evidence are still likely to be guilty of overstating labour support.
6. Few conservatives see ourselves doing well in the media, though undoubtedely the party is more respected than two or four years ago.
7. Respected political pundit John Curtice has argued with tactical unwind, rising liberal and decreasing labour support that there could be a hung parliament.
8. In many seats labour has yet to start campaigning properly.
In short the Tories on this site are I think mostly very realistic. No one thinks we will the election, few think there will be a hung Parliament. However everything points to us gaining more seats next time round (190-210 seats).
Finally I think it is fair to say that many different posters from across the political spectrum are sometimes guilty of exaggerating there chances. But sometimes we all have to dream, to escape the turgid present of the reality (particularly as a conservative).
Will the result of this election come from momentum generated by party A B or C or a massive switch off by voters bored with all of them?
Total membership of all parties is I think less than 1 million, even you double that to get people with an interest in Politics and you get an awful lot of non political voters.
Sean. In my (lighthearted) post that started this debate I was suggesting that it would help the Conservative Party, as this site has been fuelling speculation in the wider media regarding the effect of the Lib dems performance. It wouldn’t be an idiotic approach (if this site were becoming an opinion former) to use it to express an idea that the Conservative Party was buoyant, optimistic of success etc. However, the original post was supposed to be a jokey observation that the ebullient mood of Conservative posters on the site seemed to me to be at odds with the current standing in the polls - which brings me to Mike’s comment. If you look at the polls for March / April in 1992 as many (if not more) actually had the Conservatives ahead as behind, and the majority of those they were behind in were only a matter of 1 or 2%. On top of this they were the incumbent party. Furthermore their poll figures were between 38 and 41% (around the figure I stated earlier).
I agree with a lot of what Graham says but not his comment above that, “electoral politics is about momentum and perception and that in a modern democracy the primary driving force for those factors are opinion polls.” Strikes me as drumming up trade a bit!
I do not think more than one in ten (at the absolute most) of the public could confidently tell you whether the Tories (or whoever) are up or down or the same in the polls compared with last month, last year or this time four years ago. I am not even sure many would know that the broad message of the polls is “Labour a few points clear of the Tories with the Lib Dems further back but doing quite well historically.”
Nobody except us talk about opinion polls in the pub. If they talk about politics at all it is personalities of key players, big issues like immigration, Iraq and the economy and so on. I think that is where momentum comes from.
Polls do have a role in shaping the media agenda, I will grant you, and UKIP’s success was partly (but by no means all) based on a couple of very good polls and the subsequent media interest this generated. But are they seriously the “primary driving force”?
Nothing wrong with drumming up trade ;-). As I have said to Mike before, where would a site like PB.C be without the framework of the humble opinion poll?
Anyway, I have got the reaction that I wanted from a couple of Consevative posters, notably Sean, Andrew and Max.
Andrew. Sorry, just one point - I didn’t say that any of you had claimed you were going to win - I just said that people were saying they were ‘winning here, there and everywhere’, i.e. people who keep posting comments about how they can’t ever find a single voter from another party in their patch. I used the expression ‘here there and everywhere’ in the sense of ‘all over the place’ not anything else.
I will say, as a neutral poster, I have noticed that there has been an increase in a sort of ‘you’re talking crap’ kind of post, as well as a ‘we’re going to win’ kind of post. Maybe because of my pet theory, but I have noticed it more from Conservative quarters than others. I would like to say I have never sought to offend any Conservatives or any others personally. I am just not convinced that the Conservatives are going to do very well at this election, and at the moment I haven’t seen a convincing argument to change that point of view. I have said all along that if there were a change in the trajectory of the opinion polls, I think I would start to believe the Conservatives who are finding massive support in their canvassing. But at the moment that is not the case.
Interesting by-election today in Sidmouth, the most Conservative bit of East Devon (which is saying something) where over 2/3 of the population is retired. Tories have tended to get over 60% with Labour coming second - my feeling is that neither of these things will happen today. I wouldn’t go as far as Graham saying the Tories are on the ropes down here but if they do poorly it would be a grim sign and good for the LDs, retirement resorts being rather important in Devon.
Graham, I know we’ve been here several times before, but you are not a “politically” neutral poster even if I, like most others, respect and cast no aspersions on your role as a professional pollster.
Vino at 33: I do agree that there’s a problem in people who are rejected ‘disappearing’ - it’s one of the reason why identity cards are a good idea, since although applicants are already issued with cards, there is at present little to prevent an applicant masquerading as a resident who has a work permit. If you are convinced that the Conservatives have *really* accepted ID cards, you have more faith than me (or many of the Tories I speak to). I can get you to .” The smuggler doesn’t offer a choice of destinations like a travel bureau - he has an established route, and most such routes are either to an EU border country (Austria has the highest number per head) or to a big country (UK, France, Germany). Smugglers from Zimbabwe generally have links to Britain rather than to, say, Germany.
On the question of ‘why do they come here?’, two comments. First, we are, I believe, 8th in the EU, in the number of applicants per head (I think you would expect more to come to a big country than a small one, so the per-head comparison is reasonable). More important, the refugee doesn’t really get to choose. People envisage the typical refugee as somone who makes his way hitching rides across Europe, but it is far more typical for someone in, say, Iran, to be approached by a smuggler who says “I hear you’re fed up - for
So yes, they cross borders, but once you’ve entered the EU the mainland borders are just passing signposts for the lorry as it heads wherever it’s going.
Sean at 40: if you were right, then an appropriate response would have been to promise fiercer action against people who are assessed as invalid, not to promise to send back those who are assessed as valid as well. That’s the part that seems to me indefensible (and the reason why the UN treaty needs to be abrogated - there’s nothing in the treaty to prevent sending home people who are thought safe).
Incidentally, Vino and any others of you who have an interest in these things and live in the Nottingam area (Steve T?) may like to come to the debate tomorrow (Friday 28th) night between me and my LibDem opponent, on ID cards - Pastures Church Hall, Pasture Rd, Stapleford, from 19.30. The Tory candidate will also be speaking briefly before heading off for a dinner with Ken Clarke. There’s no entry fee but a collection for the tsunami.
Nick
Re 84 - The Tory candidate has got this right. Dinner with Ken Clarke sounds much more fun than a debate between Labour and the Lib Dems!
Re. 69, Mike, you make a good point. What’s different this time, though, is how badly the Tories have done in mid-term by-elections (and, assuming Hartlepool was the last by-election before the next GE, the last GE before a General Election).
In the cases you cite (with the possible exception of February 74, when Labour did almost as badly as the Tories have done in by-elections), a clue was given by by-elections. In the 91 Langbaurgh by-election, the swing to Labour was just 0.1% higher than the swing to Labour in the marginals at the following General Election.
The Labour government defeated in 1970 had lost by-elections to the Conservatives on swings of up to 20% (including, humiliatingly, Clement Attlee’s old seat).
February 74 is more difficult to decipher. The Heath government had suffered some heavy by-election defeats (Sutton & Cheam on a swing of around 30%, to name but one), but these were (with the one exception of Bromsgrove in 1971) at the hands of the Liberals rather than Labour (which suffered two defeats of its own, by Democratic Labour in Lincoln in 73, and Rochdale by the Liberals in the same year).
Then again, the current government has suffered by-election defeats with swings of up to almost 30% (29% in Brent East, 27% in Birmingham Hodge Hill) at the hands of the centre-party.
On the other hand, the main opposition party hasn’t even gained one seat (not since 82, in fact), and suffered the humiliation of fourth place in Hartlepool.
Anything Can Happen At Backgammon, of course, and the Tories may do better than a lot of people think, but all I’m saying is that comparisons with 92, 70, and 74 suffer from complicating factors.
John O. I claim neutrality in the sense that I have never said what I want to happen, and have always tried to keep my analysis in the realms of what I think is happening in terms of the ‘message’ from the polls and other analysis. Whilst I accept that people do not have to agree with me (and most don’t from all sides of the political fence), I don’t do so from a party political standpoint, but a psephological one.
Nick at 84, though, do you not think there is a problem that the judiciary will often interpret the international conventions in ways that no one (least of all your own government) intended? For example, there is every likelihood that the Afghan plane hijackers will ultimately be given the right to remain in this country, notwithstanding Jack Straw’s promise to remove them.
Andrew at 6 - I think you are right that ‘liberal Tories’ will be even more disillusioned following Michael Howard’s immigration announcement, having endured several years of lurching to the right.
In my own case it is the last straw. I am a former Tory member/activist who has represented the party as a local election candidate and association deputy chairman and have never voted any way other than Conservative.
I let my membership lapse when I moved abroad 2 years ago at the nadir of IDS’s leadership and have been thinking for months that I couldn’t face voting Tory again and whether to just abstain with my overseas ballot. The new Tory immigration policty has finally convinced me that I should vote Labour next time.
If there are many more people like me, and I suspect there are, who stuck with the Tories through hope/loyalty in 97 and 01 but now can’t face voting for such a nasty, rightwing, bigoted irrelevant party, then the Tories are finished.
JJ, how you vote is your privilege. But I find it curious that someone who backed the Conservatives in the 1980s (as I presume you did) should now find them too Right-wing. Regardless of anyone’s political persuasion, I think most people would agree that the Conservative Party in the 1980s was more socially and economically conservative than it is today.
May I suggest that this is more a case of you moving away from Conservatism, rather than the Conservative Party moving away from you.
Blunkett’s problem was that judiciary interpreted laws, domestic and international, the way any sixth-former would have done, any man in a pub, any. . . . anyone except D Blunkett, who kept losing in court then blubbing about it to the tabloids. if he wanted to win on the case he was putting he should have changed the laws! Hold on a minute. . . . !
To counteract 89 i am a waivering voter who used to be involved wiht the lib dems at a local level in Devon, but Michael Howards refreshing immigration and tax policies have convinced me to vote conservative for the first time ever in may. we need a change from the liberal/labour hegemony on the left of the political spectrum.
RE Defecting Tories. While it is certainly true that Mrs Thatcher was very right wing in the 1980s it also should be remembered that she was very radical, promoting new ideas, challenging areas of policy that no one had ever thought too touch (admittedely with varied results and different opinions). The current Conservative party, on the other hand may be right wing, but it is not radical. There is little distinctive about it. Two the party has become very sceptical towards the EU, even though I believe this is justified due to a changing EU (from a loose financial group to a tight political group) and has become pretty hostile towards asylum seekers (something which I do not agree with).
Yep, that ol’ lib/left hegemony has really succeeded in rolling back two decades of right-wing economic policies and fracturing of society that preceeded it. Well done Claire.
I think someone posted elsewhere that Immigration / Asylum is the Conservative’s joker, and if it doesn’t work to generate momentum for them then they’re toast at this election. If that’s all they’ve got, then they’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel, but then again, this morning I heard that they want ‘proper history’ to be taught in schools, so they’re obviously through the contents of the barrel and halfway through the wood.
As my apolitical girlfriend remarked, mimicing MH: “Got a whinge? Then write it on the back of a beer mat and send it in to us and we’ll make it our policy.” Luckily for the Tories, that is exactly what 35% of the population want from politicians…
Only 35%?
lets try and keep the debating good natured and non-partisan as possible sal, as usual on this site.
Oh, anybody have any early infomation on how today’s council by-elections are going?
Have to say I don’t see MH losing too many votes with his policy - I suspect people who it repels will be outnumbered at least 2-1 by those it attracts. That said perhaps many of those are already voting Tory.
Also interested to hear that someone would vote Labour rather than Tory because of it. In Exeter for example the Labour council and MP managed to prevent the all party county council bringing just 10 refugees to the city - to the astonishment of many of their members and supporters.
I detect a rather muted response from the Government to this latest Tory announcement for reasons which I guess are obvious.
I’m sorry Maddy, it’s just that Claire’s contribution read like it was from CCO. As one of those rare people who haa moved to left / more radical as they’ve got older, I’m thinking back to how I voted in 80s with a lot of shame.
Still, it doesn’t stop me from trying to make a quick buck from the betting markets though, and now the Conservative’s price is moving upward again maybe the moment has passed… ;P)
Jon (West Country) - I’d be willing to bet that in a few weeks time, Labour will be condemning MH’s proposals for their moderation!
You should read Anthony Wells’ very interesting item about attitudes to immigration policies. His most interesting statistic was one showing 6% of Lib Dem supporters believed the BNP had the best immigration policies!
Once again, please allow me to display my ignorance: exactly how many local government by-elections are there today? I know about Richmond and Sidmouth Town Council, but what else will there be to argue about tomorrow?
Sorry to go on about immigration but Claire 92 - WHAT policy?? If settlers are from EU or overseas Bitish Passport Holders then we cannot stop them - just as we cannot stop people going to live in Spain or Cyprus. The leavers dont need to tell us they have gone - I bet we are net exporters of people at the moment. Attacking immigrants from wherever they come from for using public services is attacking the wrong enemy - The Gov. should have sorted the services.
Jon (W). It would be interesting to know how you got to the 2 to 1 figure. Is it really that high?
On a slightly less parochial level, does anyone have any views about electoral prospects in Hampshire? It has (by national standards) a disproportionatly large number of Lib Dem seats (Romsey, Winchester, Portsmaouth South and Eastleigh), a Lib Dem Target (IoW) and some Labour representation in Portsmouth and Southampton which is probably under a bit of pressure. All in a county which I used to think of as naturally Tory. Has anyone got any forecasts, anecdotes, rumours or facts (not necessarily in that order)?
Sean Fear 101 - reminds me of canvassing in Leic S. Chap promised to vote for the Lib dems because too many foreigners.
Dont believe everything you hear on the doorstep or trust all answers to Polls - filling one on YouGov recently I nearly misread the question (it was about supermarkets) and could easily have put the opposite of what i really thought - Probably even more chance of confusion over the phone.
Sean @ 106 Sir Cyril Smith once got into a row with the NF in Rochdale, at which he is supposed to have said, “I wouldn’t accept your vote if they disinfected it first!”
Very high-minded, I’m sure, but most people would accept votes wherever they came from!
richmond tory hold not comforable ( remember i predicted a tory win in hackney same time last week)
Hampshire remains fairly tory! The three tory MPs for the big hampshire seats have majorities of 8000, 12,000 and 13,200 respectivly! I don’t think the Isle of Wight will go lib dem again, the tories took it back quite convincingly and i hear the lib dem/independant ‘Island First’ council is increasingly unpopular. I would expect a tory hold with a slightly bigger majority. I would expect the lib dems to hold onto Romsey and Eastleigh, as well as Winchester, although i expect a bit of a fall in the lib dem vote, they didn’t do very all at the council elections last time, loosing several seats to the tories and with it control of the council.
SAL: I thought people were meant to get more conservative rather than more radical.
RE Hampshire: Lib Dems to hold Winchester fairly easily with a reduced majority. Lib Dems also hold Portsmouth seat fairly easily. Tough fight in Romsey for Lib Dems. Tories have had a candidate there for over 2 years now in an old Tory seat. Eastleigh might be close as well due to the Lib Dem MP retiring and possibly taking away some of the personal vote. As for the Southampton seats and the other portsmouth seat, they are likely to be labour holds. IoW I don’t know what will happen there. All the other seats are likely to stay the same.
Re 110: You forget the two New Forest seats which are in Hampshire. New Forest East could be an outside LibDem prospect. Tory majority of, if I recall correctly, of just over 3,000. Essentially, the seat is outside the new National Park boundaries and is based on the Southampton suburbs, mainly Totton and towns like Fawley.
Nick 84 - I’m off out of the country (to Wales :)) so won’t have the opportunity to catch up with the rest of the Notts contingent in person. Many thanks for the invitation - let me know if any others come up. Hopefully I will be putting a face to Cymrumark’s name.
On that vein, Mike of course will be hosting the post election PB.C party at the Ritz (or the Randolph if he hasn’t moved by then), financed by his LD/most seats bets. Perhaps we should hedge by getting Sarah and Ben to place similar punts
Lastly - to parody myself: “Being a pesimist I think 60 LD seats would be a good result. Does anyone have any inside info on Wiltshire N?”
Sean at 90: no, it seems to me that the Conservative Party is now more right-wing in a populist sense (on immigration and to some extent crime) than it was under Mrs Thatcher - possibly in reaction to the UKIP and BNP vote. In terms of economics it seems fairly similar, and in social attitudes they’ve moved to some extent on things like acceptance of homosexuality.
46 - Tabman Steve - thank you for being magnanimous - if poll goes my way do you think I will be jumping up and down shouting “losers,losers,I know everything” Yep of course I will.
Graham if I were honest I would say it is more than 2 to 1 - and that’s just on the people who are prepared to offer their view. It is just my own experience but I would say any poll showing different is a load of rubbish! Of course there are areas where that is not that case - mostly where there already lots of visible immigrants.
e.g. I did a bit of canvassing in this Sidmouth by-election, only 3 people mentioned it in any way and they were all hostile generally to immigration and for that matter asylum.
Nick, Can’t agree. Can’t you recall Mrs T. talking about being “swamped” by immigration and that I think was back in the 1970s as Opposition Leader. What is undeniably true is that the entire political spectrum has shifted fubdamentally to the “right” (if we have to use these terms)as a consequence of the Thatcher years…and frankly you didn’t get much more right wing, populist and just plain illiberal than David Blunkett as Home Secretary.
Has anyone noticed that you can read the house number that the Howards live at in the photograph at the top of this thread. That is unless Mrs Howard’s head is obscuring a further digit.
No, its clear from that image he lives at number 66.
110: Andrew, I suspect the Lib Dems are fairly confident of winning Eastleigh: besides their strength on the local council (which is perennially considerable), the candidate is one of the party’s senior figures, local MEP Chris Huhne.
Maybe, the other ‘6′ fell off when they slammed the door shut then.
Sean at 90 - good point. In numerous ways, the Conservative party today is more “liberal” socially and more progressive economically than Margaret Thatcher