The Great Conjurer does it again
May 30th, 2005
-
After the French NON will Blair now serve a full third term?
In April last year Tony Blair came under huge criticism for agreeing to a UK referendum on the EU constitution. Many commentators saw the sort-term gain of taking the wind out of Conservatives’ sails ahead of the Euro election campaign but Tony Blair would still have to deliver on the commitment. A prevalent view was that he had made a huge mistake but now the whole treaty issue looks as though it has been kicked into touch.
-
The French vote means, surely, that the Prime Minister has had all the political benefit of agreeing to a referendum without actually having to hold it - for us he is the Great Conjurer
Just two weeks ago the spread-betting market on how long Tony Blair’s third term will last offered a range of 80-89 weeks starting from the second week of May 2005. Today the same market from Spreadfair has 94-102 weeks which takes us until April 2007.
All the thinking had been that Tony Blair’s intention would be to fight the UK EU Constitution referendum campaign and then step aside for Gordon Brown shortly afterwards. Next year was by far and away the favourite for his departure year.
The Gordon Brown camp had been hoping that a suitable moment for the Prime Minister to leave would be after leading a successful referendum campaign. Now that the EU Constitutional treaty looks dead it is hard to see what political event could trigger Tony Blair’s departure.
He has said that he wants to serve a full third term – maybe we ought to believe him? William Hill’s When will Blair go will surely see revised prices this morning. The current odds on the year of his departure are:-
2005 – 2/1: 2006 5/4: 2007 5/1: 2008 11/2: 2009 12/1: after January 1 2010 20/1
As a general rule we do not like these long-term markets where you hand over money to the bookmaker for years but if unchanged those 2008/9 look quite attractive.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Alternative view is that the disappearance of the prospect of a referendum gives Brown one less reason for wanting to wait too long.
The logical point for Blair to stand down would be May 2007 after ten years as PM, it would also mean that Brown’s honeymoon period would be closer to a general election in 2009 (not that it would last till the election).
The question however is would the party allow him to remain as leader for that long, we have elections in the major cities next May, and Blair as the Labour leader for that campaign does not exactly improve the party’s chances in many of these urban areas, in London in particular I think that there will be some hefty losses at the local level.
But would Blair step down sooner rather than latter because he could damage the election chances of the party’s councillors? Or would he merely see it as another “challenge”? I fear it might be the latter.
The rejection of the Treaty means the timing of Blair’s departure is an issue to be decided by internal party warfare rather than “events”. Good news for the other parties?
Do you think he should step down before May 2006, Ben?
I agree with you about London. It’s hard to see Labour retaining Hammersmith, Croydon, Merton, Bexley, Camden, Brent, or Tower Hamlets, and they may be in trouble in Haringey and Ealing as well. Elsewhere, Manchester might well fall to the Lib Dems next year.
Mr Smithson not too disrespectful i hope, but has a market opened on Cheadle yet? As a Liberal Democrat an op-ed piece by you would be most welcome. Cheers.
I know it’s slightly off-topic, but what do the polls say about the likely result in the Dutch referendum?
If it is ‘Yes’, TB may be encouraged to stay longer to fight the EU corner. If on the other hand, it’s another resounding ‘No’, even TB may give up on the Constitution.
Ben 2 - so what is the party going to do about it if Blair just stays and does what he said and seeks to have a full third term? Unlike the Tories who are ruthless in these situations Labour will, in my view, just carry on with their exceptional election winner.
To 5. I’ll be doing a piece on Cheadle during this week - but today is too soon and the big story is the French NO.
I do think the Lib Dems ought to call the by-election quickly while the Tories are focussed on the leadership.
8 Mike. They probably have to get their act together this week to get a date for a byelection in Cheadle by early July. Otherwise they will have to wait for September. And that will affect conference season: which they might want to do
At risk of sounding ghoulish, might not all the extra meetings which might be involved by unpicking the crisis left by the Non vote put a further strain on Blair’s health?
As for Cheadle, it’s interesting. Much (if not all) the increase in LD majority at the GE was down to a personal vote for Calton (which her successor won’t have). But, then again, as in the 1977 Grimsby by-election which followed the similarly premature death of Tony Crosland, it may well be that the party which holds the seat enjoys a strong sympathy vote in tribute to a well-respected constituency MP. Grimsby was held by Labour on the same day that it lost the (on paper) much safer Notts mining seat of Ashfield on a swing of around 20%.
7,8,9 - another precedent would be the by-election following David Penhaligon’s premature death in a car accident.
7. Counter Point Mr Smithson is that going early constituents may be suffering from Voter fatigue, paricularly all those Labor Voters that they so effectively squeezed there in the General Election. With the Tory GOTV Drive vast ly improved as even LD’s admitted in the GE this may help them. Also you can imagine Leadership Candidates flocking there to show their “altruism” and Campaign. I expect you to hold but a good deal less comfortbaly if you go early especially with the loss of Carlton’s personal vote. You View?
Also 2&7 You may be right but the alternative Mr Smithson is renewed and non stop biyching by the Brown Camp and the less orderly any succession becomes and the more inclined to rebellion to quicken the pace BRownites become, TB must be aware of that unless of course he quite happy to sit on a disintegrating mound purely to shaft Gordon’s chances at the next General Election. What do you think?
Cheers.
There are other factors on TB’s premiership that could have equal weight. One issue that people seemed to have written off as a ‘one off election special’ is Iraq. But the deaths keep coming. The talk is of a major offensive by the Iraqi Gov (supported no doubt by American and or British troops) in the next few weeks. If this fails then hopes of an early transfer to a broader ‘occupation’ of UN peacekeepers would probably recede. The question is, will the occupation still be going on in 4 years, and if so will it still be as hard and dirty as say Vietnam? Fighting well organised guerrila’s is a draining morale sapping process. If the deaths keep coming, and the solutions seemingly elusive for this Govt. will it not remain a significant factor in the next GE.
6.Dutch polls have the no leading. If I’ve understood well, the Dutch government will take in consideration the referendum result only if the turnout will be more than 30%.
12 - especially if by then the insurgency has moved onto the next phase and uncovered its own Rommell.
14. You mayt not mean it the way i think you do Tabman but it is little bit distasteful to compare monsters and Psychopaths like Al-Zarqawi to Rommel is it not?
12 - Hi Graham , I agree that it is wrong to write off Iraq as a 1 election issue . As with any occupation of troops in a foreign country whether wellcomed or not , a determined and motivated guerilla force can inflict casualties and damage even when their numbers are small and irrespective of whether they have great support amongst the local population . Years of conflict could lie ahead as in Vietnam and Northern Ireland and the chance of a UN force bailing out Bush and Blair is nil .
15 - I mean it in the way that Rommell was a brilliant military strategist who was able to inflict damage on superior forces by superior thinking.
Mark, whereabouts are you from?
Tabman. Gunner Who?
Rommel has one ‘l’ - unlike Kinkel with 2 ls
20 , Graham , I’m trying to discourage my son from posting as Kinkell, I dread to think what trouble he’d cause as Rommell , Rommel or Rommel with 2 lls !!
19 - Mr Lad-di-da Gunner Graham! http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/479586/
20 - hmmm, if its not too many ‘l’s its that blasted gappy punctuation …
Re [7-10] - First, I do find this topic slightly ghoulish just now, but maybe I’m old-fashioned…
I’m not sure how helpful the cited precedents are. I’m not sure when it was that the Lib Dems or their predecessors in title last lost a parliamentary by-election when they were defending the seat, other than that it was a very long time ago… Truro (David Penhaligon’s seat) was considered safe; I think the previous by-election where they were defending was Montgomeryshire in 1962, when they had the Orpington bounce.
Factors favouring the Tories: well-known candidate in place (ex-MP for the seat); victory would give them the magic 200 (assuming they hold South Staffs).
Factors working against the Tories: “sympathy” vote, “caretaker” leader situation, likely collapse of third-party (i.e. Labour) vote in by-election conditions - can’t imagine Labour will do anything to impede a Lib Dem win in the circumstances.
23 - unless they’re still smarting locally about adjacent Withington and fancy some spoiling. Although that would be a dangerous game for reasons cited above (magic 200, early bandwagon etc).
Ah but where does Richard Willis fit into this scenario Tabman - forces, amateur dramatics. It all adds up… If I am La-di-da Gunner Graham, shall we call you ‘Gloria’ if you are out there Rik?
25 , Graham , and pray who is the Punka Wallah or is that Punka Waller !!
[25] - You’ve cracked it
18 - Hi Tabman I live down on South Coast in Worthing previously Brighton but originally from Blackpool truly a seaside boy LOL .
Re Cheadle , I suspect the sympathy vote will work in Lib Dem favour but it will be interesting who their candidate is . The Truro byelection was ii a safe seat although it was argued at the time it was only safe because of a personal vote for David Penhaligon . There was a decent swing nevertheless to Matthew Taylor
Anthony Blair, certainly is a clever politician.
There is no chance now of a referendum in the uk on this treaty.
When he announced it, he was heavily critized by most of the media, his own side etc.
Nevertheless it put europe to bed as an issue in the election,and finished off one of the tories best issues.
The gamble paid off.
Jack @21. So has the identity of the Bonkers (Bonking?) Baron now been revealed? And is “Sarah J” also one of your progeny? Sigh, how we miss her? May she return if only for a valedictory smite….
Re Cheadle the Labour vote was totally squeezed on May 5th which is why the LDs held on with such a big increase in the majority. In 2001 Labour got 14% of the vote there - four weeks ago the party chalked up just 8.8%. So there’s probably not a lot to squeeze.
There were also 13,000 postal votes which will stay valid for the by-election.
Sean
Personally, and I stress that, I think that Blair should stand down at the party conference in October, he has in my view been a good leader of the party and a good PM but IMHO it now the time for him to stand aside, that said he won’t do it.
An leadership election in the new year would see a Brown leadership by the early spring and would mean the local elections would fall right in the middle of any honeymoon period, boost our chances patricianly in the northern cities and parts of London.
But unless that happens the local elections in London are going to be a mess IMHO. “Respect” are going to make a big effort in Tower Hamlets and are also going to make an effort in Hackney I would expect they may make some gains in the latter but in Tower Hamlets they are going to emerge as a sizable group on the council perhaps even taking control.
In the more prosperous areas like Hammersmith, Croydon and Merton I would be surprised if we held on with the current leadership and I would expect we’d lose pretty convincingly, as for Bexley I don’t know isn’t it part of Greenwich council and IIRC Labour are pretty solidly ensconced there so I doubt we’d lose it.
There was no evidence back in 2004 that Teather had sufficient coattails to turf Labour out of control in Brent where the party currently have 35 to the LDs 10 and the Tories 18 councillors, I expect the Labour numbers to be cut but I doubt we’d lose control of the authority.
Camden is an area I know well and the local Labour leadership are a pretty competent bunch that said in February 03 on the same day as the anti-war protests in London a by-election in Labour’s safest ward produced a LD councillor, while feelings may be less inflamed now, I expect the LDs will be able to make some headway in wards like Primrose Hill and Kenntish Town perhaps even into St Pancras while the Tories should make gains in Hampstead Town and Bloomsbury as with Brent I doubt the LDs could destroy Labour’s majority completely but I would expect it to be drastically reduced.
Outside of London, I can’t say I know enough about Manchester though the result in Withington and the other Manchester seats doesn’t suggest that Labour’s position in the city isn’t very strong but nor is it sufficiently weak to suggest the Labour group will lose control of the city… I’d like to know what people from the city its self think but I doubt Labour’ll lose it this time around.
Liverpool might be interesting, I don’t expect any change of leadership as the LDs have a very hefty majority but it has been reported that cuts introduced by the LD authority has undermined support for the LDs particularly in the predominantly white working class wards, it won’t be enough for them to lose the city but they may lose some seats back to Labour.
Mike
I’m afraid I would agree, when ever his leadership comes under pressure Blair becomes even more convinced he must stay and clings on for dear life, witness Iraq and its repercussions.
As things stand now I expect he’ll go at some point which he sees as fitting, but without a referendum on the EU constitution that defining point in time is harder to see, the most likely date would appear to be May 2007, unless internal pressure from his own party, the trades unions or political defeat forces him out against his will but as I say where things to turn against him or where he to face pressure to go his desire to stay would just be strengthened… so I think it’s largely up to him.
Bronwen Maddox in The Times has a rather different view of Blair’s role in this. His desire to ‘do’ the Tories prior to the last Euro elections and gain a minor advantage, bounced France and the Netherlands into calling referendums. Not very smart.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1633536,00.html
But that vote will probably remain squeezed Mike. The question is - can the Tories fight a by-election - they couldn’t in the last parliament (wet paper bags spring to mind) - but do the changes instituted by Crosby extend to this kind of scrap?
I think on this one it would be hard to bet against Rennard et al - but who knows?
Much as I argued earlier about the way people talk in certainties about the Iraq War - I also think that the certainty that Brown will take over from Blair is also a bit presumptious. Hands up who thought that it was going to be John Major who took over from Mrs T? (not me). Politics is a strange old game - and I think that it is too early in the game to speak with such certainty.
Graham at 34 - this by-election is a different kettle of fish - we got a good kicking in the previous by-elections because they were all in Labour heartlands and the disillusioned voters were on the left, not the right of the Labour vote.
Re. 35, I did - as soon as Major and Hurd threw their hats into the second ballot ring (and really a year before that, when Tebbit tipped him).
Re. 32, there’s a lot in what you say, Ben, but a regional organiser I know definitely wants Brown to take over in 07 or 08 so he can go the country in 09 while he’s still enjoying a honeymoon. On the other hand, should this happen, he’s not looking to attending a GE count on Thursday, a local election count on Friday, and a Euro-election count on Sunday…
Mark @ 28 - another Worthing resident! In fact, if I’m correct, you may well be in my area. Give me an email at james.doyle@wor-ld.org.uk
Sorry that should read ‘he’s not looking forward to’….
Ben - “as for Bexley I don’t know isn’t it part of Greenwich council and IIRC Labour are pretty solidly ensconced there so I doubt we’d lose it”.
Bexley is the borough directly to the east of Greenwich. While Labour dominate the north of the borough, in Thamesmeead, Abbey Wood and Erith, most of the rest of the borough is suburbia where Labour made little impression until the 1994 local elections and 1997. The Tories won the popular vote in Bexley in 2002 but failed to take the council, and David Evenett succeeded in retaking Bexleyheath and Crayford from Nigel Beard, so the Tories can afford to be confident here.
A further squeeze on the Labour vote in Cheadle seems quite possible given the precedents in by-elections where the contest is clearly between Con and LD:
Newbury 1993 - Lab down from 6% to 2%
Christchurch 1993 - Lab down from 12.1% to 2.7%
Winchester 1997 - Lab down from 10.5% to 1.7%
Romsey 2000 - Lab down from 18.6% to 3.7%
Labour in Cheadle shouldn’t be planning on getting their deposit back.
30 , John O , I posted on an earlier thread that the Baron of many spellings was/is my lad, soon to ensconced in some nothern ivory tower(all food outlets and rugby clubs are hereby forwarned). He is my only child and I’m not aware that he has any tranvestite tendencies apart from the usual ones associated with Rugby Club dinners.
i think it will do labour good in the long run for the tories to win cheadle. If the tories take it and take it well it means that the lib dems will have the starkest indication that their “heartlands” are at risk and that by continuing to strive to the left of labour they will lose more than the stand to gain.
if the lib dems move more to the centre it will make it harder for the tories to take the lib dem seats they won off them in 97, seats which they need to win to win a genreal election.
also it would stop some of our disulussioned voters moving to the lib dems when they arnt happy with everything we do.
OTOH Lorcan, those were all held when the Cons were considered the joint enemy of the ‘centre-left’ Lab/Lib ‘alliance’. The scene has shifted somewhat - and the votes that the LDs gained from Lab in 05 were not so much ‘tactical anti-tory’ as ‘p***ed off centre-left’. However, it does seem that the good people of Cheadle were more than happy with their LD MP last time - are they ready to shift back only a month or 2 later. My guess would still be no & that a combination of a strong local party, the LD by-election team and sympathy / proximity to the last election will be a strong enough combination of factors - but politics is as I keep saying, an unpredictable game and there are no certainties!
42 - if that’s so, Jack, then he’s inheritted some of your idiosyncracies.
I do miss the good Baron - although i nearly had to invest in a new laptop the time that I had to splurt out a mouthful of coffee when reading one of his missives.
Re [23] - I made an error. The Tories have 197 seats to-day, so no magic for Cheadle!
45 - Only one? Jack - Thanks. I missed his outing on the Thread of Revelations. Smart lad. His first post was the most hilarious: he claimed to be a moderate and (thoughtfully) disillusioned Tory. What satire - he certainly fooled me
45, Tabman , Yes , I regret his style does owe something to the old man - quirks and all . Spookily I remember reading some of his early teenage English essays and thought I was reading my own work of 30 years ago. The difference is that his adolesence and recent literary outpourings are far superiour to my own efforts.
The only other gift he has inherited from me is the love of rugby. All his other talents come from his mother , thank goodness.
Ben, the reason I mentioned Camden is that Labour only won 33% of the vote there in 2002, but got two thirds of the seats, many on very small majorities.
On current trends, I’d expect the Conservatives to take one or more seats in Bloomsbury, plus a couple more around Hampstead, either the Conservatives or Greens to take Highgate, and for the Lib Dems to poll to take seats in the South of the borough, in addition to their existing strongholds. I think it’ll go to No Overall Control.
I can’t see Respect winning overall control in Tower Hamlets, but I think the Tories will pick up several seats in Docklands, and combined with a number of gains for Respect, should see the council go to No Overall Control.
In Brent, I think the Lib Dems will poll strongly in the wards making up Brent East, and probably gain enough seats from Labour (and Conservatives) to make it No Overall Control. In Brent North, Labour will be very vulnerable in Fryent, and maybe, Queensbury, if the results are poor overall in London.
OTOH, I don’t see Labour facing any real problems in Hackney, even if Respect and the Tories gain the odd seat here and there. Newham will probably see big Labour losses to Respect, but I think the Labour lead if too big there to be in danger.
47 , John O , Yes , I advised him to establish some credentials before pouring forth - disallusioned moderate tory morphes into raving Scots Baron . All other work was his own . Even though I am his father (the wife swears to it) I had several good laughs at his posts , I don’t think they went too amiss.
We should spare a thought for Patsy Carlton’s final months - they must have been pretty awful. Presumably she knew she was in decline, but out of loyalty to her party didn’t stand down at the last minute. It’d be nice to think we’d all be as unselfish.
Ben at 2: there is nothing immutable about a general election in 2009. I currently expect TB to serve most of the Parliament and the new leader (presumably Gordon) to call an election for a renewed mandate shortly afterwards; I expect him to get it, too. In the PLP at least, and I think the wider party, pressure for an early TB departure has largely evaporated - the extreme critics are widely seen as having overreached themselves - and I doubt if Gordon wants to have 3 years of corrosive press nagging before he can go for a mandate.
As for the by-election/delayed election, I think the Tories will find both results below their General Election showing. Their supporters seem pretty fed up at the moment, with even the Mail ticking them off. In the great scheme of things, though, by-elections this early in the Parliament aren’t going to have a great deal of long-term impact.
In the Sunday Times this week , there was an article by a US neocon who suggested the Conservative policy should be to cut taxes by at least 10% but not to cut spending to go with it . I can imagine the ridicule that British Conservatives would pour on Labour or the Lib Dems if they proposed a similar policy .
Sorry that the existence of the London Borough of Bexley has eluded the leicester wunderkind. The 200,000 or so inhabitants must imagine they live in a virtual world.
Abbey Wood, incidentally is in Greenwich although the ruins of Lesnes Abbey (from which Abbey Wood is named) are in Bexley and theer is a (marginal) ward called Lesnes Abbey.
Likewise Hackney is no Respect target, it is Newham which as far more like Tower Hamlets, but then the Nostradumus of Leicester thought Oona King (a good campaigner and a good politician) would hold her seat and Sarah Teather would lose Brent East.
Word from the Brent East count is that the Lib Dems won every ward but Queens Park, assuming they win all of them next year and retain their nine seats in Brent South, then Labour are out of control in Brent.
Whilst on Camden, Kings Cross is safer for Labour (48.9% of the vote) than Haverstock (45.4%) where the Lib Dems won the by election.
Perhaps a little local knowledge would help before commenting on London from Leicester
Stand corrected concerning Abbey Wood. Interesting about Brent East wards: would the “Teather effect” really percolate downards? I could see them taking Brondesbury Park, Dudden Hill and Mapesbury, certainly. Of course, with the next GE in mind, the LDs would be wise pay particular attention to the three wards going to H&K, and I expect them to make a big effort in the Camden wards of the new constituency.
The Preston and Fryent by-elections in Brent next month will definitely bear watching.
54.”Brondesbury Park, Dudden Hill and Mapesbury, ”
I know Brondesbury Park is a tory ward, but the others two are labour wards?
Yes for Dudden Hill - one Tory in Mapesbury, and the LDs have one councillor in Brondesbury.
55 - Preston is an ultra safe Conservative ward , the Conservatives should be disappointed if they fail to gain Fryent . The Lib Dems polled poorly in both wards in 2002 .
Awww… puir wee Gordie. Dose nasty frenchmen have taken away his wowwipop…
Add that to the coming Gordon Brown recession and the growing issue of the Scottish Raj. I can see a wee tantrum brewing there.
59 , Independence , Or… GB doesn’t give a frogs leg for the referendum , the econonomy sails relatively smoothly on (How many times have the tories cried recession in recent years) and the country doesn’t care if another Scot is running the country as long as they are doing a solid job - Labour majority 30 .
57 - The Lib Dem councillor in Brondesbury Park was elected in 2002 as a Conservative polling substantially more votes than her fellow Conservative councillors . There is presumably some more local history to this , which I unfortunately do not know .
Nick
As I’ve said my only compliant about Blair’s continued leadership of the party is the threat that it could potentially pose in the local government campaigns between now and the next general election, in many areas good labour administrations have lost out largely thanks to voters using their vote to “give Blair a kicking” if Blair remains for another three or perhaps four years I worry about the damage this could do our already depleted base of councillors.
I am not a fan of the “awkward squad”, who are past masters at doing more harm than good, and politically I’m very much on the revisionist wing (even if I can be very tribal at times) of the party but that does not blind me to the fact that Blair is for many voters a reason not to vote Labour and at the local level Labour will suffer for this while a different leader with a different“ tone” such as Brown would prove far less alienating for most voters and could dramatically improve our chances in the local elections, by cementing our base of support, which was shown to be very flaky in the general election, and offering a “fresh start”.
Blair’s exit should not be rushed or chaotic or construed as “forced” but I think he should go at some point over the next few months.
It is of course not fair to blame simply our leadership for the challenge the party will face at the local elections over the next few years, while in Leicester we are highly likely to regain overall control by a solid margin (looking at the results at the general election count) else where problems with local party leadership and coordination from the national party are going to hamper any campaign… but we will see.
As for “ Save us from Ben” glad to see that some good ol’d fashioned vote-05 idiocy has survived that forums passing…from your tone and “insight” you sound like one of the Crawley street organisers but perhaps not, but if you are you must be somewhat annoyed that after throwing everything at Leicester South you lost five out of seven wards to Labour and one to the Tories.
Ben 62. I just cannot see Blair going in “a few months”. He’s just won a third election on the trot - the first ever Labour leader to achieve that. He’s seen off no less than four leaders of the opposition and he has a comfortable majority. So there are many in the party who do not like him - but what are they going to do about it?
What causes parties to oust their leaders is when they see a General Election calamity ahead. That’s not the case.
I don’t think that TB will be especially concerned about losing more council seats. He’s taken most of the remiaining powersw from local councillors so why should anybody be bothered about them any more.
I think Nick has got this right. Blair might, or might not, step down ahead of the next election. He could, of course, find a reason to go on even longer.
“All the thinking had been that Tony Blair’s intention would be to fight the UK EU Constitution referendum campaign and then step aside for Gordon Brown shortly afterwards.” Not on the inside, I suspect. Brown has shown little sign of wanting Blair to go sooner rather than later in this parliament. The continued erosion of the local government base should indeed worry Labour, but Brown is going to want to take over relatively close to the gen. election, to benefit from the ‘honeymoon’, and TB will definitely want to beat Thatcher’s record if he can. I still say that will be the trigger for the change of leader. It’s true that GB could still be outmanoeuvred for the leadership, in the name of finding someone who will save the vulnerable seats in the South, but it’s pretty hard to work out who could do that- Jack Straw seems about the best possibility (Charles Clark is surely too unappealing), and he’s too connected with Iraq in people’s minds, surely. Patricia Hewitt might well run, but I doubt if she’d have a broader appeal in the party than GB.
Consider these parliamentary issues: the awkward squad was not particularly damaged by the election. Most of them held on, although some only barely. They were not going to make much of an issue out of ID cards; they were saving their firepower for other issues, but now after various meetings with Charles Clarke, and the issue of rocketing costs, it has become something of an issue. Even if it gets past the Commons, the Lib Dems have said they will no longer adhere to the Sailsbury convention, where legislation in the manifesto of the government is allowed through the House of Lords. If the Conservatives join with the Lib Dems in the House of Lords to block the ID cards and other government legislation either through voting it down or passing wrecking amendments that the government could never accept, it means their will be a massive backlog of legislation, and that is made even worse because this session lasts for 18 months. In the face of this type of possible obstruction, what would Blair do?
The Lords will surely be less important this term than last. One of the factors which galvinised the Lords last term was the sense that legislation just wasn’t being properly scrutinised in the Commons because of the large majority. That is no longer the case, and some Conservative and LD peers are in favour of ID cards, anyway. Labour will try to get the legislation through before the Tory leadership contest, I guess, since MH will look pretty silly opposing it at all costs. I would predict concessions on the biometric data and the timing of introduction rather than full defeat.
63 - Hi Mike , Whilst I agree about the erosion of power in local government making local council elections less important in some terms , you would be wrong to underestimate their importance in terms of local party organisation and retaining the number of activists . The results are also of great importance in terms of local party morale . Imagine the effect on someone such as Ben if the next local elections in Leicester result in a resounding defeat for Labour despite hard work on behalf of him and his colleagues .
66 - I disagree, I think as the concerns about the costs and the security (building an identity database is just asking for it to be misused) increase, few non-Labour peers will support the ID cards bill. My feeling is that it will narrowly pass the Commons this time, be resoundingly defeated in the Lords, and encounter much more difficulty as Blair tries to use the Parliament Act to force it through second time round, with his rebels less inclined to compromise.
Anyone that thinks Labour will keep hackney are dearming. they are down to thier bare bones the Torys and LD have a secret pact are will be standing aside for an odd reason respect are not targeting it though.
As for manchester will the last Labour Cllr in 2008 please switch off the lights.
66 - The Conservatives have already decided to oppose the bill this time round, although Labour will obviously be hoping that those like Ken Clarke who are broadly in favour will at the very least abstain on the vote.
I suspect you will be wrong about scrutiny of legislation. The Government uses “programme motions” in the Commons, which are just a smokescreen for the word guillotine. They are automatically applied to all government legislation, and the New Labour drones just vote them through without hesitation. Looking at the order paper for the next sitting day, I see the first of these motions this Parliament for a bill, so they obviously are not listening.
I agree entirely. The local election wipeouts of the early and mid 90s certainly didn’t help the Tories in the 1997 GE (particularly after a number of marginals, such as Stevenage, were left with zero Tory councillors after the 96 locals). More recently, Labour’s poor performance in the 03 local elections in Staffs. Moorlands District Council preceded an 8% drop in our share of the vote at the GE (even if we held on, thanks largely to UKIP). I suspect what also saved us was a good showing in Kidsgrove, which (again) was preceded by a good performance there in last year’s local elections.
About ID cards vote, according to the Times Labour whips are fearing a rebellion on a Bob Marshall-Andrews’s amdendment.
50 - Jack, he’s a precocious talent. There’s no way I’d have been able to come up with an obscure bespoke shoemaker at the age of 18, nor have the cojones to acuse our resident Sqn Ldr of minding the paperclips. Plus his constituency reporting was a masterpiece. Sign him up somewhere as a sketchwriter - and pocket sizeable the commission (just make sure you invest wisely :))
Shneur [69] - come off it, you don’t know anything about Hackney
There’s no point in having an electoral pact in a Council run (I use the term loosely) by an elected Mayor…
73 , Tabman , He’s been called many things by his doting parents !?!? over his teenage years , yet I think “precocious talent” wasn’t one of them. Having said that as I post he’s studying hard in the expectation of a car if he passes all his “A” levels well. In addition he’s half way through writing a political thriller , finds time for playing half a dozen sports at excellent levels and has a love life more complex than the “Da Vince Code”. So just a normal 18 year old young man. Frankly his ageing parents are breathless in his wake and look forward to a rest whilst he’s at University. Sound familiar to other parents out there !!
BTW Tabman any thoughts on South Staffs. I was looking at the 5/2 for the Tories polling under 50%. I have no contacts there. Any info gratefully received.
58, It would depend how many people carry on voting the way they did on May 6th. In ordinary circumstances, one would expect the Conservatives to hold Preson easily, and pick up Fryent. However, in the general election, Labour would have carried Fryent quite easily, and probably carried Preston narrowly.
Although it would be great to gain Fryent, the Conservatives shouldn’t despair if they don’t. They can treat it as a rehearsal for next May, when Labour will definitely struggle.
Jack W. 76. The big problem for all the parties in S Staffs is that they have huge limits on what they can spend because it is a spill over the from the General Election and not a by-election. This makes it harder for a Lib Dem bandwagon although I quite like the bet on them getting 15% or more.
Turnout will be very low and in the end it will be down to how well the Tories get their vote out. You can’t see Labour doing much.
What’s Labour going to do
78 , Thanks Mike , over 15% for the Lib Dems looks pretty good. I’ll have to look out for some interesting prices.
77 Hi Sean - A little surprised by your comment that Labour would probably have carried Preston in GE . The Conservatives have won it every election since 1990 and polled over 60% in 2002 .
On local election turnouts, the Conservatives will win Preston every time. In the last round of local elections, the Conservatives led by 10% in the wards making up Brent North.
But if you look at Brent North at the general election, in 2001, Labour won 59% to 29% for the Conservatives. I’m told that Labour carried every ward in that year. On May 6th, the respective figures were 47% to 34%. I’m told the Conservatives carried Kenton, but no other ward in the seat - although I expect both Preson and Barnhill were very close.
81 - Thanks for that info Sean , it is somewhat a shame that the local elections coinciding with the GE this year were mainly confined to the Conservative counties . As on previous occasions the Lib Dem vote was 6% higher in corresponding local elections mostly at the expense of Labour .
Re 23 - the Last Liberal by-election defeat was Devon, Torrington in 1956(?) when Mark Bonham Carter lost, leaving the Liberals with just 5 seats (two of which were held in Lib/Con pacts in Bolton and Huddersfield).
With regard to the sad news about Cheadle - I’ll make two predictions - the Lib Dems will comfortably hold it and the Tories will have a new candidate.
Sean makes some interesting comments re the London elections next year (which really could be the tipping point for Tony). I tend to agree with them (particularly as Ben for once appears not to know what he’s talking about!)
My take is as follows:
Tower Hamlets - hung (can’t see the Lib Dems losing many seats in Bow/Globe Town, but Respect will stop them making progress in Stepney and Bethnal Green), Tories will possibly pick up one ward in docklands, but are unlikley to make inroads elsewhere). Largest Party - who knows?
Richmond - should be Lib Dem gain from Tories.
Sutton and Kingston will be closer than last time but the Lib Dems should comfortably hold on in both. (Sorry Rik).
Brent - easy hung Council with Lib Dems possibly largest party (their current 10 seats are mainly in Brent South).
Islington - comfortable Lib Dem hold
Camden and Ealing - agree with Sean - ought to go NOC.
Southwark and Lambeth - Lib Dems ought to be largest party in both.
Lewisham and Greenwich - outside chance of hung Councils.
Hounslow - Labour deserve to lose, but probably won’t.
Tory gains - Merton, Redbridge, Bexley, Croydon, Hammersmith, Harrow.
Labour hold - Hackney, Newham, Barking and Dagenham, probably Hounslow and possibly Lewisham and Greenwich.
Tories are almost certain to be largest party in terms of seats and councils, the Lib Dems could be second (in Council’s).
My question is - how many Councils does Labour need to win for the pressure on Blair not to mount again? In 1968 they won 3 and Wilson stayed on - they are unlikley to do that badly this time - but they’re in the same sort of ballpark.
The people of Richmond are far too forgiving …
Richmond Council will be close. I still take the Tories to hold it though. The council has not been disastrous and while the lib dems have won by elections, they have been IMHO more on the basis of strong GOTV vote efforts than massive dissatisfaction. Still the Lib Dems will gain seats but not enough to take control. This is one council though that will not go into NOC (though it could go hung).
I thought hung and NOC were the same thing?
83 - Sorry to show my anorakism Dan but you are incorrect . Bonham Carter won the byelection in Torrington only to lose it at the 1959 GE . The last loss was in fact Carmathen in 1957 won for Labour by ex Liberal MP for Anglesey Lady Megan Lloyd George until she lost that seat .
Mark - thanks I stand corrected - I assume then that Carmarthen was the by-election that the Libs went down to just five seats - which means Torrington was post ‘57!
Tabbers (!) - I assume Andrew means that hung is where there is a dead heat between parties and it relies on the Mayor’s casting vote - which could certainly happen where there are no Labour Councillors (like Richmond) (and Kingston from next year
).
On an anorakism theme…
The HoC Library research paper on the 2005 election results is now available at -
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf
88 - Hi Dan , Same year , Carmarthen Feb Torrington March so Libs were down to 5 seats for only a month .
We will have to agree to differ on the swings needed to make the Conservatives the larger party . The assumption of Tactical Voting does of course make a great deal of difference .
And boundary changes
91 - Yes Alex they will make a small difference but the FPTP system is still heavily stacked in favour of Labour
Why do you think either Lewisham or Greenwich could be hung Dan? I’m sure Labour will lose ground in both, but I would be surprised if they lost overall control in either (Labour even held Greenwich in 1968, and that’s the only year they’ve ever lost Lewisham).
Sorry Sean. In 1968 Greenwich went Conservative (C 38 seats Lab 22.
In London Labour retained only Tower Hamlets (there were 3 Communist councillors elected forming the opposition), Southwark (Lab 33 C 27, but the Conservatives polled over 50% of the vote), Barking (13 Conservative councillors) and Newham (Lab 30, RA 21, C 6 and Lib 3.
In Birmingham and Leicester Labour were defeated in every ward and in Salford held just 1 ward, Ordsall Park - by 1 vote.
Sean at 93 - in Lewisham there are two factors - the directly elected Mayor - so the election generally matters less. And the Greens - so Labour are fighting on three fronts. There have also been a string of by-election losses for Labour.
In Greenwich and Woolwich there was a 8+% swing from Blairite Nick Raynsford to the Lib Dems (who came second for the first time since the demise of Barnes and Cartwright). I’m not saying it’s likely, but both (particularly Lewisham) must be in the outside chance category. Both Boroughs have undergone gentrification (although parts of Greenwich were always pretty gentrified) in the last ten years - like Woolwich Arsenal.
Labour are clear favourites (and will be the largest party regardless). But if Blair is a dead duck (rather than a lame one) they are exactly the sort of places that will tell him loud and clear next May.
Sorry Dan, the Torrington by election in March 1958 was a Liberal gain. Mark Bonham Carter won the seat by 219 votes, losing it in 1959. The Liberal loss of that period was Carmarthen in February 1957 when the Labour candidate was Lady Megan Lloyd George.
Lady Megan was critically ill during the 1966 General Election and died weeks afterwards. Gwynfor Evans won it for PC at a by election in July 1966.
I suppose everyone is typing too quickly, however I should point out that Redbridge is Conservative held and you all seem to miss out on Havering.
As for Tower Hamlets, I was present at the count on May 5th - but everyone who has commented so far has got it wrong! For a guide to 2006 then look at the 2004 ward results.
Peter thanks - the last I’d heard was that Redbridge was Tory minority due to some internal disagreements - there is no doubt that it will be solidly blue next year.
Isn’t the Tories problem with Havering that there are too many residents associations?
Hi Dan, The Conservatives had an internal split following the group AGM last year. It was resolved by July and at the Annual Meeting this year the administration was elected with no problem.
Sorry all, I made an error about Salford in 1968. Ordsall ward voted Conservative by 1 vote in 1968 and Labour by 1 vote in 1969. There was some press coverage about it at the time.
I stand corrected then.
Dan at 83. If Camden at last is lost by Labour, I may seriously consider coming back to the UK. Been waiting for that to happen for 20 years!
53, 54: Interesting if Queen’s Park was the one ward in Brent East that had Labour ahead, as it’s one of the three that’s being moved into Hampstead & Kilburn (the others being Brondesbury Park and Kilburn). It’ll be very interesting to see which seat Sarah Teather stands in next time - H&K or Brent Central. I suspect the notional results for the new seats will have the Lib Dems narrowly ahead, or at worst a very good second, in H&K, and some way behind in Brent South, but if there are big LD gains in the locals in Brent it’s possible Brent Central might look a better prospect.
99: Salford isn’t alone; there was a similar one-vote-either-way situation in a ward just outside Oxford (Gosford, in Cherwell district) back in the mid-90s. The Tories won by 1 vote from the Lib Dems one year, and at a by-election a year or two later the Lib Dems won, beating the Tories by 1 vote.
where do you go if you want to bet against brown ever becoming pm? is anyone offering a spread?
On the web site of MP David Davis you can read that he promotes zero enforcement of offences that he & his cronies might commit (speeding) & zero tolerance of offences that people he doesn’t like could commit. It’s useful to know that traditional values of hypocrisy & self-interest will still be alive & well in the Tory party if 2D becomes it’s leader for a few months until they get fed up with him.
102 - I would be very surprised if Sarah Teather didn’t choose H&K.
shackle bussed alterations?pearls balms transported airlines
Hi, I thought I’d just leave this message on your blog. I hope you don’t mind. I’ve been trying to find blogs where people are talking about Search engine marketing tutorials and when I was looking, I found this one on this post. You have helped me in some way. Anyway, I want to say thank you before I go off to find some more info about it.
Electric toothbrush…
Keep up hygiene of a mouth…