Will the Lib Dems get their “Ace of Spades”?.
February 28th, 2005
Betting opens on Folkestone
How well will the Lib Dems do with their decapitation target number one - Michael Howard? Do they have any chance at all making serious inroads into the Tory leader’s majority in Folkestone?
If you think that they do then a new market offers 2/1 against the Tory leader’s majority being cut. It’s 4/11 on Howards majority increasing.
So the LDs don’t have to take the seat - just reduce the majority
There is a similar market on Tony Blair but the odds are not as encouraging for the Labour leader. It’s 8/11 on Blair’s Sedgefield majority decreasing with evens on it increasing.
For online links click here. Blair’s majority in Sedgefield.
Howard’s majority in Folkestone.
We get a small commission which goes a little way to keeping the site going.
© Mike Smithson 2005
MessageSpace Advertising
By the look at the recent opinion polls, will anyone know that the Lib Dems exist come the General Election?
Their brand of opportunistic “me tooism” isn’t going down well with the punters.
As for Folkestone and Hythe - they haven’t a chance of knocking Michael Howard out - especially not with the “help” of their basket case local Lib Dem-controlled Council
Are there going to be more bets of this type - could be some interesting opportunities to hedge “size of majority” against “turnout”?
A chance for all those Lib Dems (and ‘neutral’ Graham) to put their money where their mouths are. I wonder how many will?
1 - Sarah, how about a little Ancient Greek in the afternoon?
hubris noun
arrogance or over-confidence, especially when likely to result in disaster or ruin. hubristic adj. hubristically adverb.
ETYMOLOGY: 19c: from Greek hybris.
nemesis noun (nemeses)
1 retribution or just punishment. 2 something that brings this.
ETYMOLOGY: 16c: from Nemesis, Greek goddess of retribution.
Sarah. Who is getting overoptimistic to fit into their own view now. The average for the Lds remains about 19-20% - about 5% higher than 2001 at this stage. I think talk of their demise is somewhat previous. You are right to point out that their vote appears to have been squeezed and realistically - if we assume their traditional poll boost of 4-5% they are looking at 22-24% - still 6% higher than 2001. MH may not yet be safe….
Who is offerering these markets. I think Blair majority to go down is certainty (though be warned I’ve bet on a few “certainties” in the past).
Not sure about Howard - depends how he comes across in the campaign, but odds probably fair.
Stephen - why did I get ” around the neutral. Surely you’re not trying to imply something … I think Sarah’s got to you. By the way - Sarah and Stephen, when you argued so wholeheartedly that I was wrong to say the gap between Lab / Con was about 6% the other day (despite having Sean’s agreement) and then 2 polls in a row put it at exactly that figure I didn’t see you both coming up with an acknowledgment that rather than being biased I may have been right…an example of Tabman’s hubris.
Just a thought - If the Lords throw out the “House arrest” bill would TB go to gthe country on an “Only I can save you from the terrorists” platform?
I would add Graham, that I think that a poll gap, on average, of 6% between Labour and Conservative, translates into an actual gap of 2-3%.
The Lib Dems must be disappointed to be falling back from the Summer’s highs, but I would certainly expect them to put on support during an election campaign.
FWIW, I think that Michael Howard’s majority in this seat will increase.
8 - Yes, I think that would form a major part of any subsequent campaign. It may work, or it may be greeted with widespread cynicism. And while it is tasteless to speculate on such a thing, a Madrid-type bombing would probably be enormously beneficial to such a campaign.
10 - does anyone recall that “terrorist” incident in Moscow a few years back that was used as a pretext against Chechnya?
Graham - Unfortunately I was too busy knocking on doors & leafleting to look at pb.com Friday-Sunday so I missed the YouGov poll… however I think the ‘real’ Con/Lab spread is somewhere near the average of last weeks polls - I am also sticking with my predictions made on the predictions thread at the start of the year, so I don’t think I’m over egging the pudding.
According to today’s YouGov poll, 74% would agree with him, so it would be a life-saver for him. Which is the more depressing, Tony with one mighty bound is free, or that 74% of people are prepared to see their neighbours boiled in oil on the sayso of an anonymous plod ?
Sarah J - who was the bright young thing at CCO who thought it a good idea to stop former guests of Her Majesty writing books - Reminded everyone about Archer and Aitken
13 - Tom - Milgram’s 37
Is that majority in percentage terms or actual votes?
Whilst I don’t think howard will lose and expect him to get just over half the vote I can see the majority dropping due to a collapse in the Labour vote which I wouldn’t be surprised to see repeated in many seats where Labour are 3rd at present.
Intereting prospect Icarus at 8. But you missed the vital last words.
“Only I can save you from terrorism with my chocolate fireguard.”
“
Tabman - Milgram’s 37 ? Sorry, I’m still conjuring with the picture of Sarah at her Greek studies
Sean. Currently the Feb averages are 39.66% Lab 33.5 Con 18.83% LD (including the MORI poll for fairness and ‘neutrality’
)- so on average the gap is about 7%. Personally I think this may be significant in the trajectory of the campaign. The Conservatives have tried hard to get out of the blocks early to put themselves in a better place. After a couple of bursts they don’t seem to have made much impact on Labour.
As a campaigner, do you feel that your fellows will have enough energy to keep going if there are 2 more polls with this kind of gap. Having struck out early, you have to keep your voters ready to go for another 2 to 3 months? I am not trying to be biased in asking this question by the way - but genuinely interested.
18 - it’s the title of a Peter Gabriel song: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
2, Alex - At the last election Corals (I think) offered odds on which party would win individual constituencies. The Tories at 2/5 to win Billericay was pretty much giving money away. Certainly I didn’t decline the free money!
Graham, on a pedantic note, that’s a gap of 6% rather than 7%. Like most people here, I take the view that polls overstate Labour, and understate the Conservatives and Lib Dems by some margin that has yet to be determined.
To be honest, I don’t think that many of my fellow activists follow opinion polls all that closely - and most tend to be closely absorbed in their own constituency battles. Most of them tend to take the view that, whatever opinion polls are saying, their own constituency will provide a close contest (and that’s the case whether polls are good or bad).
However, I think there is a general feeling that the contest is less of a foregone conclusion than in 2001, so that is probably quite good for morale overall.
Sorry - that last question was a bit garbled. My genuine question was having struck out early will the Conservative be able to keep it going - especially if another poll or 2 shows the gap at 6 or 7 points. I get the impression that the point of the Tory strategy was 2 fold - 1. To try and get the voters attention - to give the impression that there was going to be a contest and 2. to rev up the campaign troops and put them in high spirits. My point was - If the polls start showing that the Tory strategy is not having any major impact on the Labour lead, will the troops start flagging?
13, yes it is depressing. And it’s also depressing to think that most people would be quite content to see people put in jail on the say so of a police officer (unless it happened to them of course).
I think that people take more notice of opinion polls than you would think. I was pleased the other day when I overheared someone quote one of my polls in the pub to try to win an argument. Even better he quoted it wrong and I was able to correct him
Sounds like you Graham!!
25 - Graham, there are some pubs where if you tried that all you’d get would be a glass in the face for your efforts
Perhaps, in the interests of the security of the country, the Lords will be kept under house arrest until they pass the bill. [A la the film Elizabeth, though whether that scene was historically accurate I don’t know.]
Never let it be said that I would let an argument go by without me trying to prove I am right
. Luckily in this instance I had the trump of ‘I did the research’!
The chances of the LDs “decapitating” Howard evaporated when he became leader. These stories about how some party leader or other will be defeated come round from time to time - I think the SNP were going to “decapitate” Charles Kennedy last time and Alex Salmond was visibly disappointed when (inevitably) it didn’t happen.
That said, the other “decapitation” targets would offer an interesting betting market. My advice before risking your hard earned cash is try and get some genuine local knowledge first - you are foolhardy if you bet based on whatever the national press is saying about any given constituency to try and conjure up an interesting story.
27 - aren’t they called Conservative Clubs?
They were two middle aged men with beards - probably Liberal democrats - I felt fairly safe
31 - if that were the case Graham would be long gone before they’d got to their Zimmerframes
More to the point Sarah wouldn’t have let me in in the first place - even if I’d claimed I just came for the good snooker tables.
32 - They couldn’t possibly have been Lib Dems if one of them was making up opinion poll figures to support his side of the argument…
On second thoughts, they were definitely LDs and you were unquestionably safe
I didn’t notice their footwear, but I am pretty sure that few people have got a good kicking from someone wearing open toed sandals !
But those chunky real ale tankards could give you a nasty glassing!
“The Lib Dems must be disappointed to be falling back from the Summer’s highs, but I would certainly expect them to put on support during an election campaign.”
During this parliament, for the first time in my life, the press have been reporting what’s been said by the Lib Dems as if it had been said by a genuine (but not very powerful) opposition party. As a result, the Lib Dems are polling far better than at this time in the last parliamentary cycle.
Now, Labour and the Tories are getting blanket coverage as they come out with constant campaigns, press releases and general pre-election behaviour. The Lib Dems have dropped.
In a few weeks, the General Election campaign will (probably) start properly. At this point, the coverage of the Lib Dems will go up again. Then we’ll really see what their chances are like.
Does anyone think that LibDems will advance at the expense of the Conservatives - or will their campaign boost (once people have been reminded again that they exist) be almost exclusively to the detriment of the Labour ratings?
Doesn’t the argument go something like this though; the people that would have swayed to the LDs in the GE campaign, are already declaring their intention to vote LD due to the party’s increased coverage, and so the campaign boost that all LDs swear by, may not actually materialise.
Sorry alex, my comment was aimed at Simon @ 38
39 - The LDs always do much better against the Tories than Labour. If you look at their target seats (see the much vaunted “decapitation strategy”) this is still true today.
This has been the case all the way back to the formation of the SDP, a creation that took far more seats from the Tories than it ever did from Labour. This gives the lie to those Labour types who claimed that the Alliance split the anti-Tory vote and allowed Thatcher in for a decade.
Alex I believe that the advance in Lib Dem ratings wil come mainly in % terms from Labour. However as a large proportion of the Lib Dems campaign boost comes from natural Labour voters backing them tactically in seats Labour can’t win it actually damages the Conservatives more.
31 - BV -are these run by Conservative Hoteliers and Victuallers?
I don’t recall that the SDP (or Liberal in alliance with the SDP) took more than a handful of seats from the Tories.
A rise in Lib Dem support would be likely to come at the expense of Labour, which would help the Tories in more seats than it would harm them.
Most Conservative MPs in 2001, in seats where the Lib Dems were second, increased their majority, whereas in seats where the Lib Dems were second to Labour, the Lib Dems improved their position slightly. I think that trend has continued in local elections since 2001, and will probably be even more apparent this time round.
If among their pictures of Tory PMs there is one of the Marquess of Burberry, then probably yes.
43 - Will, you make a good point. The LDs may win more votes from Labour, but because they are usually so far behind (and often in third rather than second) in Labour constituencies they will win few seats.
They may win fewer votes from the Tories, but because this will be in tighter races they will win more seats from the Tories than Labour.
It’s the vagaries of First Past The Post I’m afraid. But the Tories can hardly complain when their beloved system (at least when they are in power!) works against them.
Of course Will but who they take the votes for (assuming it is to some extent uniform is important). If we start the campaign with, say,
Lab 38
Con 33
Lib 19
then we could end up with Lab 33, Con 33, Lib 24, and despite what everyone says we really don’t know how FPTP will translate to seats in those circumstances.
It’s important though because really NOBODY can say with any certainty how FPTP will translate into seats if Labour gets low 30%s of the vote - which is what a 4-5% “swing” from Labour to Libs in the course of a campaign would imply.
45 - The Alliance didn’t take too many seats from anyone (barring the initial defections). But where they did make an electoral impact it was taking seats from the Conservatives more than Labour. Their failure to break in to the council estates and working class bastions was a source of real disappointment to a party which was predominantly ex-Labour.
Rob. You may well be right. However, the Lib Dems have declined in the polls at the same time as relative downswing in their proportion of news coverage. Meanwhile the Conservatives have gone up marginally with an upswing in their coverage. Whether this is permanent remains to be seen. The usual evidence is that during the campaign the LDs exposure does lead to an upswing in support. It’s all supposition but to a certain extent you have to bank on history. If you’re betting on the horses you look at form, don’t you, but it may be the day that a jockey’s saddle falls off, or a horse goes lame. I am working on a 3-4% gain for the LDs over the campaign.
46 - BV Yeah, but no, but yeah ….
From my (distant) observations of such establishments, clients are forced to drink their Nelsons (mandela - Stella) from plastic glasses these days, thus lessening the effects of any intended or unintended decapitation strategy
.. so might there be a lesson for M Howards local campaign in F&H?
44, 46 - I believe in the North West they’re run by the Socially Conservative and Locally Licensed Individual Enterprise Societies.
Hmm. I live in he last bastion of old SDP country and neither Rosie Barnes nor John Cartwright took seats off the Tories in the old Greenwich and old Woolwich seats.
Although as an aside I believe that Rosie Barnes is now a member of the Conservative Party.
The problem for us poll watchers is Turnout - Think of “No vote” as a party. I think the Opinion polls should publish their estimate of turmnout with a Wont Vote/Dont Know column. The trick for the Lib Dems will be to move people from Cant Be Bothered into the Lib Dem camp - Switching committed voters will be hard work.
The present method of showing opinion polls ignors about half the electorate.
SCALLIES for short - shame they dont have a Western Area Group
More like a third Icarus - but you are right.
Does anyone know of any experiments with voting based on information that people are given. There is an element of prisoners dilemma in voting - don’t waste your vote X can’t win - leads to a distortion in people’s choices. The logic, therefore,(that France has accepted for example) is that polls are an active player in the political process - not just a neutral (Stephen and Sarah)observer. By presenting the polls the way they are it reinforces the impression that the 2 ‘big’ parties enjoy an overwhelming amount of support, when as you point out Icarus the biggest single party is the apathy / won’t vote / they’re all the same party.
I have never seen any research to suggest that this does or doesn’t include the Lib Dems - are they considered in the all the same group or are they ignored as people do not believe they could win. If it is the former, then it matters little whether the parties are shown as 20 / 18 /13 or 40 /33 /18. If it is the latter, then the Lib Dems suffer even more than the other 2 by the proportions stated in the polls
57 - experiments? There was of course the “if you thought the LDs could win in your area, how would you vote?” poll - but with that and, I would have thought, anything along the same lines, you still have the problem that votes in an opinion poll are free and not much thought is given to them.
I wonder what would have eventually happened in 1945 had there been modern polls to predict a Labour landslide?
Yes BV. Like Tabman’s Milligan experiment or prisoners dilemma experiments. Have 2 groups of people - one who are given one set of figures about parties and another group another - and see whether they vote differently or the same. If they vote differently it could be argued that polls are a distortion to the democratic process, whereas if people vote the same anyway then the poll is a neutral player and just helps us all to see which way the wind is blowing (metaphorically)
I know what you meant by experiments Graham, but I was trying to point out the difficulties of simulating a situation authentically enough that the results you get correspond to real-world behaviour. I don’t know of any examples though, other than the very crude one I mentioned.
Sorry BV. I thought I wasn’t being clear - not that you didn’t understand. Please don’t be angry with me
Not at all!
I didn’t think 57 wasn’t clear, but maybe that’s me being the son of a sociology teacher.
BV @ 58. I don’t know about the polls in 1945, but the massive swings against the Conservatives from 1942 onwards clearly signalled an overwhelming mood for radical change. In fact, the Tories lost the safe Chelmsford seat to the Common Wealth Party in April 1945 just weeks before the General Election. If only there were a Pathe.betting.com then.
My dad is a psychology graduate - sounds like we both grew up with social science speak
I tried to get away but it draws you back like an unforgiving mistress!
63 - thanks - I’d forgotten about Acland and co in the Common Wealth, but I think by-elections have always been taken with a pinch of salt. It’s before my time, but the narrative I’ve always picked up is that everyone expected a Conservative win. Did senior Conservatives themselves? And what would they have done differently if they’d known?
64 - indeed, that’s probably why I’ve gone from a chemistry degree to here.
Re. 24, Sean, legislation allowing people to be locked up (for membership of the Real IRA) on the say so of a police officer (Garda or RUC/PSNI) was passed by both the Dail and Westminster parliament back in 98 after the Omagh bombing.
Just as with the proscription of the Provisional IRA, the Dail moved first (which led Blair to argue that Westminster must do the same, otherwise terrorists would have an incentive to move to Northern Ireland).
I don’t know about most people being content about this measure, but there was very little public outrage at the time.
The ST’s coverage of the house arrest proposals was interesting yesterday, not least for being fiercely critical of Howard’s opposition to it. I think the ST slightly missed the point, though - it (rightly) made the point that the French Guantanamo detainees were locked up in French jails after coming home. On the other hand, it failed to note the contrast between their having been locked up on the say so of the French judiciary (a magistrates court), not on the say so of the French Interior Minister.
It also failed to note how France (like every other EU member except the UK and Ireland) allows intercept evidence to be used (to very good effect, including the conviction of the would-be bombers of Strasbourg’s Christmas market) in court.
There were opinion polls in 1945. They all pointed to a Labour victory (as did the by-elections) but very few people believed them.
Most senior Labour and Conservative politicians were expecting a Conservative victory with a reduced majority.
No one believed the pollsters - sounds all to familiar
Graham O/T - I’ve tried replying several times to your 143 post on the CR thread this morning, but I have been blocked - maybe because I have said something that upsets the spam filter.
Basically these “raids” on PC and Lib Dems may not have caused comment because they could be quite common as the authorities interview the usual suspects after each unauthorised disclosure.
Reference the Thatcher years where inumerable face-saving enquiries announced but only 2 prosecutions under Official Secrest Act IIRC, one because they had fancy photocopiers at the Min. of Defence which caught one person; the other concerned letters sent to Tam Dalyell which resulted in a senior civil servant being found not guilty. Can’t remember how they caught him, maybe because the number of people handling the documents was very limited so they just went for the Grauniad reader among them
Also existence of Blogs an effective new weapon viz G Bush forged National Guard records and the CNN boss who had to resign because of an aside about the US military
Richard, yes I’d forgottern about that - has that power been used?
I don’t object to internment when you have a complete breakdown in law and order (as in Northern Ireland in the early seventies) - I just don’t think we’ve come close to such a situation in relation to Islamic terrorism. If we had to face a bombing campaign similar to that carried out by the IRA in 1972, I’d happily reconsider.
The Yougov poll is not very helpful in working out public opinion, since most of the questions are posed in general terms, rather than being specific to this legislation.
This is in any case, a problem of the government’s own making. It has blocked off the most reasonable course of action - namely deporting foreign nationals who are believed to pose a threat to national security.
I agree with you about intercept evidence.
Still no further info on the Special Branch visit to CK’s office - was it his HoC office? - which I assume is still actually in the Palace of Westminster rather than the building over the tube station. Regardless of what Tabman said earlier, I like the image of the police wandering through the Commons with a battering ram and a picture of CK saying ‘has anyone seen this man?’
The Best anecdote regarding the 1945 General Election concerns the eminent (but of necessity, disenfranchised) Peer of the Realm bemoaning the rise of the dark forces of Bolshevism in the bar of White’s Club in St James’s. He is reported to have said to the Bar Steward, “Snooks! I trust you voted Tory?” To which the ever diligent and always deferential club servant replied, “Oh! I would not presume, Sir!”
re 68 - I’ve always understood that the very large service vote in 1945 was overwhemingly for Labour, and that wouldn’t have shown itself in opinion polls ?
Re polls influencing the result. A good pointer is that in recall polls, the percentage claiming to have voted for the winning party is always (?) greater than the result the party achieved. Therefore people identify with the winners. Therefore if advance polling tells them there is a clear winner, they are more likely to vote for that party.
I imagine that Labour’s poll lead would have been even bigger if servicemen had been taken into account.
Labour’s eventual lead (8%) was actually rather less than most polls had been predicting (which also sounds familiar!)
I am not sure that adds up thom.
..and the Speaker saying (of course) “I have not eyes to see, other than this House directs me” Don’t even the sinister plods need the Speaker’s permission to “raid” an MP’s office ?
So who is running the book on this bet please?
Incidentaly - am I the only person who finds the nah-nah-ner-nah-nah comments increasingly tedious. They out number the comments on the topic and certainly are less and less about the main matter. Gambling on politics…
These bets are available from Skybet. Click the ‘Betting Odds - General Election’ link on the right, then select from the drop down list.
67 - the problem is fairly fundamental that you need the decision to be taken by an independent judiciary - By all means lock the poor chap up for 7 days whilst you find a judge - you can do that now if you call it terrorism but someone has to make a case to a judge that he should be held. (God help us the judges arent much help if you have beard and look a bit shifty - but they are all we have got!)
Reviewing the correctness of the proceedures followed by a politician in reaching a decision is different.
Guido. As a leading figure in the nah nah nah nah nah, school of arguing. I had a reason. That was that I said that after Mori it was a good time to put money on Labour because they had over corrected. Iw as then bomabarded with all kinds of abuse to which I felt forced to defend. Not one of those people who came and had a go has said that 5 polls to 1 I was right! But it was betting that inspired it, nothing more nothing less. As for you having the cheek to accuse people on here - you’re site, though nice to look at and sometimes witty and sometimes incisive, is little more than a long nah nah nah nah nah - is it not?
I should be astonished if at some point between now and polling day the media didn’t run carefully planted articles inferring that the “terrorists” wanted a change of government and/or hung Parliament - amd what price swoops on the eve of poll?
On Guardian web site Labour Councillor is warned to expect a prison sentance for rigging postal votes in 2002.
What is happening to the Birmingham allegations - Will the postal vote system stay the same this year?
BTW, Skybet are quoting Blair and Howard’s majorities in percentage terms, which takes turnout out of the equation.
Sorry about the lack of a proper link. Im doing all of this from my mobile phone and doing links is hard.
Sorry too about the spam filtering. I have to moderate from my mobile which is quite hard
Mike - have a holiday! We would survive for a couple of days!
71 - Graham , I’ve tried several follow ups to your post elsewhere this morning but I’ve been blocked out! Have we been D-Noticed?
My point was perhaps this “enquiry” has not hit the headlines because it may just be a routine interview of the usual suspects everytime there is one of these cases.
Remember the Thatcher Governemnt and numerous enquiries every time there was a row about secrets reaching the public domain. Only two prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act though! OTOH if there is anything untoward going on, perhaps a reader connected to the Plaid or Lib Dem Parliamentary Offices can enlighten us — Cymru Mark?
I am ready and willing to take up the challenge and bet on Mr Howard’s majority decreasing - as soon as I can work out how to persuade Barclaycard to send them some cash, at any rate. In the menatime I would apprecaite it if all the confident Tories on this site could bet the other way first. TVM.
Sean the problem with internment in the early 70’s was its lack of effectiveness intelligence was relatively poor and geuine IRA members often were pre warned of swoops whilst many young innocent catholics were locked up. Internment also increased IRA recruitment greatly (to the extent that the IRA often hoped the British would reintroduce it and were dissapointed when they didn’t).
FWIW the narrowing of the gap between Labour and conservative may be indicating that, overall, the electorate may be coming to a “plague on both your houses” type decision along th lines of 1974.
Given the current assymetry between votes cast and seats gained this could still imply a Labour majority of up to 85.
It can, however, only help the Liberal Democrats and they could take Folkestone and Hythe if:
- the Labour vote transfers en bloc; and
- UKIP/ BNP / Rdoney Hylton Potts take enough Tory voters.
1974 was also an election where the National Front came out of nowhere to get around 4% of the vote. It was one of many factors contributing to the strangeness of the result and was mirored on the left by a large vote for the Liberals and Nationalists in Scotland/Wales.
Mu own feel is that Folkestone and Hythe is 50/50 and if it fell to the LD’s because of the far right then Michael Howard will have been consumed by his own rhetoric and what a beautiful irnoy that would be!
82 - Icarus. The Times has been giving the Birmingham enquiry lots of coverage. It said when hearings started last week that proceedings would take 4 weeks. Quite interesting last week - Hizonner (a QC ) seems to be in no mood to take prisoners. Quite how far an adverse judgement against sitting councillors would affect the GE I don’t know. Efforts by Nu Lab to postpone the hearing until after May 5th were rejected out of hand.
The Far Side has discussions about the seats concerend, but I’m not up to speed enough to evaluate the rants. Someone is saying that the PJP (the ones who just lost the two wards concerned)are tied up with Respect
“Someone is saying that the PJP (the ones who just lost the two wards concerned)are tied up with Respect”
That would be me. I live in Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath and was the constituency agent until this year. The PJP and Respect were best mates until the SWP carved up the Birmingham selections a few weeks ago.
Folkestone and Hythe is a bit of a long shot for the Lib Dems, but in Kent Lib Dems don’t have much else to do - the other nearest winnable seats are Eastbourne and Orpington.
The problem for the Tories is that they have activists tied down in F&H which they really need in the marginals of Dartford, Gillingham, Medway, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Thanet South etc.
Thought you’d all like to know that the Far Side has plumbed a new depth - there’s some guy arguing with his mother!!!
BTW does anyone have a link to the list of 100 labour marginals TB is concentrating on? It would be interesting to see which one’s he is concentrating on and more importantly which one’s he is not.
IA - Which seat is the cause of this domestic rupture?
IA: Is his name Norman Bates?
Charles Windsor?
IA - do tell!
Islington South… and Mum’s the Lib Dem…
99 - I think you skim-read that a bit fast …
Well what else do you do over there?
Personally I post too much there …
99.9% of it chaff, but occasionally a wee nugget.
Incidentally given Mike’s title, do you think MH is a secret Motorhead fan?
I almost plunged back into Southwark N & Bermondsey there, but pulled my toe out. Face it Tabman, it’s a car crash over there. And you’re JG Ballard
89 - redmayne - “1974 was also an election where the National Front came out of nowhere to get around 4% of the vote.”Your figures are wrong - in the GE Feb 1974 NF obtained 76,865 votes standing in 54 seats a total of 0.2% of the votes cast.In Oct 1974 they obtained 113,843 votes standing in 90 seats a total of 0.4% of the total votes cast.
103 - Tabman - We all know Ace of Spades is a cover group of Motorhead but I thought the reference was to Saddam on the most wanted list pack of cards
Presumably “4% of the votes in seats where they stood”
106 - Vino, presumably a band with whom you have an afinity seeing as they’re only known for playing the same tune over and over again?
108 - and what tune would that be then
Alex 107 - however much I play around with the figures maximum average vote share is 2.88%
If you like to gamble, I tell you I’m your man,
You win some, lose some, all the same to me,
The pleasure is to play, makes no difference what you say,
I don’t share your greed, the only card I need is
The Ace Of Spades
Playing for the high one, dancing with the devil,
Going with the flow, it’s all the same to me,
Seven or Eleven, snake eyes watching you,
Double up or quit, double stake or split,
The Ace Of Spades
You know I’m born to lose, and gambling’s for fools,
But that’s the way I like it baby,
I don’t wanna live for ever,
And don’t forget the joker!
Pushing up the ante, I know you wanna see me,
Read ‘em and weep, the dead man’s hand again,
I see it in your eyes, take one look and die,
The only thing you see, you know it’s gonna be,
The Ace Of Spades
111 - brilliant.
104 - I’ll admit there’s a horific fascination to it …
On a side issue of political betting comes political shareholding. According to Anthony Wells You Gov is set to float on the AIM. Would buying shares in You Gov be a good transaction? Is it a good political bet?
IA - 93 - clicked over to the Far Side immediately - could Islington S be the thread that dare not speak its name? But I think its only 2 Lib Dems winding up the thread’s statutory Tory .. ” While its between Labour and Lib Dem we are seeing a very strong swing to Conservatives in my street…”
Andrew - 94 - click on to the Pippa Norris link to the left - UK Election Database 1992 - 2001, download the Excel file and you can slice and dice as you want.
BTW and no disrespect to one of this sites esteemed contribs. but I checked Norfolk North this way after the by-election last week - it is about no. 6 on the Conservative hit list on UNS.
Vince Cable not very impressive on Newsnight…
See - http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/libdem_tax.pdf for a demolition of the Lib Dem tax and spending plans!!
116 - lucky nobody is watching
The Lib Dems made the 10 oclock news tonight. Still, its “practice dear boy, practice”. Paxo was quite lenient on him I thought. No sport in an easy quarry I guess 
116 - Chrisco -agree with you (is that a first?)I thought Paxman flummoxed Cable when he asked had he thought of making the house seller pay the tax?.
O/T - government majority on “house arrest” bill cut to 14; Clarke waves white flag and says he’ll give himself only the power to apply to a judge for a Control Order.
Labour posters may seek to explain why this couldn’t've been done in the first place ‘cos I’m damned if I know!
Side note here… bit of a slip on the IG Index for the Tories and the LDs
Spreads currently at
Tories 192-199 (-1), Labour 354-361 (+2), Liberal Democrats 67-71 (-1).
First movement on this market for the LDs in quite a while
I am not exactly sure that amounts to a demolition Rik! Nothing very new in it - 30% of people worse off under local income tax, possibility that the new tax band wouldn’t raise as much as the Lib Dems proposed. Hardly a devastating critique!
117 - clearly a new definition of “demolition”. And presumably when your party has worked out what it plans to do with taxation (or at least decides to inform us poor plebs) it will get similar treatment.
Graham - 71 again. Re purported Insp. Knacker raid on Lib Dems and Plaid. Ive checked this out with a source close to the Lib Dems (as they say .. e-mail a progress on underground garages over 30 years - discuss :)).
This is quite an old story. It dates backs to a report in the D. Telegraph by Michael Smith on 18/9/04 - Secret Papers Show That Blair Was Warned of Iraq Chaos: link is http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar18.xml - but you may have to register to get to it.
It says that Foreign Office via Straw warned Blair in March 2002 of disastrous consequences of invading Iraq which have turned out to be all too tragically true.
Because this was “high level stuff” No. 10 went ape and demanded the stops be pulled out on an investigation.
A Lib Dem staffer was interviewed as part of the investigation because this individual was caught up as a secondary rather than a main player. As I said in an earlier post, Inspector Knacker seems to have been going through the motions and checking off the likely suspects boxes. My source implies that Lib Dems were somewhat underplussed at the intensity of enquiries and some of the other staffers were disappointed not to have been interviewed as well. Source says the story is “sort of true but not a problem for us”
Are we gearing up to an election sensation story - LibDem “candidate” was shoe b**ber suspect. Almost a Zinoviev letter rerun
Rik - 117 I don’t know if you have come across the IFS before but it is quite a low key organisation which prides itself on its political independence. Andrew Dilnot who has now branched off as an independent commentator/broadcaster was its previous head. Its alumni include Steve Webb MP - with Frank Field the expert on social security and benefits in the Commons.
When people say that the Lib Dems have sharpened up or moved to the right on their economic policy, this can be seen as embracing the IFS methodology and agenda. Some of us are awaiting in expectation for their forthcoming comments on Labour and Tory budgetary plans.
I’ve just discovered that where I live, Brentford & Isleworth, is pretty much the key to the election
It appears to be the key seat that would tip the balance of power in the Commons on a UNS to a Conservative majority and give us the next Conservative Prime Minister; Ann Keene (the incumbent isn’t too worried though), as it is rumoured that the aforementioned putative Tory PM is currently studying for his A-Levels.
127 - They have already commented on Tory plans and given them a clean bill of health! I am trying to find the link.
I think that Michael Howard’s famous vowel shift has got to everyone. Is he not in fact the arse of spuds? Or the Face of spuds (I remember doing a Mr Potatohead forty years ago which came out just like him!)
At last last nights terrorism vote has begun to sort the wheat from the chaff for the voters. When we have a ’suspected terrorist’, with intelligence (sic) provided by experts - I see they have managed to bring to trial in three years a ‘bomber’ who decided he definitely would not bomb! - Lib Dems want the decision to lock up any such person to be taken by a judge while Labour chooses to leave it to someone of renowned personal judgement such as Charles Clark or er. . .David Blunkett. Tories as usual flip-flop all over the place. What’s this morning’s position on ID Cards Mickey?
Zebidee, Such vitriol. So early. Blimey, what’s he like by midday? Are there two doctors and a social worker on this site who can take him to a caring place of refuge and quiet solitude, er, like, Vote 2005?
130, 131 - Perhaps the best advice is that proferred by HAL to Dave Bowman in the film “2001: A Space Odyssey”:
“Look [Zebidee], I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over”
re. 118 Rik - I’ve just read through the IFS report. Overall it doesn’t argue with what the lib Dems are saying. Just points out that the 50% might not bring in as much as they claim IF people decide to earn less as a result. They also say that the opposite might happen. Hardly damning! It does back up the Lib Dem claim that only the best off will lose out.
133 - I think the point is that their sums are unlikely to add up. If this had been said about the Tory plans it would have been main headlines with Labour and the Libs screaming at us from the sidelines!
134 - Rik, old chum, you can’t have it all ways. Either we’re a serious threat (in which case you’ve no chance of winning), or we’re irrelevant, in which case we don’t need serious scrutiny.
Re Lib Dems and media scrutiny, it was interesting to see that the media seem to have got bored with the “big two” and decided to have a squizz at CK’s lot yesterday.
The 10 o’clock news had Evan Davis scrutinising the tax plans, and newsnight (apart form Cable) had a piece on Eastleigh with Huhne. Unusual to see the Tory and Labour PPCs reacting to a LD proposal, as for the last month or so its been the other way round.
Exposure is a double edged sword, in that scrutiny raises the party’s profile but can also test policy to distruction. I welcome it because policy needs to undergo a Darwinian process.
It will be interesting to see whether this raised profile continues for more than a day, and if so what effect it has in the polls.
You can watch a whole hour of a Kirsty Young/Chas Kennedy love-in at 7.00 on Channel 5 tonight - can hardly contain myself..
.. which leads to the trivia question - if all the viewers succumbed to the Kennedy magic, would it make a jot of difference to YouGov’s next poll ?
You can watch a whole hour of a Kirsty Young/Chas Kennedy love-in at 7.00 on Channel 5 tonight - can hardly contain myself..
.. which leads to the trivia question - if all the viewers succumbed to the Kennedy magic, would it make a jot of difference to YouGov’s next poll ?
118 - Rik getting all excited over nowt again
IFS talking head said on Newsnight last night that the LD sums do more or less add up but there is a small doubt about whether 50% would bring in enough. But then until a policy is tried, how can anyone be certain ? Hardly a demolition job 
Good ole Rik - every post of his and Sarah alone make this site worth visiting 
As to main thread - I will be over the moon if MH loses but struggle to see the circumstances where he will. However, I can see his majority reducing so it’s worth a punt.
1 Sarah FYI Folkestone is now a minority controlled Tory council thanks to certain long time LD Cllrs getting the hot flushes.
138 - how much better it would have been if it were Kirsty Wark
aaah Kirsty Waaark
now yer talkin real celeb
it’s the eyes, they make my legs melt when they stare right into my pupils
134 - Rik - everyone knows Tory plans don’t add up - so it’s hardly news.
You might just have recruited a volunteer by virtue of your openness Bullseye!
143 - not according to IFS! Tory plans were given a clean bill of health unlike the Lib Dems!
“Trust us, we will put up your taxes” Andrew George MP - 19 Jan 05
Can you send the link to the IFS analysis pls. Rik?
Re. 105, book value, it’s not a total car crash on the other side. Maddy and me have a perfectly cordial exchange of posts re. Staffs. Moorlands.
This is, though, the exception to the general rule (partisan vitriol and relentless ‘We are mere lice on your blanket, Your Majesty’ boosterism re. candidates)
147 - Distinguished company excepted of course!
Chrisco, is that a promise?
146 - Try this for starters http://www.ifs.org.uk/press.php?publication_id=3275
the kennedy show on Channel 5 rather disappointing, most of the participants seem to have been recruited from the other place. that said, I have to admit (rather grudgingly) CK was rather good at depatching them to the boundary. Question is, is anyone listenimg (this is Channel 5, after all)
Rik - 150 - this is an analysis of a specific Conservative subsidy (I say this advisidly) rather than a tax reform. If we are to compare like with like we need to see the IFS analysis of a complete Conservative alternative Budget - as done by Chas Kennedy and Vince Cable yesterday at Bloomberg. And as last year when Vince Cable and David Laws did a similar exercise. I may well be wrong but as far as I can recall Letwin did not present an alternative Budget last year -and I rather suspect the same this year as well, because Nu Lab will just ask what public spending cuts will be made to finance a tax cutting package (as will the IFS one would suspect).
thombt - 151 - just how many people (exactly to the nearest 10) watch C5? I suspect my goggle box isn’t even tuned to it… still in this multi media computer set up TV age who knows.
Er … when I said
we need to see the IFS analysis of a complete Conservative alternative Budget - as done by Chas Kennedy and Vince Cable yesterday at Bloomberg.
.. What I meant to say was as CK and VC did with their Lib Dem budget proposal … obviously they would leave an analysis of a Conservative alternative Budget (if and when it appears) to the IFS
We should have one of thsoe glowing red embarrassed emoticons as on the Far Side
Speaking of which, the VI form A level Politics class seem to have been deployed onto the Uxbridge front - one of the milder epithets describing someone I’ve never heard of as a cross between a 1950’s comic villain and a more contemporary Nu Lab villain . At least the site always manages to boggle the mind - viz the “cow-towing” a week or so ago.
Its also worth diving in to the bit at the top that no one reads. Someone is talking about “A Member Auction” - no further details, I just didn’t want to go there. Someone else seems to be complaining about the inability to post Avatars - by which I think they are talking about the weird computer game images one sees on the front of software packs at CP World. So perhaps we should have these as well on PB.C?
128- I hope you support the Super Bees-Brentford FC!?
also, I thought Cable is good- so refreshing to hear an ECONIMIST talking about the economy, and Robert Chote of the IFS said that the ‘Lib Dem plans broadly add up’…
152-154 - We will need to wait for the Conservative alternative Budget to be launched then - which I suspect will not be until after the Budget on 16th March.
If that really was the Lib Dem alternative budget I am surprised at how little coverage it got! The media dont seem very interested in the Lib Dems at the moment - which can only be a blessing!
Rik - 150, et al. You might cast an eye over http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn46.pdf
Key quotes to consider include:
“This suggests that, in so far as there are any substantial savings to be found, they may already have been identified and incorporated into Labour’s spending plans by the end of the government’s term of office.”
and
“For this choice to be credible, the public will need to see concrete examples of functions of government from which the savings will come.”
and
“In fact, the Conservatives would not be able to cut the tax burden from its current level, but simply halt and reverse the increase Labour has already pencilled in.”
and the conclusion
“This suggests that even if the Conservatives can deliver the spending plans they have announced, if they stick with Gordon
Brown’s approach to the fiscal rules the tax burden is likely to remain above current levels for years to come.”
In short: The Tories have not demonstrated where they will make the savings they promise (above the ones that Labour will already be making) and even if they do, then they have little chance of delivering the tax cuts they promise.
Not exactly a “clean bill of health”
Bullseye, I have already been in touch with Claire…
According to Epolitix.com Mr Howard is switching to a helicopter, rather than a bus, so that he can ’spend more time in his constituency’ during the campaign:
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200503/4bdf41a6-ff99-41ca-b01c-4bd41ca958fd.htm
Have now placed large bet on reduced majority!
Story in the Guardian today about an alternative decapitation strategy:
Blair may face Sedgefield challenger
Alex Salmond was on the Daily Politics discussing it today: it has the backing of PC and SNP, though that isn’t a huge surprise as they are hardly likely to stand in Sedgefield anyway…
Maybe they are going to stand Mayor Hangus from Hartlepool - his term of office finishes in May (I was surprised to read)
Lovely piece in the Scotsman today:
The Liberal Democrat leader, has risked reigniting the debate about his health by missing a key Commons vote.
Mr Kennedy failed to take part in Monday’s late-night vote on the government’s controversial terrorism bill, despite his party having led opposition to the measure.
His absence was all the more notable given the narrow margin of the government’s victory: one part passed with a majority of only 14, down from Labour’s usual margin of more than 100 votes.
Instead of staying for the vote, Mr Kennedy is understood to have decided to leave the Commons on Monday night to prepare for his all-day appearance on Five television yesterday.
The decision disappointed s