Is Labour’s “Vote Kennedy - Get Howard” warning true?
April 30th, 2005
-
Could the small circulation Indy have an impact?
With the Independent looking set to endorse the Lib Dems on Thursday today’s splash lead seeks to undermine Labour’s core strategy for dealing with the Lib Dem threat.
The above is the front page that’s in the shops this morning and might well have an influence beyond the few hundred thousand who buy the paper each day. The story is very clear and could make Labour’s task in the final few days that much harder.
The paper reports …..Labour’s attempts to warn its wavering supporters that a vote for the Liberal Democrats could allow Michael Howard into No. 10 “by the back door” was undermined yesterday in a detailed study carried out for The Independent. The study found that a swing of 11.5 per cent from Labour voters to the Liberal Democrats could deprive Mr Blair of his overall Commons majority but it would be virtually impossible for such defections - at even twice that rate - to let in the Conservatives to form a government.
John Curtice, the respected psephologist and professor of politics at Strathclyde University, who carried out the analysis, said: “Labour’s claim that switching from Labour to the Liberal Democrats could enable Mr Howard to win the election is highly misleading.” Professor Curtice said: “It is even highly unlikely any swing could result in the Conservatives becoming the largest party. The most likely consequence of any large switch from Labour to the Liberal Democrats is simply nobody would have an overall majority.” His study came as Labour sought to deflect attention from the row over the war in Iraq, with cabinet ministers raising the spectre of a Tory victory - made possible by disenchanted Labour voters deserting for Charles Kennedy’s party.
For months we have been arguing that Labour’s approach to this challenge was flawed simply because it is not true and the continued poor poll ratings for Michael Howard have just reinforced this. The alternatives to a large Labour majority are a small Labour majority or a hung parliament.
As we get closer to “make you mind up time” the Curtice report in the article could frame the way this issue is debated and presented on radio and TV.
BET OF DAY. You can get 12/1 against a hung parliament. Although we think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome the chance of a hung parliament is better than 12/1 and this is good value.
NOVELTY BET OF THE DAYDate of next election. . You can get 6/1 against it being before 2009. This price seems good because a consequence of a close result could be another General Election soon afterwards.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Is labor-bashing the only thing that gets posted here?
1 I wish !!! (He thoroughly deserves it)
1 Oh dear poor little new labour being pick on, what a shame
This is the best story the Lib Dems could have hoped for - albeit in the lowest circulation daily. But it is a story that must be picked up in the sunday’s analysis of the election, alongside polls showing an unusually high level of Lib Dem support.
Indeed the front page of todays Independent is surely going to have a far greater circulation than the rest of the paper. I´m just off to buy a copy myself!
Can anybody ascertain the labour lead in the polls using the criteria and methodology used in 2001 as opposed the the techniques now used to adjust the labour lead? A lot of people seem to compare the 1997/2001 polls with those now, but surely this cannot be done correctly.
Mori use the same methodology
Quite a fascinating lurch by Labour from last weekend’s internal memo from Campbell “Election is in the bag” to “A vote for the Lib Dems lets in the Tories by the backdoor”.
No the ‘vote LD get Howard’ spin is not true. The essential point is that as more and more votes transfer from Lab to LD there comes a point where LD wins more seats outright than the Conservatives do by coming through the middle. That point is well short of a majority Conservative government.
You may find this graphical analysis of the question helpful.
http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_541.html
The LD to Lab swingometer on the BBC site also illustrates the point.
Thanks Alasdair will check out.
8. It’s not a total myth. The claim that it is a myth is based upon the assumption that the Conservatives will get 33% of the vote (ie. what the polls are the saying). The situation would be very different if the polls were slightly underestimating the Tories who got, say 36%. Because of Labour’s ’supercharged performance’ in the marginals compared to their other seats, there is a critical point at which Labour losing votes (eg. to the Libs) will cost them A LOT of seats.
Whovever wins on Friday, I think it will probably be the opinion pollsters who go into the election most nervously on Thursday. The margin of error that has occured in previous elections will be catastrophic if it occurs this time.
The principal reason for this is that all the media have taken the polls results and applied a uniform swing to them which in my opinion is not valid. at this election, partly because of the effect that the media doing this has had.
In a by election, people know that whoever they vote for it will not make any difference to who runs the country. Therefore they vent their feelings in a way that does not occur in general elections, maybe even voting for independents.
However this time “the opinion polls”, or more correctly the media interpretation of them, says that because of “bias”, even if the tories win the popular vote, indeed even if Labour come third, Labour will win the election with a commons majority.
Even if Labour did lose, the other two main parties broadly share the same social market democracy aspirations. “They wont invade Poland, set up a secret police, increase income tax to 98% or confiscate my spoons” the voter thinks.
Therefore, the voter thinks “whoever I vote for it won’t make much difference to the way the country is run”
Ans, subconciously, the voter will vote, if he votes at all, as he would normally do in a byelection.
646 byelections on Thursday. Expect the unexpected. The one thing I WILL predict is than on Friday the definitions of safe and marginal seats will look a bit silly.
Perhaps we could sum it up as - in the 20th century people voted for a party, in the 21st century people are returning to the more aincent practice of electing a representative of their community to be sent to parliament to represent it.
Scottish Lib Dem bloggers Cabalamat Journal and Doctorvee have covered this fallacy recently. It also applies to the even more frequently repeated Scottish Labour lie “Vote SNP, Get Tory”.
http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_541.html
http://www.doctorvee.co.uk/2005/04/17/vote-lib-dem-get-lib-dem/
This is being sent to the BBC’s “Have your say”
“If, as Mr. Blair says, 10% of Labour voters are prepared to vote Lib Dem instead of Labour, then the Labour would still have a 114 seat majority in the House of Commons. Using the 2001 vote tallies (and notional calculations) I added 10% of the Labour vote total in 2001 to the Lib Dem vote and came up with the following seat tallies:
Labour 380 seats (-23 seats)
Conservatives 179 seats (+14 seats)
Liberal Democrats 57 seats (+6 seats)
Others 30 seats (+3 seats)
The seats that would be Conservative gains under the methodology would be:
Bexleyheath and Crayford, Braintree, Clwyd West, Dorset South, Dumfries and Galloway, Hornchurch, Kettering, Lancaster and Wyre, Milton Keynes North East, Monmouth, Northampton South, Selby, Shipley, Thanet South, Wellingborough and Welwyn Hatfield. (A grand total of 16 gains). But these are tempered by Labour losing Cardiff Central, Dunbartonshire East, Inverness and Oldham East to the Lib Dems and the Conservatives losing Orpington and Taunton to the Lib Dems”
To 1. This is not Labour-bashing but identifying developments or issues that might affect the way people vote on Thursday. A key part of the Labour strategy - reinforced by Tony Blair last night - was what he described as the “danger” of voting Lib Dem. This is a central part of their campaign and all the Indy has done is to subject what is being said to some scrutiny.
What is interesting is the manner in which the paper has chosen to report it this morning. The full front page will be on every news-stand and at every supermarket today and might have an impact beyond the smallish group of Indy readers. It will also affect the way that the broadcast media deals with Labour’s assertions. This is important for all those trying to forecast Thursday’s outcome.
10. Alex is right there is a grain of truth that too much defection from Labour to Lib Dems would lose them their overall majority - If we make the assumption of a uniform swing & also that 3 main party scores dont exceed 92% then using electoral calculus feed 36% Tory, 30% Labour, 26% Lib Dem - then you get an HOC no overall control with 280 Conservatives, 270 Labour & 65 Lib Dems.BUT its almost impossible for the Tories to command an overall majority. Even if they get 37% Tory, 28% Labour, 27% Lib Dem - you still end up with 309 Tories, 235 Labour, 71 Lib Dem.Given that the overall majority hurdle is 324 it is pretty mendacious of Labour to suggest that a vote for the Lib Dems let the Tories in by the backdoor.
1, Mike is right. This is just putting a pretty key Labour election claim under some statistical scrutiny.
18. A more accurate depiction of the statistical reality would have been for Labour to say that a vote for the Lib Dems could seriously damage the health of their overall majority.Something a lot of protesting Labour people might err not feel too bothered about!
16. Yes it is theoretically possible. I have been playing with the Baxter calculator and fixed Con at 36% started with Lab at 38 % and LD at 19 % and transferred vote share from Lab to LD. Only when Lab vote share falls below 24.5 % do Con get a majority which rises to a maximum of +12 with 36/24/33. By 36/22.5/34.5 it it gone and LD replace Lab. Are Labour really telling us they will poll below 24 % ?
Ha Alasdair! Labour spin is alive & well! Off to do some canvassing on the south coast.
In a small number of seats - the tighter Lab/Con marginals - switching from Labour to Lib Dem might help the Tories pick a few gains.
In every other type of seat this is simply not the case.
It might be helpful if Labour could publish a list of the seats they think are under threat from the Tories so that LD voters in those seats could choose whether they want to vote tactically or not.
Indeed in quite a lot of seats voters switching from Labour to the LDs will help defeat Tories.
If Labour’s primary objective is genuinly to stop Michael Howard becoming Prime Minister they could encourage Labour voters in Tory held seats where the Lib Dems are second to vote tactically - not least in Folkestone as Denis McShane has already done.
1 & 17, what (new) Labour are really terrified of is that they will get a small (less than 50) majority and consequently have to be nice to Dennis Skinner, Jeremy Corbyn et al and have to frame their polices to meet with these chaps approval.
I think this is what Michael Howard is aiming for as well, as he will be able to exploit such a situation ruthlessly and turf Labour out next time as a result, maybe turfing them out by 2007 if Labour don’t get an overall majority.
A majority that isn’t big enough to enable new Labour to ignore the left will be a disaster for them
http://www.vote-2005.co.uk is DOWN. For a TEMPORARY replacement post at http://ukdebate.conforums3.com
I totally agree with he Indy! This scare campaign is ridiculous. It mirrors the last PMQ’s, where neither the tories nor Labour argued why people should vote for them, only why people shouldn’t vote for the other.
http://www.vote-2005.co.uk is DOWN. For a TEMPORARY replacement post at http://ukdebate.conforums3.com
Re 19 You say …are Labour really telling us they will poll below 24%?
Well they did at the last national elections in the UK on June 10th when they got 22.7%. ICM was then showing a 3% Labour lead.
12 - Paul I do hope you are right. As an outright opponent of the party system it is something I have been pushing on many of these fora for the last few years.
Tricks
Tony Blair telling porkies again even he doesn’t believe it this time. Nick Robinson covered his claims at 6.30 last night on ITV, and then concluded by quoting a “senior Labour official” (read Campbell I suspect) who forecast a three-figure majority…
I believe the BBC and ITV (and Sky?) are planning to exit poll on May 5th. Does anyone, with media contacts, know whether they intend to run with the poll at 10 p.m. or sit on it and use it as background?
27. Surely it is part of BBC electoral tradition to announce their prediction on the basis of exit polls on the stroke of 10 p.m.?
Is it possible to pressure the BBC into having anther Question Time, but this time have the 3 deputy leaders on trial. I’m sure this will make Labour even more desperate considering how worried they are at how many people may be switching allegiance to the Lib Dems. (I’m sure John Prescott would love to appear on that programme… NOT!)
After QT, have you become a Lib Dem convert?
http://www.vote2005forum.org.uk
28. That’s what they did in ‘92, and ended up with egg all over their face. From memory, they have been more wary since.
It might be true that at swing from Labour to the LIbDems wouldn’t necessari;y put the Tories in power, but this is conveniently overlooking the fact that there is also a swing from Labour to the Tories - together they would put Michael Howard in No 10!
31. Not true. I advise you read John Curtice’s article, where he points out that even if the Tories increase their vote to 36% and a 9% swing to the Lib Dems, Labour would still be the largest party in a hung parliament. Post 16 above also points this out.
22, Claptrap, Howard wants to win nothing else, all this talk about reducing the majority as an aim is pure BS, if Howard does not get a good amount of seats he is toast on May 6th, wittness the desperation in tactics
33. Calm down dear. The two are not incompatible, except in the small number of Lab-Lib marginals where the LDs are second. You go all out for victory, if you win, great, if you don’t but things haven’t gone too badly, you give TB a severely reduced majority. Simple, innit?
The electoral system is very sacked against the Conservatives in this election.
Can we get this Independent story in perspective, the Independent is a Lib Dem paper Yes or No prints a story broadly in favour of the Lib Dems saying it is safe to vote Lib Dem, it’s hardly a man bites dog story is it, will the site be headlining a Daily Mail “Why o Why story next.
You can argue the statistics till the cows come home, I still say that in some seats by voting Lib Dem you will allow a Tory in, on the other hand in others by voting Labour you will let the Tory in.
If you do not want a Tory government use your vote carefully, otherwise we could have a nasty shock on May 6th, a government that 60% of the voters do not want
I live in lancaster and wyre where we have a 481 majority with 82,000 voters. The lib dems are 16,000 votes behind the tories. I am seriousley pissed off at the indy this morning. If 1 in 50 labour voters vote lib dem then we have had it. This is far to much of a generalisation to say it won’t let the tories in, cus in a lot of seats it will.
1)John Curtice is a Liberal Democrat supporter
2) Mike, on this site, has consistently warned us against analysis that looks at uniform swing
3) Mike, on this site, has consistently warned us that polls overstate Labour support and understate Conservative support
4) Even on John Curtices own analysis it is clear that on a swing from Labour to the Liberal Democrats the Conservatives are the main gainers
5) Self evidently if you are in a Labour/Conservative marginal and you are a Labour supporter but want to protest against an aspect of government policy - if you vote Liberal Democrat you help the Conservatives.
I live in lancaster and wyre where we have a 481 majority with 82,000 voters. The lib dems are 16,000 votes behind the tories. I am seriousley pissed off at the indy this morning. If 1 in 50 labour voters vote lib dem then we have had it. This is far to much of a generalisation to say it won’t let the tories in, cus in a lot of seats it will.
The weakness in the Indie story is that it assumes that Labour only experienced defections to LD. The problem for Labour is that there have been some switches straight to the Tories on immigration- almost exclusively C2s . There is also the problem of low turnout of Labour voters which all Labour candidates fear this time. If to that you add tactical unwind to the LDs then the potential does exist for very large numbers of Labour seats to fall to the Tories. I don’t think this will happen because I think Labour candidates will be able to limit the extent of LD switches and maintain the turnout sufficiently to hold on for a reasonable majority in Parliament.
36 - That’s what we got in ‘97 and ‘01.
36. Noboby is claiming that by voting Lib Dem in some seats you will let a Tory in, the point is, Robert, that unless the Labour vote drops below 30% you will not get a Tory government, which is what the Labour party has been saying. It isn’t that difficult to understand, even if you don’t like the fact.
I sense some rather extraordinary logical gynamstics on the part of the Labour posters on the site. In nearly every other thread, there has been talk of Tory meltdown and claims that they might even poll lower and win fewer seats than in 2001. Suddenly, however, they are threatening a majority government if some disaffected Labour voters turn LD! The simple fact remains that the Tories need to poll at least 37% to give a straight Lab to LD swing an even minimal chance of a tiny Tory majority, notwithstanding the fact that such uniform swings are scarcely likely to be replicated in Lab/Con marginals. It will almost certainly be the case that any Lab to LD UNS will be lessened in such marginals.
Quick question to the Labour posters: are the Tories a) in meltdown and going to suffer another 2001-style disaster or b) on the verge of victory if some former Labour supporters vote LD? You can’t have it both ways.
Or, indeed, logical gymnastics
Another Alex,
The point is no one on this site can know what the outcome of the election will be, precicely because in low turnout elections the arithmetic comes down to which party gets their support out. If the Tories have managed to galvanise their support but Labour supporters believe `it is in the bag’ and OK to vote Lib Dem because it won’t hurt Labour (my ass!), then we could very well end up with a minority Conservative administration. Note that Charles Kennedy has been careful not to rule out a coalition with the Conservatives. The whole Conservative strategy is predicated on differential turnout and Conservative and Liberal Democrat supporters on this site and elsewhere are colluding on this point.
Very interesting analysis by Bob Worcester on ‘disaffected Labour voters’ since 2001. Now we can see why the Labour Party are so trying to demonise the Lib Dems - there remains the potential for a big upswing in LD support over the next few days.
http://www.mori.co.uk/pubinfo/rmw/ep050430.shtml
45. Oh, is that so Armageddon?
Kennedy Rules Out Tory Coalition
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4315165.stm
Well, I prefer facts to spin. Lets for arguments sake imagine Con get the same as their notional score in the elections last June, 38%. Using the Baxter calculator and starting at C38 / L36 / LD19 / O7 it is only when Lab go below parity with LD at 27.5% each (with Con fixed at 38%) that Con achieve an overall majority.
Labour below 27.5% ??? Third on vote share ??? It not going to happen.
45, I am very grateful to you for pointing me to this article. The headline is entirely different from the content. I urge everyone to read what Kennedy actually says:
He would not be “bogged down in endless discussions as to whether there will be a coalition with this lot or that lot”, Mr Kennedy told the Spectator magazine.
How is this ruling out a coalition with the Conservatives?
43. Yes.
Whilst a straight Conservative overall majority is unlikely (understatement of the year) there are things going on underneath.
As I have said before, there will be a net swing from LD to Conservative, and from Labour to both. I expect Labour turnout to be depressed a well, the postal votes will have it.
I expect surprises. (Though a Tory overall majority would be a huge one). Interesting election.
Chrisco @ 42 (&36): You’re right, but isn’t Robert also right? Voting LibDem will not let in a Tory *government*, but voting LD in a Lab/Con marginal will allow more Tory — not LibDem — pressure on a Labour government. The kind of people who want to see Lab win, but with a reduced majority, don’t (I think) want to have more right-wing policies (except on immigration, about which I have seen and heard more uninformed tosh than I thought possible — on all sides, but especially from the right).
I wonder if Labour HQ have been rattled by what they’ve been hearing about postal votes?
49. God, you really are paranoid, aren’t you. It says in black and white “The Liberal Democrats would not join a Tory government in the event of a hung parliament, Charles Kennedy says.” Seems pretty unambiguous to me.
If you weren’t happy with that story, will this one do?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4429885.stm
Armageddon @49 - Will this help? There is no chance - none, nul, nil nada, nein - of the Tories ever going into coalition with the LibDems. (And please no comparisons with Heath’s degrading Feb 74 attempts)
Armageddon @ 49 (&45): I remember that interview on television (the Spectator was the printed version). CK is not quoted directly here as doing so, but did rule out a coalition — with *Howard’s* Conservatives. Make of that what you will.
John O [55] - why not? I’m sure if we’d had this board back then, you’d've said the same thing in mid-February 1974
45 - Surely not? Has the situation improved so dramatically since you posted this “The Tories will end up with a lower share of the vote than at the last election”? Perhaps the Tories have unexpectedly put on 6% in the last week ;)?
52. Needless to say, a small Labour majority significantly multiplies the force that can be brought to bear by the Labour Left and the Lib Dems. Foundation hospitals and top-up fees, two bugbears of the Left, would have fallen on a smaller Labour majority. A smaller majority makes Blairism difficult and hastens the handover process to Brown. Essentially, the Left want to ensure a Labour majority of about 30-50: not low enough to make it impossible for Brown, but enough to make Blair’s position untenable in the long run.
49. Or if you don’t find those acceptable Armageddon, try these for size
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/elections2005.html?in_article_id=345909&in_page_id=1853&ct=5
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4429875.stm
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/ukworld/tm_objectid=15386659&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=kennedy-s–positive–election-fight-name_page.html
Chrisco,
How many times have you been around the block? Politics is the art of giving an impression of one thing but not ruling out another. You are quoting the headline from the story, not Charles Kennedy’s words. In both articles and another 2 or 3 I could send you the formulation is clear - `nothing is ruled out but I don’t want to talk about it’. Saying you will be an individual party does not rule out a coalition. Many individual parties enter coalitions all over Europe without loosing their identity. He will never rule out a coalition because he knows it is his only way to power.
Here is what he says in the second article:
On the idea of joining a coalition he said: “We will go into this election as an individual party.
“We’ve got a sustained level of support better than we’ve ever enjoyed going into a general election since I first participated in politics 25 years ago.
52. Yes pob, but having more Tories in opposition will not result in “more right-wing policies”. If anything, a severely reduced Labour majority would result in more left-wing policies from the government, because he would really have to take into account the views of the ‘awkward squad’.
60. Read the articles Armageddon. How about this one, from the Daily Mail interview?
“Charles Kennedy: We have ruled out a coalition with both Labour and the Conservatives. It would be wrong to prop up a Government given its P45 by the British people and we have little in common with Michael Howard’s Conservative Party. On many key issues they have simply backed the Government. I believe that a lot more people are going to trust their instinct and vote positively for us as a real alternative.”
Now, try and spin that one if you want, but it looks pretty clear to me.
Is PR still a LD policy? I always used to think so, but there are so many greater experts here on LD policy than me, I hesitate to mention it…
If it is, shouldn’t CK be promoting the idea that he is prepared to work with anybody? Can you soberly reccomend PR as the third party, and say you can’t work with either of the main two?
I’ve read posters on here claimimg that the LDs will struggle with greater scrutiny of their policies. This nonsense has passed everybody by?
Never underestimate the Tories.A much stronger key marginals performance is on the cards.Agressive postal vote garnering, tele polling of floating voters,last minute damaging negative attacks on opponents,higher turnout of Tory core voters…..This combination could boost performanc in key marginals by 2 to 4% points giving an extra swing of the same amount.Could mean all the difference betweenother parties winning and losing.
63. The Kennedy line is that they won’t go into a coalition under FPTP because FPTP is not a system designed to produce coalitions. They are happy to enter coalitions under PR because it is necessary and often desirable. He talks about it on QT, which you can still watch again from the webpage.
Chrisco, Where is the link and what is the date for the Daily Mail article?
Link 59 above. It is in their election coverage so it was since the election was called.
ref 15::The Independant will have no impact except on it’s small band of readers.Mike Smithson is a LD.,he is just spinning the LD John Curtice view.The fact is that every Labour supporter that votes LD as a protest on Thursday will,to some degree,help the Tories.
If the purpose is to punish Labour by helping to replace it with a party that would wage war without even a cursory nod towards the International community,please go ahead.I await the whinging in a couple of years’Oh I didn’t really mean to help vote in this ultra right wing faction’.
I,for one will have no sympathy.
BTW.I recently read that in 1938 more that 10 million people signed an anti war petition backing Chamberlain’s position after Munich.
I wonder how many of them were celebrating in 1945,and praising the ‘wonderful British and American Forces the had defeated Facism.
It’ s a good job that some of us realise that terror and oppression still needs to be confronted.
CK would definately have signed that 1938 petition.
One thing that I’ve found quite surprising is what happens in the scenario (not going to happen this election) that the Liberal vote [i]really[/i] rises and goes above 35%. Concentional wisdom has it that FPTP is hugely biased against LD because the vote is spread evenly. This is absolutely true when LD vote is < 35%. However, when > 35% something remarkable happens: because the vote is spread so even, LDs start winning not just in cities, or just in shires, but almost [i]everywhere[/i]!!
Re-jigging the parties in the 1983 percentages to give a vaguely plausible national result: LD 42.4, Con 27, Lab 25.2 gives the astonishing result of LD majority of 308! Add another percent or two and the majority goes over 500!
Of course, such a one-sided result would outrage supporters of the other parties and would “break” the FPTP system’s credibility forever. The Liberals would have no choice but to implement PR and call a new election!
Yes, well, that is a sensible and useful contribution to the debate Ray, “Kennedy would have signed a petition in 1938 supporting Chamberlain” With your time-travelling insight, could you tell us where he might have stood on the Opium Wars?
63. How can the LDs achieve PR, against unenthusiastic main parties, without some sort of deal? There has never been a better time to try—look at the differences in the main parties’ spending plans.
Ruling out doing deals when all the 3 parties have such similar policies (the divergence in philosophy is rather wider), misses a golden opportunity?
Chrisco @ 61 (&AA @ 58): I daresay you’re both right; but I’m not sure that the points will be clear to the electorate. It must be questionable whether most people have grasped yet that a vote for the party you like most (or maybe dislike least) is usually a wasted vote. In 1997 5159000 voters elected the government (ie cast essential votes to elect a Lab MP); 5550000 were surplus (ie increased a Lab MP’s majority); 3675000 elected other MPs, with 1420000 surplus; but 14694000 voted for a *candidate* who lost. So much advice on how to exert some influence on the electoral process has been spread about in the last eight years that many voters now have an idea about TV; but more than that is doubtful. This brings the argument nicely round to electoral reform, but we’re not likely to solve that problem, or even have much of a discussion about it, here.
new poll forthcoming see next post…………
just kidding, CHILL out everyone
What the hell is happening to Labour supporters on this site today. They seem very nervous (and attacking the Libdems instead the tories).
Cant see John Curtice’s logic. If in a Labour - Tory marginal a previous lab voter votes liberal the only party who can benefit ( assuming that there is no possibilty of the libs winning that constituency)are the Tories.
Seems as much lib spin as earlier guardian articles regarding the danger of the tories winning were written in Victoria Street.
76. No-one’s saying the Tories won’t benefit to some degree jc, but Curtice is demonstrating that you won’t get a Tory governement, which is what Tony Blair has been saying!
76. yes, but you won’t have a tory government, only a Labour government with a reduced majority (which is probably what disaffected Labour voters want).
77. What TB is saying (though he can’t actually say it) is: Lab maj. < 40. Nutters take over party. Total collapse. Tories in within six months (be honest, you blues, that’s what you’re hoping for). If things get tight, Campbell will have to think of a simple way of getting the - vote lib dem - small majority - madhouse - tories in - message across.
This story could have some effect- the story is being quoted by on radio, on paper reviews etc. Andrew Marr is also saying in all his reports that things are lookning good for the LDs. Whether they are or not, there is a feeling of late momentum. I think Iraq has played perfectly, well timed to help rescue a pretty poor campaign at the right time.
Off topic, I assume that all sunday papers will announce their party allegence tomorrow. I think the two interesting ones will be Sunday Times, which may go against the murdoch pattern for Blair, and the Independent on Sunday, which could choose diffreently to it’s sister paper.
Just spoke to my aunt this morning, she used to be Treasurer for the local tory party (Bosworth), she is retired now but still active in the local campaign. I asked her how things were going, she said that she thought thay they would not win, she was rather glum, I dare not ask whether she meant nationally (likley) or Bosworth (shocker). Anyway it provides an alternative to many tories on here who keep saying ‘wait and see’ and its all differnent on the doorstep. Many on here know my political leanings, however I am not ramping or trying to wind people up, that is the truth of our conversation.
Re 68 & 76: I agree with jc and Robert that voting LibDem in a Lab/Con marginal cannot but be bad for Lab and therefore good for Con; but I disagree with Ray that any vote by a disaffected Lab voter for the LibDems is bad. In the 35-odd Con/LibDem marginals it’s the best thing for Lab, even if you want to bring the leadership down a peg or two. We don’t have an electoral system which necessarily allows you to both vote as you want and get what you want.
81. burbachchris, I really think that no tory (including your aunt) is really thinking they could win the election. Their hope is in doing well in terms of seats to have a good chance next time.
Many people are expecting another ‘bombshell’ tomorrow in the papers, I hear it may be a private memo re timing of the war. Any other ideas?
Quite sure of that Andrea, but many tory posters on here quite often suggest otherwise, eg ‘we are getting terrific responce etc etc”, this was just an aside to that to add my forpeneth worth FWIW. Am just repeating what I have heard. PS If it is Bosworth the tories are dead.
I find it fascinating that the figure of 36% for the Tories appears in the Independent article about the Labour to LibDem drift.
Yesterday, on another thread, I pointed out that the current five day ‘poll of polls’ adjusted for poll bias compared to result over the last three GE gave this result:
Labour 33.8 Conservative 35.9 LibDems 22.3
On Baxter this gives seats of:
Labour 311 Conservative 248 LibDems 56
Lab short 13 of majority
Perhaps I am not the only one that has done this calculation? Or pure coincidence?
Re 84: If we assume that the person who leaked the AG’s advice was in a position to see it, it seems to me that they may well have access to that as well. Given that the purpose of the AG leaak was to damage Tony (I think the AG came out well) then I can see that happening.
We would have to wait until the 6th to see its effect though. I am not sure revelations about Iraq are going to cause a shift to the Conservatives to change the government.
Blue2win, not point scoring at all, but the extrapolations you used yesterday were pretty wild, to which I think you even agreed in our post.
What TB is saying (though he can’t actually say it) is: Lab Maj. less than 40, Nutters take over party. Total collapse. Tories in within six months (be honest, you blues, that’s what what you’re hoping for). If things get tight, Campbell will no doubt think of a simple way of making the - vote lib dem - small majority - madhouse - tories in, link clear to lab voters.
I know the us anoraks who spend out time reading blogs like this think “war” stuff will ahve a great imapact. I suspect most voters outside of the westminster (electronic) village dont care about these bomshells. Dont forget an awful lot of people have already voted especially in marginal constituencies.
87. After MH assertion that he would fight an illegal war come what may, you are right, the tories have lost what little credibilty they had on the war. Even TB knew he couldn’t fight an illegal war and tried to make it so.
86. Hardly fascinating. He picked that figure because it is the upper, upper figure of what the Tories might get on a really good day at the polls. The Conservatives are not going to get above that figure on Thursday. Notice how everyone of both big parties becomes so conspiratorial when the Lib Dems get any kind of momentum? They seem to break into a cold sweat when the two-party hegemony appears to get any sort of challenge.
89, If there were a small Labour majority in the scenario you suggest, then that would prove TB comments about voting LibDem. If the majority was so small that a second election was needed in say 6-12 months then, people who voted lib as a protest will think again next time and return to Labour esp as TB will most likely have resigned.
Ray @ 68 - what planet are you on how can voting LD in a LD-Lab marginal or indeed a LD-Con marginal help the Tories?
91: I am glad we agree on the effect, but the war was not illeagal. I summarised the AG’s advice here a when it was first published which is that it could be legal, it might not be, you only find out when it goes before a court, and that is not going to happen. The thing that will (and has) damaged Blair is the way he presented the information.
If it turns out that he was hell bent on war ages ago, that translates into Iraq moving a few more points up the agenda, and a general bleed to the LD’s.
From the Conservatives point of view the GP thing is perfect as they have been going on about a target culture, and as I have said those for whom the system works will not change their vote, those for whom it does not might. (Which way is the question here).
So there are still undercurrents going all ways. If you add to that my expected LD to Con net swing this election is still unpredictable.
I have other information which leads me to believe that surprises are on the cards. I would not want to be Ruth Kelly for example.
89. How does that square with a “senior Labour official” (read Campbell) telling Nick Robinson that they were heading for a three-figure majority?
The problem for the Libs in making themselves the war protest party, what happens when the protest is done? We have been here before, remember 1983, did not the alliance get something like 26% of the vote with 13 seats.
Benedict, if you know saddam has no wmd, then surely he cannot be in breach of UN sanctions. AG said the war was legal because he was shown ‘evidence’ that saddam had wmd and thus was in breach of UN resolutions, that is why his opinion was firm on 17th March and balanced on 7th March. FWIW there was a good moral case to go to war with Saddam, but not legal if you know there were no wmd, TB beleived there were given the evidence he saw, and so would most people if they took the time to read it.
97. Given that the Lib Dems go into this election with 55 seats, I’m not sure that is a very helpful comparison.
Which [93] brings us back to that old chestnut - what is the smallest majority Blair can get that allows him to quit at a time of his own choosing and not other people’s? D’you know, I’ve been here since - well it feels like decades
- and I’m none the wiser
93. Does it not rather depend on what havoc the left had wrought (the markets, foreign affairs, government paralysis) during that 6 to 12 months?
Good heavens. The possibility of the first Jewish Prime Minister in over a hundred years and even the Jewish chronicle is in as many words saying vote Labour!
ref82::Pob,your obviously correct.My post contained ’short hand’.,I was wound up by Mike’s bias in the haedline.Yes I agree that it would not be a bad thing if Labour supporters voted LD in LD/CON AND Con/LD Marginals.All other cases it’s good for Tories if Labour vote LD
96. I’d say Nick’s off spin is as good, if not better (given his media position), than Campbells leg spin.
98. Not strictly true burbach. Iraq was in breach if it was demonstrated that they were not co-operating with the weapons inspectors.
104. Not quite sure what you mean John. Are you implying that Robinson made up the quote?
RE 98: Sorry, this is a bit of a symantic point. The AG gave advice on the legality of the war on the 7th of March 2003. That advice did not change, nor was he asked for further advice. What he gave on the 17th was an asnswer to the question “Is there a legal basis for war with Iraq?” (Or words tho that effect). That means just give us the good bits and no downside. In that sense the two are entirely compatable. The AG has stressed that the latter was NOT a summary of the former. Where TB is in trouble is in telling the house the latter WAS a summary of the former which was unequivocal. (If you could find a lawyer to give such an advice he would have to be either American or no good). The same applies to the weapons dossier.
Now on the MH stance, it is again a symantic point. We could not have confirmed there were no WMD’s but what we did know was that he was breaching UN resolutions, so the AG’s advice stands. The war is legal, but if it went before a court it might take a different view but as that is not going to happen don’t worry.
So, MH won’t pick up any anti war vote (actually he will, but I will explain why on May 6th) but he will pick up some of the don’t trust vote.
Tim @ 80: I’m surprised to hear you say that the LibDem campaign has been poor. (You’re a LibDem supporter, aren’t you? If not, my apologies). You seem to be judging it on its dynamism; but you’ll notice that the LD poll ratings keep rising, CK becomes more popular even when he blunders, and both the major parties have started to attack them. Everyone loves the team that goes for all-out attack, but sometimes the team that absorbs all the early pressure wins; and from his and their point of view, I’d say CK and his party are doing well, with prospects (but still only prospects) of an excellent result. I don’t know if that’s good news for the country.
I normally ignore criticisms of news media bias but does anyone agree that Nick Robinson seems to be a man on a mission?
But Chrisco, Blix said that Saddam was cooperating (just enough mind) and that no weapons had been found up to the point when we went to war, TB went to war on intelligence evidence that suggested that Saddam did have WMD. Because of the war we know he didn’t.
100. There’s some confusion here. The nutters do not include Brown. Blair would’nt quit; he and Brown would simply be unable to act. End of government.
Wasn’t Nick Robinson head of tory youth or something at one time.
112. That may well be, and I don’t doubt that his coverage is a little to the right, in the same way that Marr is a little to the left, but I don’t think anyone could lay the charge that he goes around making up quotes, which is what John seemed to be implying.
100. The Times is suggesting 50 Labour MPs are opposing Blair’s main plans for third term. ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1575465,00.html).
I think that it’ll depend also from the views of new candidates selected for safe seats. It seems that Brown was able to place all his men in safe seats,while Blair struggled to place his own men.
Some MPs of the “hard-left” are retiring, but what views do their replacement have? For ex. in Halifax Alice Mahon’s replacement is apparently as leftwinged as her.
106. My 50 years of experience of these matters suggests that the safest assumption is they make everything up. Robinson has also been an officer of a number of tory organisations, of course.
Nick Robinson has proven himself to be a prat
115. Paranoia, John, paranoia.
116. That is also true, and he does present his stories from a right-wing perspective, but none of these things suggest that he is going around making up quotes from “senior Labour officials”. His decision to report the prediction of a three-figure majority may have been politically based, but the Labour official still said it!
As this site is ‘politicalbetting.com’ - I was hoping to get more on odds, spreads, arbitrage and chance - and less party political hype.
I don’t mind (or even want to know) which way contributors might vote - but I would appreciate some unbiased thoughts on strategies for making a few quid.
[Re 100] Andrew Marr of the BBC was reporting on this what seems like years ago - but was probably only last week!
He had talked to several Labour MPs and got the impression that the magic figure was about 50.
Several other threads on this site have also quoted this number of 50, due to the probable make up of the new House of Commons, where there would be fewer Blairites, and more MPs who quite frankly “hate his guts”. (This is known as biting the hand that feeds you!).
Anyhow, a majority of less than 50 and TB is out in weeks. If TB gets over 100 he picks and chooses when he wants to go. Majority of 50-100 is more of a grey area.
Without being partisan, Nick Robinson did make a prat of himself when he harangued Blair at his press conference in Dover. Would not be suprised to see Robinson moved after election. Could not see Brunson doing that sort of thing.
113. Re-reading your post - it’s you that’s making it up! “Read Campbell” …
Its good to see the tories setting the bar so high for Blairs downfall. If there is a smaller Labour majority, you must also remember that disgruntled Labour MP’s are less likely to rebel because they know they can’t get away with it like they can now. After all they are all Labour and I suggest only a few are really hard left anymore, (See Sedgemore with the Liberals), Turkeys won’t vote for Christmas and bring about the end of their own govt for a tory one. So think on.
123.Burbachchris, do you really think that they won’t try to oust him as soon as possible if they have the opportunity?
117. end of correspondence.
119. Bets that I am in on that I am happy with on the spreads are Lib Dems to win Bristol West and Lib Dem vote share, which I bought at 21.75 and is now at 22.5. I am also in on Lib Dem second places, which I bought at 138, and which I am now in profit on. I am going to stay in on it, but I am not sure just how much more value there is in it now. Mike still seems to think that the ’seats changing hands’ market has value, I think…
122. Sorry John, I don’t follow.
It depends on who ‘they’ are. As I say, Turkeys won’t vote for Christmas, and now as GB has said he would have done the same as Tb over the war, who else will they elect. Cook? That would be Turkeys voting for Christmas and Easter and if they did they can kiss my vote goodbye.
119. This has been an increasing problem here over the last two weeks or so. Anyone suggesting anything other than the orthodoxy that Labour will get a majority of 80 or more is in danger of getting flamed, as I found to my cost a while back - or was until today- Now it seems that we are not allowed to say that voting Liberal democrat is will do anything other than catapault Michael Howard into power.
Essentially some people have already placed their bets and stand to lose a lot of money if Labours majority goes below 50
108- I think the campaign is going well now, in particular the last week, but I think the first two weeks were not as well managed by the national party as they could have been. There was a sense of being pushed aside by the other two, and that our views were not being heard. Since QT, the Iraq advice etc, I think we have momentum, and a clear ‘the only party to oppose Iraq’ messsage, which may last until polling day.
Concerning today main storied on newspapers, am I the only one to think that the Guardian top story is a non story? Isn’t it normal that an hunt lobby wants to oust ant hunting MPs?
What’s next? A Daily Mail’s story about Stonewall wanting to oust anti-gay rights MPs or a Sun’s story about an anti-war organization wanting to oust pro-war MPs?
Andrea, after each election the number of hard left MP’s seems to get less not more, New Labour machine makes sure of that, I don’t really see many new ‘old left’ firebrands on tv calling to a return to Bennite politics. They are all in Respect now. As for the number of unsatisfied Labour MP’s, i’d rather call that journalistic ramping.
125. Oh, you are a fickle thing John. You freely throw around abuse and threaten to give people a hiding and think all is fine and dandy, whereas I call you paranoid and you go into a huff. And you with so many years of maturity!
Paul@129::correct a lot of money,and I mean a lot!!
I don’t know how typical I am, but I always voted Tory, totally hacked off with them 97 / 01, didn’t vote. This time still not overly enamoured with Tories but truly alarmed with Blair’s attacks on freedom & the labour mindset that public spending / more tax is where we should be going, hence return to the fold first time in 8 years. My prediction expected Lab 50 -70 majority, shock hung parliament, or Labour +100
126. in your 96, you decided it was Campbell who was being quoted. You made it up.
Any thoughts on Labour leader after Brown? I’ve only seen Ed Balls recently although I have read about him, he comes across as charasmatic, more so than say Milliband or Alexander. Maybe by then they would go for a woman like Yvette Cooper, but not Ruth Kelly.
127. they’ll elect Brown and they will start to detest him after a couple of days. Some are probably hoping to hold some ministerial posts with a Brown government (Clare Short, Dobson, Cook).
134, Well you have covered just about everything with your predictions there
132. So, it was you who wanted a hiding. No wonder you’re so touchy.
Knutsford heath a midnight. Name the day.
Any thoughts on Labour leader after Brown? I’ve only seen Ed Balls recently although I have read about him, he comes across as charasmatic, more so than say Milliband or Alexander. Maybe by then they would go for a woman like Yvette Cooper, but not Ruth Kelly.
134 what sort of prediciton is that lol. You covered pretty much everything
135. My suspicion is that it was Alistair Campbell, because when journalists are briefed by him he is usually quoted as “a senior Labour official”. If you have any better suggestions as to who this might be I am happy to hear them.
Andrea are you a tory, because this is tory fantasy land, Dobson, Short and Cook have as much chance of being in the Cabinet as Donal Duck, Mickey Mouse and Goofy, who would of course all do a better job.
To the person who runs this site.
“Spinning out of control”.
This is a general comment. During the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign it was obvious that you were supporting Kerry and you predicted what you wanted to happen. It didn’t happen. You have yourself been a Liberal Democrat candidate and now are spinning, wittingly or unwittingly, on their behalf on your site. Otherwise your site is really quite good.
88 Burbachchris I certainly did not say they were wild, only that they are an extrapolation, and like all extrapolations are unlikely to be absolutely correct. They are a scenario based on the past and current factors available. If there is a factor that I do not know that is critical, it could all be tosh. I would think the consituency effects could be that factor but so far it seems to me that only reinforces this extrapolation.
Certain facts are clear: the bias in the polls in the last three General elections had been massively pro Labour at well over 4%.
The same polls have underestimated the Tories by over 2% in 2001 and more than twice that in 1992. The polls have both over estimated and underestimated the LibDems by about 1%.
The average of non-tracker polls (they have too high a margin of error to be used as vote predictors) gives a Labour lead of 5%.
The bias is in the range of +4% to Labour, -3% to the Conservatives and -0.75% for the LibDems.
I let you do the sums again for yourself. You will still get Labour short of a majority.
Looking at this logically, 36% for the Tories is only 3.3% more than they got in 2001. In the 2004 local elections the national equivalent vote was Conservative 37% Labour 26% and LibDems 27% . So by no means impossible at all. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-049.pdf
So unless the last few polls are dramatically different then its fairly much open season on the Labour majority.
Expect to see Blair bring Ed Balls (unfortunate name for politician tho, ‘Another Balls up etc etc”, bit like Major Balls), into junior ministerial post after election, with Brown making him Chancellor when he becomes PM, a pretty meteoric rise.
142. It doesn’t have to be anybody, so it isn’t!
108 I agree with you, I’m inclined to call the LibDem campaign bad, but they do keep on creeping up. I also get the feeling that the Iraq/liar punch-up is best avoided. It’s like three blokes chatting up a woman. Two get into a macho fight. The third looks after the woman and makes her feel safe. Who gets the date? The two blokes with teeth missing and bloody shirt of the nice bloke who held her hand?
Re 138 and 141, I have made similar predictions with no critisism. I believe it is as wide open as that. I have reasons for saying so which I will explain on May 6th.
Blue2win, I expect much of the margin of error in these polls to be small, given the relative stability of the polls (given some that are outside trend). Even so I think a result of Lab 37, Con 35, Lib 25 would not be far fetched, giving a majority of about 80, which is what the market seems to be saying.
P101 ceefax says, HOWARD,’WOULD NOT RELY ON CHARISMA’. Discuss.
145. Bear in mind the ICM’s last poll in 2001 for the Guardian only had Labour 1% over what they actually got (you chose to pick their Evening Standard poll which had a disproportionate number of London voters in it which they than factored down).
147. Yes John, senior political commentators are now making up quotes to damage the Labour campaign/turnout. Of course…
143. The Times was suggesting this (April 19th):
“Some former members of the Government on the list of 50 published here probably harbour hopes of a comeback under Mr Brown. These include Clare Short, George Mudie and Frank Dobson, while backbenchers who have never reached ministerial office may think they would have a better chance under a new prime minister. “
Anch’io, Andrea. But I was really looking for a bit of advice on how this affects the bets, rather than anything else. I suppose Mike is right in terms of