The Balance of Money Predictions - April 29
April 29th, 2005
The regular BALANCE OF MONEY predictions are based on how spread betting gamblers are investing their money on all the main UK markets from Spreadfair, IG Index, and Sporting Index. Please note that the vote share markets are based on the total UK figures unlike the polls which operate on a GB basis. The latter is about 0.97 of the former.
A full round-up of all General Election Betting is available here
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Chatting with work colleagues today and Blairs popularity amongst them has gone down hill. We’re white collar office workers who are getting rather peeved with their dishonesty. I think Charles Kennedy is going to be beaming after this election, if not for more seats, then the number of votes his party will receive.
http://www.vote2005forum.org.uk
But with attracking leftwing defecters from Labour is he not in danger of losing his southern conservative base.
Question Time might prove to be something of a watershed. Anecdotal I know, but the evidence from our canvassing is interesting- what was Tory a year ago is now more mixed- not quite 50-50, but pretty strong for the LD Defs and Poss. In Labour areas, the merde has hit the fan- they could lose all but one of the County Council seats and will probably move from second to third in the general- this is leafy Bucks after all. Yet does it really matter for Labour? The real battle is seats they hold now, not those thay missed by 3000 last time. Broxtowe and seats like it are not going to get big LD votes. So one suggestion- even more sensitive tactical voting, with various objectives of the voters in mind- depending on the how marginal the seat might be. Ironically, this could be very bad news for the Tories- and yes, I do think that they could actually lose seats…
3. Concerning tactical votes, I think that Labour could have more problems in semi-marginals seats like Broxtowe than in more marginals ones, because voters don’t immediatly realize the tory threat.
I really don’t see the Tories losing seats in this election. They have there base pretty solid and they will come out to vote.
The net gain for the Tories will be bigger then the loses inmy opinion.
Im still betting on the Tories topping 200 on May 5th.
Excuse my ignorance, but in previous general elections, how close have the final seat spreads been to the actual result?
6. Not very well in 1997
Elaborating - to some extent I think the spread markets are hugely dependent on the various swing calculators being accurate - so in 1997 they correctly assessed that the polls were exaggerated the Labour lead, but were buggered by the seat calculators not doing too well either.
Charlie’s beaming is the problem - he still hasnt done anything to acheive the tactical break through to give his party any real power or significance in the election - at the momement he still seems to be playing the chat show host.
My prediction - Kennedy will be the first to go of the current three leaders.
9 thats a very bold prediction. I believe that we will see many surprises next Thursday but Kennedy resigning is not one of them.
Phil. That’s an interesting POV. And what else does your crystal ball tell you about events this year - aliens take over the world, Elvis found alive and well in Michael Jackson’s ‘funfair style garden’?
Phil @ 9: I think you’re probably viewing CK’s performance in terms which don’t fit the LibDems. Remember that until only eight years ago, a total of 25 seats was considered an advance (though small); and 25% of the vote a peak to be regained. If CK achieves another advance in either seats or vote share — and it seems likely that one of these will happen — it’s hard to see him being successfully challenged; if he manages both, it’s hard to see why anyone would want to challenge him. When people talk of how he doesn’t look like a PM, or how the LDs make unreasonable promises, they answer the criticisms in the same breath; they say ‘but of course he/they can’t possibly form a government’. Doesn’t that make laid-back, new-dad CK just the man to manoeuvre them into a better position? In five years things may be different; if so, I expect CK will resign without being pushed. And if not, not; where’s his and his party’s problem for now?
There was some confusion/questions about the opening of the postal votes. This is what happens.
If Monday was not a bank holiday, with so many postal votes it would now be normal to open the postal vote envelopes on the Monday before Polling Day. A number of local authorities have this time choosen to do start this today. Many in London did just that.
The first stage, is the RO’s staff open the outer envelope which contains the ballot paper envelope and the declaration of identity. The ballot paper number on the ballot paper envelope and the identity (which in most cases these days is affixed together), is checked and detached. the ballot papers are put in one pile and the declaration on the other - so as to keep the secrecy of the vote.
The ballot paper envelopes are then opened and once again, the ballot paper number on the back is checked against the ballot paper envelope. If this is correct, the ballot papers are put in a pile in the old fashion wire trays.
Now we come to the interesting part.
At European Elections, there is legislation which states this the ballot papers must be put in a pile (in the wire basket), face down, so as to show the ballot paper number and not the votes. At all other elections, there is no leglisation whatsoever. Therefore in some areas they are left face down and in others they are left face up.
In constituencies where they are face up, one can see by merely counting what percentage each party is getting. BGy keeping a note of the running total of envelopes received by the RO, you can work out the percentage turnout of postal ballots.
Now what is illegal. People attending the ballot, must not record the ballot paper numbers (which is my arguement that they should be placed face up) and they should not divulge the number or percentage of votes given to each candidate.
So when someone on PB.com says they have seen ballot papers or have heard, they are probably telling the truth.
Someone on this site said the other day that Michael Howard was following his namesake in the Australian election to the letter. In the next few days they said he’ll appear in a Pringle sweater to show solidity and warmth. On cue he appeared on the BBC news tonight wearing a Pringle sweater!
14. so what should we expect next from Howard?
I’m beginning to think that these polls are just wacko. How far out were 2001’s poll averages?
for a temporary replacement to Vote 2005, visit http://ukdebate.conforums3.com
I don’t know Andrea but I’ve been looking through the posts to find the poster who predicted it but there are just too many posts. If I could have found him I would have asked the same question!
16 What more Wacko than you Vote Respect no way, look the polls show trends the headlines might not match but the truth is they show a trend, this is a betting site, and most on here are pretty seasoned observers if we all thought they were wacko then the markets would show a differance, now I know what I prefer to follow, the betting mar1ket (who always understate Labour number of seats
Roger @ 14. The difference is, is that John Howard had a completely different ’starting’ image. Although he had been seen as a right winger - and had followed a similar career path (i.e. yesterday’s man - returns to lead his party) his image was never one of ‘nastiness’ - more of ‘boringness’ (i.e. he already had an image of conservative solidity - White, middle-class Australia in person). Michael Howard on the other hand is burdened with his ’something of the night / angry old man’ persona.
The problem with the Tory approach seems to have been a back to front building of the persona. The reason Kennedy has been successful has been because he is essentially a fairly ordinary looking young middle aged bloke who does look like he speaks his mind down the pub. Blair in his glory days was successful because he is slightly holier than thou. Virtues were made out of their natural characteristics - as with John Howard in Australia.
By trying to fit Howard into the campaign, rather than fit the campaign around Howard it has only emphasised the negative images. John Howard could sell the hard line on immigration because he ’seemed’ like the reasonable bloke having a barbie next door. Unfortunately for Michael Howard, he looks like he would have an asylum seeker’s baby on the barbecue.
Just seen the front page of tomorrow’s Indy - “a vote for the LDs will NOT let in Labour.” Accompanied by a swing graph. I wonder which of the other papers (if any) will pick this up.
14 - Roger - yeah, but he was out on a boat on a breezy day.
Wearing a jumper would make more sense than a suit ?
20 - ‘will NOT let in LABOUR” ??
12 -pob
The problem I think Kenndy has is that, although he’s run a good campeign and opened up the possibilty of some “breakthoughs” in terms of number of seats and %, I see a couple of potential pitfalls that I think some one as unsavy as he might come unstuck over.
1. I think there will be considerable churn in the LD’s MPs - many will loose to Tories and gain Lab seats as a result of the unravelling of tactical voting. Kennedy will therefore lead a different party after the election (as indeed will Howard and Blair). Dont know if this favors him.
2. His biggest nightmare however is if he get 70 seats in a hung parliament. In this event Blair goes and Brown takes over. However I cant see it being politically accpetable for 2 scots to run the UK and I dont think Kennedy would be good at handling the politics of a coalition. So I’d expect that someone like Cable will take over.
3. The nightmare is that the LD’s suffer over expectations which are blighted by the electoral system.
No saying Kenndy will definitely go, but of the leaders he has a fair number of (unfairly) difficult situtations to deal with.
Hew. Read Anatole Kaletsky’s excellent article in yesterdays Times where he explains why Michael Howard has run such a terrible campaign. Sorry I couldn’t link it.
RE 14: I made that post the other day. I was actually comparing something that older US politicians who want to soften their image do. I just remember reading something about Wes Clark, who went around in pringle sweaters and was thought to give him a sense of homeliness.
As for the campaign and the polls. No doubt the Lib Dems are doing well. Still difficult to know how their numbers will translate into seats. However any Labour MP with a 10k or less majority over the LD’s must be worrying. As for Tory gains outside perhaps Taunton and Orpington, the results will be fairly scattergunned, some going, some staying and one or two LD seats going back the other way. Obviously key will be Tory-Lab seats. V.hard to know what is going to happen.
As for next week, it will all be about what is going on locally and about turnout I guess. I suspect MH will try to play a calmer hand next week. Getting too partisan or worked up, will just encourage more labout voters to turn out. I suspect he will continue to repeat his five messages and call for a stand to be made. On another point, the places the leaders visit next week, will probably give us an excellent idea of what their realistic aims are.
On another point, I am very surprised there is no market on Howard’s replacement. Would be very interesting if there was one. None the less when it arrives the potential to make money will be significant.
22 - oops! Too late at night.
O/T Ken Clarke is advertising in my local freebie (i) as KC MP and (ii) that he will be holding a surgery on May 14th.
Now isn’t there some problem with (i) and (ii), although likely, show’s a fair degree of hubris.
Tabman. This election will be decided on whether the Tories can move the agenda back onto who will win between themselves and Labour. The LDs have played a blinder this week - they have put their agenda on the map - helped unwittingly by the Tories who wrongly appeared to believe that the war issue could be managed purely in terms of ‘lies’. It has hurt them as much if not more than Labour. The problem is that the Tories have only a few days to recover from this and move the LDs out of the limelight.
If the LDs can cling on to the limelight over the weekend, I think they will fare very well come the weekend, the real test will be opinion polls - a couple of good ones for them will keep the media interested. At the moment the media agenda suits both Labour and the LDs, because the Tories seemed marginalised in the news tonight. This election has slowly turned into one of the most interesting and difficult to predict since the war.
Andrew. I would also recomend you to read the Kaletsky article. He makes many of the same ecconomic points you have been doing for the last few weeks.
Phil@23: “His biggest nightmare however is if he get 70 seats in a hung parliament.”
Have you been smoking crack all evening? That is every Liberal’s dream!
I’m beginning to doubt that this “angry man’ muds really sticking. I though QT will particularly dispel this image - basically it gave the impression that the “angry” were mainly located in the LD audience.
No I think the similarities with Howard are apt - both are boring with bad speaking voices. And both had a certain section that loathed them as nasty - my flat mate in Australia would literally throw things at the tele whenever he came on.
The real question is that Australia has a longer tradition of the steady but boring leader going back to Menzies that appeals to a large section of the ozzie electorate.
Britain’s had one successful boring but steady leader - Attlee. Unfortunately most of the electorate remember another - Major. That’s why Howard’s charisma counts against him more in the UK than Howard in OZ.
In addition its worth remembering that Oz Howard lost against the charismatic Hawke (= Blair) but won against the ideologically driven but arrogant Keating (=Brown). History might repeat its self.
The Telegraph are leading with a Gordon Brown interview in which he says parliament should be given the right ot decide whether British troops go to war. An interesting intervention. No doubt designed to keep disaffected Lab supporters on board.
26 - was it a paid for ad, or was it a freebe entry, a lot of MPs have this problem every time, newspapers never seem to check their “community freebe sections”.
On another point, will the Tories regret dumping IDS? Strange thesis I grant you, but I wonder how the quiet man would have played in an election where the public seem to be sick of slick lawyerly politicians. I don’t doubt that MH was more professional, but he does tend to polarise voters. Also has a past.
Of course IDS would not have won, but the contrast with TB would have been very significant and could have held out interesting results. Interesting looking at the polls that not much has changed since then. Parties are roughly in the same position.
Yes Tabman. It is illegal AFAIK to describe yourself as ‘MP’ when Parliament is disolved. There maybe some mileage in your local campaign in bringing this point up in the local media.
32 - AFAIK its paid for as we’ve put an add in the same paper.
20: “…will not let in Labour”?? D’oh. The Indy not quite caught up with 1997, then?
Latest Populus tracker Lab 40 (n/c)- Con 31 (-1) - Lib 21 (n/c) - Oth 7. A Lab lead of, I think it was, 5% even among “certain to votes”.
The Crosbie/Howard mobilisation effect strikes again? Accompanying data shows that the ‘liar’ accusation backfired seriously, with a 2-1 majority disapproving, and that a 2-1 majority thinks TB no more prone to lie than other politicians. The Tories have now hastily dropped the ‘lie’ poster cars and said with a haughty sniff that people want something more positive now. John Major’s assistant political secretary has resigned in protest over the campaign and is voting Labour.
I had easily the biggest debate of the campaign today as far as I’m concerned, with Ken Clarke and Bill Newton Dunn to over 300 students at the University of Nottingham - in fact the largest debate I’ve ever taken part in. Clarke made no attempt to defend the party line in most of his speech, concentrating on attacking the other parties and the war: he mildly dissented from the Tory line on tuition fees too (’too complicated’). Newton-Dunn made a pretty right-wing speech (he is admittedly a former Conservative who defected over Europe), all about individualism, leaving the left-of-centre field to me. The audience applauded everyone warmly - no obvious winners. Went back to the constituency listening on the car radio to a former MP saying how uninterested everyone is in the election (grrr). Back on the doorstep for a couple of hours, middle-class area, marginally under 2001 level.
Andrea at 4 is right about the problem in semi-marginals, though naturally I’m doing all I can to alert people. The trick of winning semi-marginals is hard for the Tories to pull off, though, as I think the Paradox provides a bit of a reserve - if they’re doing well enough to risk taking the seat, it will be apparent enough to mobilise the reluctant voters who don’t want them to.
Postal vote count: yes, beware of seat bets in the final days as anyone at the opening of the papers may well have an inside impression.
Comments on here seem at fever pitch tonight! I suspect the absence of any proper polls is fuelling wild speculation, and some fairly outlandish claims by partisans.
I’m very wary of the ‘it feels different on the doorstep’ line. I’ve heard it all before. In 1997 I canvassed for the Tories in Henley and came away thinking things weren’t going to be as bad as the polls suggested. Yes, well …
All I’d say in my judgement is this.
1. Labour will not have as high a share as last time.
2. The Conservatives will not poll worse than last time (in %).
3. The LibDems will do ok, but not as spectacularly as some of their supporters on here suggest.
4. Michael Howard has NOT fought a bad campaign. Labour entered the election with an economy that is humming. MH took on the party when they were doing very badly.
5. I do not think turnout will be high.
6. Labour will probably win, but with a reduced but very boringly comfortable majority (hope I’m wrong on this one, but I suspect not).
7. Howard will not resign … not for a while.
36 - Nick, my mistake (I’ve had a hard week - with work unfortunately)!
What your report re KC is exactly the same line he took on the Rushcliffe hustings, ie stating he was against the war etc.
I drove through Cossall on Tuesday evening expecting to see a house bedecked in Labour signs but saw none; is yours off the main road?
You watched a different QT to me Phil. Howard’s problem was that he hectored and lectured those who questioned him, like the ‘hard man deputy head’ in a big school (the one you were sent to if you were in really big trouble). He wags his finger at people all the time and seems to imply he knows better.
I agree that John Howard was unpleasant, but the image was tailored to make his personality a virtue - Howard doesn’t play the role with the same aplomb - I don’t think also that this Tory campaign has defined their demographic as well as that campaign - John Howard was ‘the Aussie Battler’s friend’ - Michael Howard doesn’t seem to have any friends.
I have never real understood this recent thing about politicans having to be likeable.
In the pass most people didn’t have much in common with Eden or Mac. Politicians are suppose to be politicans not your friend that you meet at the local pud every weekend.
Nick. Nice try on the Populus Poll - LDs 22% (+1)
30.”arrogant Keating (=Brown). ”
Is Brown considered arrogant? If Brown is arrogant, what the hell is Blair (I admit I’m biased on Blair)?
25.”On another point, I am very surprised there is no market on Howard’s replacement. Would be very interesting if there was one. None the less when it arrives the potential to make money will be significant. ”
What are your thoughts about the leadership contest and the future of the conservatives?
I find this article in the Financial Times about Nicholas Boles, I would like to hear some comments from tories supporters on his views and if this type of ideas could find support in the party?
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4493e20c-b7a6-11d9-8f87-00000e2511c8.html
Populus tracker - so how can that be explained!? One can disbelieve the figures (and to some extent, I do) but the trend on a tracking poll (same company, same method) surely tells us something. I think the message probably is that the Tory campaign has decided most voters firmly for or against them. So there is nothing they can now do to pick up support disproportionately from the undecided/switchers. Even if they start to nudge up there is a reaction which pushes the figure back down. Doesn’t mean that they won’t win more seats than the polls and markets predict, not least ‘cause recent days are going to make it harder for Lab to keep and get the vote out. But Tories really are dependent of differential turnout and strong LD showing for their gains from Lab.
Comments re polling error and Lib Dems letting in Con
Result: Lab 42% Con 33% Lib Dem 19% Others 6%
Gallup: Lab 47% (+5%) Con 30% (-3%) Lib Dem 18% (-1%) Others 5% (-1%)
MORI: Lab 45% (+3%) Con 30% (-3%) Lib Dem 18% (-1%) Others 7% (+1%)
Rasmussen: Lab 44% (+2%) Con 33% (0) Lib Dem 16% (-3%) Others 7% (+1%)
ICM: Lab 47% (+5%) Con 30% (-3%) Lib Dem 18% (-1%) Others 5% (-1%)
Lib Dems letting in Con
There is no evidence that a national uniform swing from Lab to Lib Dem will let in a Conservative government. A Lab to Con swing would, but not a Lab to Lib Dem swing
30 - Brown is viewed more as being chippy than arrogant - that whole “Son of the Manse” vibe, wearing a lounge suit to the Lord Mayor’s banquet etc.
40 - you might not have noticed but the world is a bit different now from the 1950s.
39 - Huw, Howard does have some friends, its just with friends like that …
43. I think that the trend given by polls is stable: 8/9 points lead with Populus; 6-7 lead with ICM and 4 points with yougov.
Mori is, as always, volatile (but the “all respondants” figures are pretty stable at around 10 points lead)
Andrea
“Is Brown considered arrogant?” Not yet but neither was Keating till he took the reins. Keating like Brown was able to hide behind Hawke’s charm.
But I think both are the sort of “intellectuals” with big ideas who are best as advisors or 2 ic’s. Their problem is that in charge they lack the will, ability and patience to pursuade and sway the simple minded public round to their policies; instead they tend to press on regardless of opinion. Eventually, they leave the public behind and alienate all but the most dedicated party hacks – which is why Keatings demise came as such a surprise to the party and chaterati but not necessarily to the man on the street.
I know loads of people will disagree with me but I seriously think that Brown will turn out to be a Keating as Blair was a Hawke. Deadly as a double act, dead as a dodo when the second mate takes over.
Assuming most postal votes have been sent back in the last few days, the Times poll must be good news for Labour.
Interesting to note that women disliked the ‘liar’ terminology more than men and seem more favourable to Tony Blair as a result.
I also note the strength of opinion against the ‘liar’ phrase amongst Labour voters, and a more ’squirmish’ opinion of it amongst Tory voters.
No wonder its been dropped !!
Interesting feedback on previous thread from a focus group today which, by accident, discussed politics for half an hour. Despite grim few days for Blair, do agree undecideds are likely to break to both LD and Lab in last week. In which case I’m not sure ICM’s current/week-end polling (if any?) is going to be too far out.
Andrea @ 42. Thanks for the article about Boles. From a quick skim, there’s much to commend in his ideas and certainly the overarching philosophy: I hope he wins.
As to the Tories’ future and leadership, this will entirely depend on the result next week. A serious setback (say, less than 20 net gains while the LibDems advance) may well lead to really some fundamental shifts; a steadier outcome (hmm, 195-215 seats?) would probably see a modest shift to the likes of Osborne/Cameron mildly less ideological stance, while my guess is that an unexpectedly good result might well see Howard remaining throughout the next Parliament.
BTW, I’ve meaning to ask. I know you’re Italian but are you living in the UK or still based in Italy? Your knowledge of the British political scene in all its weird and wonderful manifestations is impressively scary…!
28 Kaletsky
I haven’t read the article, but I suspect the tax-cutting agenda will be brought back after the election. It was too early to talk about it now because the media would have been all over him. However I think the electorate are ready to go for a tax-cutting agenda.
Money invested in public services has upped taxes without showing sufficient value for money. I get the feeling that taxes in Britain are at their comfort, nearly discomfort point. All economic commentators contend that taxes will have to go up after the election. This will tip them into the “taxes are too high” bracket. People will start to be cross about waste, and demand better value. Focus groups will validate the necessity of politicians to brave the left wing media. Cue the Tory agenda of lower taxes.
However, I think you’ll find TB will buy into that policy field too.
V.interesting piece on Boles. I think he will get elected (said to have run the best campaign of all the Tory candidates, helped by Caplin standing down and no doubt a lib dem rise). As for his views, they are catching on in the party. The idea of elected police chiefs, is a v.good one and one of the policies MH has undersold at this election. As for health and education spending, v.all Tories know it has to keep on rising. I think his views will gain traction. The problem the party faces though is the continued exisistence of a big block of Thatcherites elected in the 1980s, who have completely misinterpreted Thatcherism but who dominate the party and especially the decisions over leadership. The problem with the Tories is not Thatcherism, but they way they have competely misinterpreted it. They have emphasised the authortarian side of it over the far more interesting and more productive radical side.
RE Boles - doesn’t his localism tie in with Crosby’s strategy to fight the seats locally? So apart from his personallity, I dont see what he’s offering new.
Tax cutting will be back in a big way after the GE. The big question though will be, are the Tories brave enough to go in for the flat tax?
Phil at 47 - this is spot on.
What’s left for the Tories though? It is possile (but unlikely) that they will do worse than Hague. Even if they add a couple of points from last time - it does’t give them the traction that (for example) Kinnock had in 87.
The Australian experience to me suggests one thing - a leader has to be a human being. Kennedy certainly fills that role - and debate of his faults paradoxically strengthens him.
I know little about the Oz Howard - but he seems to me more like John Major than the ideological UK Howard.
Tories who fail to understand why Major won seem to be running their campign today - shouldn’t they at least understand his attraction?
Brown will become the first Labour leader since Kinnock to lose an election.
Blair performs better in marginals than polls suggest because he gets votes from conservatives / swing voters , because they consider him rather than whoever the current leader of the Tory party happens to be, the heir to Thatcher, both in views and leadership style.
Brown will try to show he is old labour as soon as he becomes leader. This will increase the labour vote nationally, but this will come from safe labour seats. In the key seats, share will drop and will end up with a Conservative victory.
Discuss.
16 - in 2001 the polls were miles out. Every poll in the campaign overstated Labour’s position.
56 and others: What do people think the dynamics of second places will mean?
Scenario:
Tories make gains, say 20, but their second places slip back dramatically such that their seats and 2nds is similar to the LDs.
What effect does this have in a LAbour parliament and goign into 2009?
26 - who cares! Con hold Rushcliffe!
Also might need Forest to beat Gillingham next Sun for my team to stay up!
57 - Have it - yesterday you posted that you expted a 1% Tory - Lib Dem swing - 35% Tory v 23% Lib Dem. Care to explain how under these figures Simon Hughes is the only LD MP in the South East of England?
59 - to be strictly accurate it would be Clarke hold Rushcliffe; “Conservative” doesn’t have much to do with it.
59 - and the way Forest are playing at present (like a MH election campaign? :D) I wouldn’t rely on them to win anything …
50. John O, about Boles there’s an article about him by Parris in yesterday’s Times. Teh funniest part is when an old religious couple tells Parris that they’re going to vote for Boles and Parris askes them if they know he’s gay. They answer they know, but that they think he’s an “abstainer”!
“I know you’re Italian but are you living in the UK or still based in Italy? Your knowledge of the British political scene in all its weird and wonderful manifestations is impressively scary…! ”
I’m still based in Italy (you could deduce it from my bad English). I know it’s scary (but I don’t know that much). I was always interested in politics (and electoral results). I find UK politics more fascinating and less “voulgar” (I don’t know if that word exist) than the Italian one. And especially more professional and less emotional.
58 - This election is going to be the high water mark for the Lib Dems. Next time - no war and no Tony Blair - alot of this time switchers will go back to PM Brown. Overall the Tory Party will gain from this.
62 - as long as the Watford stuff the Stoke tomorrow I’m not worried! (I’ll take the 0-0)
16-1 Con: does that mean whoever gets most seats????????
64 - possibly, possibly not. It depends upon two things:
(i) what the Tories do to themselves; if they look like they’re edisappearing up their own orrifices again, after 3 bad defeats their more ‘liberal’ support may finally look elsewhere especially if the Orange Book tendency gain the upperhand in the LDs (which a Brown shift to the left may precipitate)
(ii) for many tribal voters the hardest thing to do is to get them to switch for the first time; rather like diving into a lake, after the initial shock they realise its OK and continue to do so …
Hard to say what will happen to the LD’s under a GB premiership. A lot will depend on who is leading the Tories, GB’s type and style of government and the LD’s themselves. CK has said he wants to carry on and do another election. I am not sure if this is wise. While he is popular and personable the Lib Dems seem to lack (as the Tories do as well) a driving intelletual force behind them at the moment. A lot of their policies are wooly and there is a danger that they could drift too far to the left and find it impossible to track back to the right.
On another point, it is always noticeable with the LD’s how united they are in Parliament. While this is good in showing a sense of unity, it also strikes me as suggesting that there is a lack of different thinkers and different beliefs in the party. The classic example is Europe, where pro-europeanism seems to be the only credo, despite the obvious contradictions with LD ideas of democracy (PR at home, but more decided by Brussels).
68.”On another point, it is always noticeable with the LD’s how united they are in Parliament. While this is good in showing a sense of unity, it also strikes me as suggesting that there is a lack of different thinkers and different beliefs in the party. ”
maybe it’s because they aren’t numerous. It’s easy to have more or less the same ideas and to vote united when the group is made only by 50 people. With 200 or 400 MPs it’s normal that there is a bigger variaty of ideas.
67 - Im a tory party member who has already voted Labour this time - we won’t automatically defect to the Lib Dems because of europe etc. It really depend who the next Conservative leader is.
Tribal voters are a thing of the past. More people are learning that the best way to get what you want is to be uncommitted. A good example would be LD votes from students over loans / tuition fees. You must be at least 60 % from students
68 - Andrew, I suggest you read the chapter on Europe in the Orange Book. Basically the LD policy on Europe is a sub-policy of their view of devolving power to the most appropriate level. A strong case is made that at present Brussels has too much power over some areas and not enough in others. For example, certain issues (polution, fish stocks, immigration dare I say it?) are not great respectors of national borders and policy needs to be determined and actioned at a n appropriate levelt. Similarly, Westminster shows a tendency to agregate inappropriate powers to itself.
Any successful business relies on a clear strategic direction from the centre, but tactical decisions being taken close to the point of need.
Andrew Milne at 52 - Strikes me as quite an insighful comment. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Which Conservative MPs in particular do you interpret as having this problem?
I’m surprised people still care much about the Labour / Conservative differences. As a Tory I am
a) happy that we are still “winning the agenda”, insofar as our main planks of tax cuts and immigration are concerned. Amongst all the nonsensical hype, Labour have co-opted milder versions of our policies on both.
b) disappointed that neither of the two main parties, or the Liberals, have managed to come up with any fundamental answers to the two most pressing problems of our age, namely the future of NHS and pensions funding, and
c) confident that pretty much regardless of who wins and who leads which party, the issue of a flat rate of income tax will gain momentum during the life of the next parliament.
Tories will gain around 30 seats I’m sure. If they break 200 then MH won’t go soon; if not then perhaps the Notting Hill set might get their way …
A three way dynamic on the Lynton Crosby style concession strategy is developing.
Charles Kennedy is doing a good job to help any Tory concession strategy by saying they have no chance. He is saying this to counter suggestions by Blair that a Lib dem vote can let Tories in “through the back door.”
But it is as though Kennedy is himself playing the concession strategy: conceding that the Tories can’t win and shows how a third party has a different dynamic to the strategy in Oz.
Of course it could help the Tories, but if Charles Kennedy and Michael Howard keeps saying “send a message to Blair” and (in coded language in the case of Howard) “Tories can’t win anyway,” that also gives the nod for Labour voters to send Blair a message by voting Lib Dem, or voters who would have voted Tory to try and defeat Blair to vote Lib Dem.
Also it could stop Lib Dems getting some Tory protest votes. Why protest against an opposition party if you don’t think it will win?
With Tory hatred also fading with time, this election could firmly realign the Lib Dems as a protest party (and all the other things Lib dems are) against Labour rather than the Tories as it has been in previous elections.
Good points, Printz, but I am sure that there are a few ‘Right-wing’ anti-war Tories who in certain areas may be tempted to vote Lib Dem to send a message to their own party and (thinking that the Tories have a massive electoral mountain to climb in order to win the election) and Tony Blair that he better think again if George asks for our help invading Iran or Syria!
Dan
Oz Howard - is nothing like Major - remember he won a couple of elections on immigration so on that plank he’s very like UK Howard.
On the flat rate question - forget it; flat rate system are for countries where people are very sophisticated about calculating taxes and reluctant to pay.
Introducing a flat rate tax into a country as sophisticated as the UK would necessitate so many exemptions, relief’s and deductions that it would be more complex than our currently simple 102240 system. And I say this as someone who’s pretty right wing on tax.
RE 76: The point of a flat rate tax is that there are no concessions, tax breaks etc. Thats what makes it so appealing and fair.
I realise from reading this site for weeks now, that it is very partisan. If youre betting money, perfectly understandable. I have to say however, that all this wishful thinking about the death of the Conservative party is really a bit ‘high’. The Labour party as such, does not exist anymore, Nulab is Nu tory, Blair saw to that in order to get in, in 1997. We will never have a socialist government in this country, certainly not under Brown who has spent all the money. You might possibly get some weird hybrid lab/Lib government in the distant future, but it will still be relatively conservative. Conservatism with a small c is alive and thriving in this country, and Conservatism with a big one is constantly evolving, as it always has done, with lots of highly talented minds, like Boles. Tribal politics will die a death eventually, and that can only be good for the country especially at a local level. It would be nice to see politicians elected on merit instead of this dishonesty of tactical voting which often replaces very good constituency MP’s of whatever colour with self perpetuating mediocrity.
The Indie’s front page is crucial. This Vote LibDem, get Howard mantra is coming apart. When Blair went to Dorset South (maj 0.3 percent) on the first day of the campaign proper he told us that a vote for other parties would let Howard in. Now the scales are falling from our eyes and we see he should really have warned the voters of that seat that if they didn’t vote for Jim Knight then Blair’s majority would fall from 148 to 146. Be very afraid! (Dumfries and Galloway being the most marginal, would see Labour’s majority fall from notional 150 to 148 if the Tories or the SNP win there).
The same logic applies all the way down the list of Labour-at-risks to the 78th (Watford, LibDems to win from third as Mike told us first many months back) . These are all Destroy Blair’s Majority seats, and the next tranche of seats (beginning with Nick’s Broxtowe, 11.98 majority) are still not the ‘Vote LibDem (etc), get Howard’ seats since Howard couldn’t get an overall majority or a deal with the Ulster Unionists until we get to Lab-Con “marginals” around 20 percent.
There is a huge number of people who prefer a balanced parliament to an overall majority for either party, and with the LibDems and others likely to get 100-120 seats the chances of the swingometer getting out of No overall control territory if it once gets down to it, are extremely minimal as Curtice and others have now shown conclusively.
However The Independent’s front page makes it clear that even with big Lab to LibDem swings of 9 percent, then Labour still get an overall majority of 48. So the real question is how the majority who don’t want Labour to get any overall majority and the minority who hope for Labour to get a very small majority will vote.
Unlike the run of tactical voting sites, StrategicVoter’s half-page advert in the Indie the day before was calling for ‘Strategic Tory’ voting in all pro-war Lab-Con marginals with majorities up to 15.4. I don’t expect many disillusioned Labour voters will switch to the Tories, but we do know that of the many LibDem supporters in hopeless prospect seats who will vote tactically, many more than before will not be voting Labour and many of thsoe will be voting Tory.
Conclusion - a balanced parliament is finally likely so long as enough centrist and centre-left voters keep the Tories in the game in about 50 of those crucial Lab-Con marginals.
Andrea @ 42 - there are plenty of us around in the Conservative Party with very similar views to Nick Boles already. If Portillo had wanted the leadership badly enough in 2001 he certainly had enough younger activist support to perhaps set a slighty different agenda.
I also voted for Ken Clarke at that election - however I did it whilst holding my nose (c) Polly Toynbee because I fundamentally disagree with his position on Europe.
antler punctually genetically kingly extensively malicious existentialist!silversmith
merrell shoes Heh. How it goes? Buy it all. ASAP. Last discount in your live (AAAAA!!!!!). Take a rest.
m791z…
lo421l…