Could Cheadle give Charles Kennedy a headache?
June 30th, 2005
-
Do the Tories stand any chance of wininng?
The mood amongst Liberal Democrats at the PB.C party at the weekend was that defending the Cheadle by-election a fortnight today might be a tougher challenge than the current Betfair price might suggest. There are a number of issues:-
Will Labour supporters switch? With a Lib Dem majority in 2001 of just 33 votes Cheadle was right at the top of the Tory hit list and this put the squeeze on Labour which saw its share drop from 14% four years ago to 8.8% on May 5th. Will these voters do the same again? A factor is that there’s no love lost between party activists in that part of South Manchester after Lib Dems took neighbouring Withington in a bitter contest in May.
What does South Staffs say about Tory turnout? Any Lib Dem hope that Tories might be less keen to turn out because of the ructions over the party leadership was knocked on the head by their increased majority and vote share in last week’s South Staffordshire ballot. Also the underlying figures in the opinion polls show that the Tory vote nationally is holding up - something that did not happen after the 1997 and 2001 landslides.
Will UKIP’s withdrawal from the race have an impact? Although the anti-EU party got less than 500 votes on May 5th UKIP had the potential to eat into the Tory vote at the by-election. They won’t be standing and if the vote’s tight then where the UKIP hundreds go could be crucial.
Will the postal voters turnout? Almost all the 8,000+ electors who applied for postal votes will still be on the list and in a by-election situation the parties will do more than they did on May 5th to ensure that these electors vote. At the General Election there was a marked reluctance in the post-Birmingham context to get involved after the postal ballots had arrived. Many of the 8,000 were secured through the Tory pre-election direct marketing campaign.
Although it’s hard to see the Lib Dems being beaten the current price of 2/15 offers no value.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/30/ntory30.xml
He mentions the possibility of the Conservatives being overtaken by the Lib Dems by the time of the next election. If the 38 year old ‘arch moderniser’ thinks he should be talking about the values of marriage (which should be none of his business) it sounds like a good bet. Cheadle to stay Lib Dem with an increased majority.
Roger 1. I don’t follow your argument and cannot quite see how Cameron’s views on marriage apply to Cheadle. All I’m saying is that the Lib Dems should win but to bet £15 to win £2 on the proposition is not got value because there are a number of uncertainties.
There are many Labour activists in that area who would hate the Lib Dems so much that they would prefer a Tory victory.
This is a test
OT: this morning I couldn’t see the homepage for some times. I got another page (black with some pictures included one of Woody Allen). Is it my computer going crazy or did it happen to someone else too?
Them I wasn’t able to post. Maybe I was using a word blocked by the spam filter. or maybe I’n banned….
Andrea,
It happened to me too.
Best guess is that the http://www.politicalbetting.com domain was somehow hijacked (the http://politicalbetting.com domain still worked).
Because comments are sent through the http://www.politicalbetting.com domain, they couldn’t get through.
Odds are that the owner of the site that we got redirected to knew nothing about it - some scriptkiddie was probably playing.
I lost a long detailed post about byelections
Yes - the stylesheet also comes from the www address which is why the layout was affected too. The site was Lucille’s (Robert’s fiancee) so I expect there was some mixup in the domain registration settings.
Anyway …
I’d agree with our host on this. My call is Lib Dems 65%, Tories 35%.
Much is often made of the Tories form at by-elections (haven’t gained a seat at one since 1982), but due to the overriding rule (”Price of Power”), they didn’t have much of a chance for most of that period:
As a rule, parties in Government do not gain seats at by-elections. They may hold them, or win technically (eg Labour “gained” Betty Boothroyd’s seat in 2000 from the Speaker when she stood down, but it was a Labour safe seat).
There have been two exceptions: In 1960, the Tories gained an ultramarginal from Labour (Labour had held it by 47 votes in the 59 election), and the Tories gained Mitcham and Morden on a split SDP/Labour vote in 1982 (incidentally, just after the Falklands war).
From 1979 to 1997, the Tories should have won no by-elections (the Mitcham and Morden one being gained against the rule).
Since 1997, the Tories, although not suffering from “The Price of Power” have experienced what could only be described as a Price of Power hangover. They had, realistically, no real chance in the 1997-2001 Parliament. In the 2001-2005 Parliament, no Tory-winnable seats came up.
This is the first seat since 1979 that is:
a. Tory-winnable
b. Not under “Price of Power”
c. Not under the power hangover period.
But the Lib Dems by-election machine should not be underestimated. Sure, they’ve had the advantage that the two main parties have been under “Price of Power” and “Power-hangover” disadvantages, but they’ve used their advantages very well. Plus, they are the holders of the seat.
So, essentially, the bookies are overestimating the Lib Dems chances, although they are still firm favourites. If you don’t mind betting on outsiders, you should get a price on the Tories that does not reflect their true chances. They should still lose, but it is by no means as certain as the bookies think.
5-6 Thanks.
Now I’ll try to answer Roger @1
1.”If the 38 year old ‘arch moderniser’ thinks he should be talking about the values of marriage (which should be none of his business) ”
I read on the Guardian some of Cameron’s comments. Yesterday they didn’t sounded too bad (I agreed that family is the best place to grow children, but I didnt agree to use the taxtation system to encourage families to stay together), but re-reading them I thought they were coming from a tele-preacher.
So according to Cameron Labour government does things that undermine the family….except Blunkett having children with half of the world it doesn’t seem so.
And it seems that he wants to start a crusade against oversexualised videos, movies and TV.
And then why does the government have to encourage people to get together and start a family? It’s none of its business. Firstly he said he is against the “state” and then that the state should encourage people to start families.
Tories should pay attention how will they develop this message. It could risky:they risk to be seen as prude bigots
Hi all,
My fault. I was moving Lucille’s website from my old server to the new server (the one that runs PoliticalBetting), and I messed up the Apache configuration.
Hopefully it won’t happen again
Cheers,
Robert
5-6 Thanks.
I still trying to answer Roger @1, but my message fails to appear. I couldn’t find the word blocked by the spam filter.
Ah well: hardly an outage of vote-2005 proportions!
BTW, I am glad to see she is a Woody Allen fan - Diane Keaton being my favourite actress, so I am big fan of all his earlier work.
1. So TB has spoken of the importance of marraiage to stable families and happier society etc, as has GB. I thought there was a cross party consensus on this. Why do you have to poison the Well Roger?
Robert,
In which case, my apologies for the “scriptkiddie” comment - I assumed a hostile attack. It was, of course, not meant to refer to you.
7. Good Points and yet turnout especially among those Tactical Labour Voters maybe crucial. Easy to motivate people for mid terms, maybe altogether harder only a matter of weeks after expressing their opinions in a General Election. Libs Probably hold but with a reduced Majority.
Where was that Classic Photo of CK Taken?
12. Almost everyone agree that families are important for the stability of sociaty, but not everyone agree that the state should interfere and encourage poeple to start families. Especially since Cameron first says that he’s against the “state” and then says that the state should encourage people to start families (a bit intrusive, it’s none of the government business if you want to get married or not).
Then he seems to want start a crusade against overse ualised videos, movies and TV. Isn’t he a Desperate Housewives’ fans? Does he consider it “overse ualised”?
12. Almost everyone agree that families are important for the stability of sociaty, but not everyone agree that the state should interfere and encourage poeple to start families. Especially since Cameron first says that he’s against the “state” and then says that the state should encourage people to start families (a bit intrusive, it’s none of the government business if you want to get married or not).
This from the Ashcroft pamphlet
“According to polling commissioned by Ashcroft, 27 percent of all voters have already “ruled out” voting for the Conservatives, more than for either of the other main parties, Ashcroft said in a statement today. Forty-four percent of voters say it is “certain,” “likely” or “possible” that they will vote Conservative at the next election, compared with 54 percent for Labour and 51 percent for the Liberal Democrats.”
Are the tories talking themselves into becoming the third party?
Does anyone know where to read the pamphlet in full?
and then he seems that he wants to start an attack against oversexualised videos, movies and TV. I don’t like when politicians want to decide what TVs should air or not. It’s parents duty to check what their children watch, not a government’s job. If he considers some TV shows not good for his choldren, he should prevent them to see them and let the chance to other people to see them if they want.
16- and then he seems that he wants to start an attack against certain types of videos and TV. I don’t like when politicians want to decide what TV should air or not. It’s parents duty to check what their children watch, not a government’s job. If he considers some TV shows not good for his children, he should prevent them to see them and let the chance to other people to watch them if they want.
I’m sorry you didn’t understand my post Mike but reading it again neither did I! Ashcroft had some research done (which apparently cost him £750,000) which told him that the Tories fought a bad campaign on the wrong issues. It was so bad infact that they actually lost votes during the campaign. All of us who weren’t Tory could see this. They were talking to people who didn’t and probably never will share their narrow priorities. He concludes by saying that unless the Tories change radically they might be overtaken by the Lib Dems.
Cheadle doesn’t strike me as a Tory area. My Mother still lives in adjoining Withington and though Cheadle’s not Withington neither is it the fuddy-duddy area it used to be. Therefore I suspect a Lib Dem hold.
Re. 7, didn’t the Tories gain Sunderland South from Labour in 1953 during the post-war Churchill government?
I know you’ve said it’s not compulsory to like Mark Oaten to be an LD, book value, but if anyone here is thinking of joining (or defecting), I think you should extend that immunity to Lembit Opik. He’s come out in defence of chavs (apparently all those who use the word, let alone criticise them, are boring and pompous snobs). He really is becoming an Antony Beaumont quote figure - what he fails to realise (like Johann Hari) is that it’s possible to dislike chavs not because of their class, but because of their dreadful behaviour (spitting on the street - they do this everywhere in Leek), using ten f words in every sentence in the presence of kids and pensioners on the bus, making the bus late by half an hour because the driver keeps stopping when they play the latest Dick N’ Dom game (like screaming ‘Bogey’), physically attacking people who dare to read newspapers on the bus (this happened to me - I was reading The Guardian, oddly enough), throwing screwed up tickets at those who dare to read a book on the bus, and waking an entire street up because they don’t have the intelligence to knock on a door but instead bawl the name of the person in the house at ever increasing volume. Or, if they’re like the ones in the block of flats I used to live in, they’ll play their music (r n’b) so loud that the person upstairs can’t hear their TV, knock on the windows of the ground floor flats in the middle of the night, and (before they’re finally evicted) cause hundreds of pounds of damage to the flat. This is why I hope the entire chav population gets wiped out by one of the asteroids with which Opik is so obsessed.
19 Roger Ashcroft had become avowedly estranged from MIchael Howard before the CAmpaign and was funding Candidates independently. No surprise that is criticising the Campaign then?
16 Andrea i quite agree. BUt i think you misrepresnt Cameron. What is wrong with the State making marriage a more financially attractive option. Perversely here a few years the tax system actually provided incentives against couple getting married. In France the State provides finacial help to families, through reduced travel, childcare etc.
I thought Cameron struck the right note. No ordering or hectoring people, but if you would like to take this step then then state will support you rather than as in the past hinder you. NOthing wrong with that is therea?
19 Roger Ashcroft had become avowedly estranged from MIchael Howard before the CAmpaign and was funding Candidates independently. No surprise that is criticising the Campaign then?
16 Andrea i quite agree. BUt i think you misrepresnt Cameron. What is wrong with the State making marriage a more financially attractive option. Perversely here a few years the tax system actually provided incentives against couple getting married. In France the State provides finacial help to families, through reduced travel, childcare etc.
I thought Cameron struck the right note. No ordering or hectoring people, but if you would like to take this step then then state will support you rather than as in the past hinder you. NOthing wrong with that is therea?
Charles Kennedy Caption Competition :
1. A sixth bottle of whisky wasn’t a good idea !
2. I’ll have to take this bloody tie off if I’m to be leader of the Tories too.
3. My head hurts…….now repeat after me…” I’m the leader of a serious political party. ”
4. I know I shouldn’t have had that extra slice of prune and lentil quiche .
5. Prime Minister Kennedy returns to Heathrow after this mornings visit to friendly countries.
6. If I read another of Tabmans’ books on the virtues of basket weaving and the knock-on effects on the STV voting patterns in Caithness , I’ll brain myself……….Oh I already have done !!
19 Roger Ashcroft had become avowedly estranged from MIchael Howard before the CAmpaign and was funding Candidates independently. No surprise that is criticising the Campaign then?
16 Andrea i quite agree. BUt i think you misrepresnt Cameron. What is wrong with the State making marriage a more financially attractive option. Perversely here a few years the tax system actually provided incentives against couple getting married. In France the State provides finacial help to families, through reduced travel, childcare etc.
I thought Cameron struck the right note. No ordering or hectoring people, but if you would like to take this step then then state will support you rather than as in the past hinder you. NOthing wrong with that is therea?
Sorry about the ongoing web-site problems; remind me never to do anything server related on a work day!
27 would that be Lord MICHAEL Ashcroft?
23 - yes, the chav comments were silly. When will Hari et al realise that the label applies to anti-social behaviour, rather than dress?
25 - “What is wrong with the State making marriage a more financially attractive option.” Well, I would say marriage is a more meaningful commitment if there is no angle of it being done for financial advantage.
“In France the State provides finacial help to families, through reduced travel, childcare etc.” So do we - unless you believe that a family is not after all a family without a marriage certificate.
23 - btw, a relative of mine knew Anthony Beaumont-Dark professionally, and thought him a decent chap.
He might officially be called Michael but he is Roger to his mates…
Most European countries offer incentives for marriage. Family breakdown affects society as a whole, not just the parties concerned. It therefore makes sense for any government to seek to minimise it.
If you believe that Michael Howard in particular, and the Tory campaign in general, had a major impact on voters being repelled and actively voting for other parties (especially tactically) then it seems reasonable to think that, all other things being equal, the Tories should have decent prospects of reducing the gap in Cheadle. Exacerbated when the incumbency factor is removed as well.
The polling evidence can be interpreted in two ways. I think it’s not so much that the Tory campaign ‘lost’ voters, so much as other parties gained them. In other words “possibles” became “definitely nots”.
33 - you can’t have family breakdown without families. Arguably encouraging marriage (which may then happen for the wrong reasons) could increase family/marital breakdown.
Book Value, Fair point re financial considerations, but equally the state shoulkd not make it a disadvantnage, not sure current Situation but until recently the state taxed a couple living together less because3 of personal allowances etc than if that same couple decided to honour their love and commitmernt by getting married, surely that was madness? In any case Marriage particularly the event now is a very expensive thing, if the state can reduce the burden why not, unless as prices go up you wish to make it the preserve of the Middle anfd Upper Classes who can Afford it.
Ps as for family Carriage, don’t be silly book value you know i didn’t meant that. I was merely trying to illustrate my point. Please don’t Misrepresent what i am trying to saya.
33. Do you really want UK to become a familistic state? I’ve always studied that having a familistic welfare state is one of our (Italian) problems.
37 - Realist, if you read David Cameron’s speech, that is what he was bascially saying.
38 - I thought one of the problems with the Italian state is that just don’t have enough children!
Roger 22. So we are both from the same party of the world. In fact before the 1964 General Election I was chairman of Withington Young Social-ists - now there’s a term that is alient to the current Lanour party. At the time the only lively other youth political group in the area was Cheadle Young Liberals.
Logic would suggest that if the government has no business favouring marriage over any other arrangement, it likewise has no business providing welfare benefits to those whose relationships break up. Such a principled libertarian position would doubtless appeal to many bloggers, but would not, IMO, be electorally attractive.
WRT Ashcroft’s pamphlet, it reminds me of Boris Johnson’s prediction after the election that there would be a stream of articles/pamphlets along the lines of “We haven’t realised how much they hate us. I MEAN REALLY REALLY HATE US.” I am not remotely interested in the musings of people who can only offer despair, defeatism and endless negativity.
Repeat request, Anyone know where to see the full text of the Lord Ashcroft pamphlet? (BTW Rik -you dont put the first name in when referring to a Lord)
Realist, I’ve been a groom three times and (unless you want it to) that’s not where the expense comes in…
Cameron’s sending a dog-whistle to all those good Tory ladies of a certain age who never enjoyed s*x themselves and disapprove of their childrens’ spouses…
Marriage is a ceremony which gives some legal benefits to people in a relationship but in itself does not guarantee that the relationship and family will not break up . Certainly my impression from talking to my children is that the act of marriage itself is of little importance in their lives and that this attitude is typical of their generation . My daughter is in a stable relationship with a child which may end in marriage one day but is just not important to her or her partner . I suppose financial tax benefits may change that slightly .
Sean. It is amazing isn’t it, these chaps give the party shed loads of money and seem to want to influence things.
Nuala will be pleased:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4636547.stm
Re. 31, yes, Beaumont-Dark himself was fine (pity he got kicked out by the snivelling leftie, ie Lynne Jones, who’s still there), but Opik is rapidly becoming like Beaumont-Dark’s (sillier) Private Eye alter ego, ‘Beaumont Quote’. No doubt he’ll be saying on QT tonight that Northern Ireland shows how we can (and must) negotiate a political agreement with Al Qaeda (it shows the exact opposite - firstly, PIRA came to the negotiating table only after it realised that, while the British would never wipe them out, the British could not be forced out of Northern Ireland, and secondly the last few years, not least the eclipse of the moderate parties apparent in the GE result, show what happens when you give more and more concessions to terrorists while they continue to practice every form of terrorism short of bombs on the mainland and killing soldiers and police officers in the province).
39. For the first time in years last year the population grew.
But people don’t make children because they couldn’t afford them (economy is in a bad situation). We always gave money to support families. Our welfare state has always been familistic. The state doesn’t offer the services offered by Scandinavian countries and there’re no great offer from the private sector. So families need to cover many things. That’s why women stay at home instead to go to work and why we don’t have so many jobs in the “service sector”
And if he doesn’t say it tonight, he’s certainly said it before. I wonder what he thinks should be on the negotiating table - the complete destruction of Israel, the imposition of Sharia law in Andalusia (which would be covered by the new Caliphate), the forcible return of East Timor to rule by Indonesia (one of the reasons given by Al Qaeda for the Bali bombing was the role of Australian troops in assisting the largely Catholic East Timor to gain its independence from Muslim Indonesia)
48. A mere Blip on Long term trend perhaps? BUt there was a report the other day that Britain and Italy similar Populations now, by 2030 on present trends or was it 2050? Italy would have half as many people. Britain’s population aided by a higher birthrate and immkigration would just about tread Water, while Italy could be faxcing a demographic Crisis with it’s presently current unreformed Pension System as People live longer but also have fewer Childrena.
i KNOW I WAS SUPPORTING cAMERON 37!
50. the pensions system should explode if we continue with this trend.
Sorry 51 was actually for 39 Sophia.
The line up on Question Time panel looks interesting (apart from June Sarpong, who, along with Steve Jones and Vernon Kay, I have to endure inbetween watching Hollyaoks on a Sunday).
23,
Richard, you’re right.
The Tories overturned a 0.6% majority in the Sunderland South by election in 1953 (possibly due to the Liberals standing, as the Tory candidate actually lost vote share from 49.7% at the GE to 48.6% at the By election (Jeez - 49.7% at a GE and losing must have been irritating!).
The other one I mentioned was Brighouse and Spenborough.
Still a pretty good rule - of 29 seats changing hands at by-elections, 3 were won by the Government. Of those, the majorities overturned were:
1.2% (Mitcham and Morden, 1982)
0.6% (Sunderland South, 1953)
0.1% (Brighouse and Spenborough, 1960).
Incidentally, only Tory Governments have managed to defy the rule. I believe, however, that if there had been more by-elections in the 1997-2001 period, the Labour Government may have defied the rule as well.
23 - I quite like Mark Oaten…. Does that prove the point?
The best thing Mark Oaten do was defeat Gerald Malone and that is about it.
37 - looking back at my comment it was too arch, so I am sorry to have offended you. What I meant was that there is no disadvantage to marriage - we support families regardless of marriage status (and in some circumstances marriage is a slight advantage with increased flexibility of tax allowances.)
36 - as worryingly (;-)) often these days, I fully agree with Alex. I’m not sure a marriage held together by money doesn’t have the same effect on children (and society) as one that breaks down.
Someone list Current Liberal Democrat Majorities? Interesting to see wehose vulnerabl;e. THey will certainly gain NOrwich South at the nerxt Election if theres any Tory Vote to squeeze as in Cardiff Central, unless Clarke if he’s any sense chivken runs tp Norwich North in time? Lord Gibson sound nice? Cluck, Cluck?
57 - yes, he probably stabilised the electoral system by showing what happens to parties who challenge narrow results.
Is Malone still around? I think he’d moved on from one or two constituencies where he’d lost before.
Had a quick google, seems to be doing quite well for himself…
http://www.kryotrans.com/managment.htm
rik w see the lib dem poster at twi hundred and forty seven on the Id caRDS THREAD RE chEADLE. mAYBE, just maybea?
58 - I wasn’t aware we were sworn enemies!
62 - The “libdem poster” at 247 is a Tory!
56/57 Must confess that I find Mr Oaten to be a pretty inoffensive chap with whom if he were my personal MP I would be pretty confident he would help with a serious problem . I do have some friends who live in Winchester and they only have good words for him .
What has happened to Rifkinds bid to be Tory leader - price has slipped a lot recently . Do the insiders know something - is he going to pull out - support Cameron ?
64 Is he? Said he was delivering with a Lib Dem. Anyways although predicting Lib Dem win was markedly more optimistic Tory wise than Rik W, Wanted to see what Rik W thought.
Ps Rik W My point David Davis stands, if Chaps like that bluset of blue, rock solidest of rock solidest YTories don’t think David Davis can win a General Electiona then he really can’t i thinka.
22 - Roger - I disagree - I don’t think anywhere in the north ‘feels’ more Tory than Cheadle. It’s the epitome of John Major’s classless society - in that everyone is middle class. The wealth that there is there isn’t (with a few exceptions) ostentatious or showy, just ubiquitous - 8 square miles of pleasant semi-detached suburbia. I think a few years back it was the seat with the fewest working class people in it and the seat with the least council housing in the whole country. And while Withington is inhabited by public sector workers and people in marketing, Cheadle is inhabited by car salesmen and civil engineers (and footballers).
I know this is out of date now and of little relevance, but in 2001 my Dad knows at least 20 Tory voters - some of them members of the party - who either didn’t bother voting or who voted Lib Dem as a protest because they didn’t beleive that the Tories would ever lose the seat.
Having said that, with this being a by-election those people are going to be no more motivated to vote Tory than before.
But it still seems hard for me to believe that in an election where the Tories garnered 33% nationwide they could get anything less than 50% in Cheadle.
61 - looking at that, perhaps the scars of defeat have worn off and he is no longer crying into his millions.
67 - that poster is definitely a Tory. I assume he meant he found himself leafleting a street at the same time as a Lib Dem.
67 - we have to agree to differ. We all form our own opinions!
67 - without passing judgment on any of the candidates it seems strange that when Tory WWII vet types pick Ian Duncan Smith they are the worst possible people to pick the Tory leader but in other circumstances they know the key to future Conservative success!
What was your view of that post at two hundred and forty seven on the other tHRAd though RiK? Slightly risiers trhan your viewa?
72. That micking sneering tone towards people who fought for our country is a disgrace. You should be bloody ashamed!
I read 72 more as a point about the arguments in the Tory debate on how to pick a leader, than any insult towards war veterans.
Quite.
Roger @ 22: I know that in our nearest Tory / Labour marginal, the Labour camp were very worried early on. But as the campaign wore on, they became more confident and Labour ended up winning fairly comfortably. I think the Tory campaign motivated the people who would have voted for them anyway, and turned off a lot of undecided voters.
Icarus, the full report will cost you ten of your earth pounds here:
http://www.politicos.co.uk/item.jsp?ID=5322
All the polling data (including the YouGov polls) can be downloaded from Populus’s website here:
http://www.populuslimited.com/coffee_1029384756/index.htm
I’ll be having a proper dig around later.
Re 67. I am indeed a tory. I meant that I was leafleting a street with lib dems on it and reached a point where I was leafletting the same house as a lib dem for about fifty houses. I did also make the point that he was a member, two years ago, of Labour on the leftwing side of the party.
Funny - my Dad (voted Tory since 1979) says he wouldn’t vote for Davis. Thinks he’s a lightweight and prefers Brown! He hates Blair.
Anthony - Many thanks - have read the first 6 pages on http://www.lordashcroft.com - pretty devastating stuff.
75 i may have misread you, but there was doubt that could you be read to be implying that they were well idiots. As it happens you may be right on the Tory Membership but why you pivked out WWII vets i don’t knowa, but these weren’t actually Party Members, never as far as i could tell even politically involved ever. Just ordinary small “c” conservatives, who if Rik waqs right about David Davis should have leapt for him, that even they did not see him as an Election winner spoke volumes i thought.
I picked WWII vets because you did! If you had said you had been at the pub with the local leadership of the Women’s Institute then i would have used them. They may be absolutely right in what constitutes an election winner, but I would be surprised if their general views were out of step with the broad sweep of the Tory membership - apologies if wrong.
Re. 55, Labour had a golden opportunity to gain a seat at the Uxbridge by-election in July 97. Blair stole defeat from the jaws of victory, though, by imposing (via the NEC) Andrew Slaughter (now MP for Ealing Acton and Sheperd’s Bush) as candidate. Uxbridge has a very strong sense of its own identity, and Slaughter was Leader of the council in Hammersmith & Fulham (which, for people in Uxbridge, might as well be a foreign country). That, together with the disgust of activists and party members at their own candidate being ousted, led to the Tories easily holding it with a 4% swing in their favour. Had the GE candidate been allowed to fight it, I think Labour would have won (and thus undermined Tory morale just after Hague had become leader, instead of giving him a success).
The turnout in Cheadle last time went up from 63.2% to 69.6% - a big increase but the Tory vote still dropped by 1,311.
John C’s comment that Cheadle feels Conservative is perhaps contradicted by Ashcroft and May’s recent comments - It may feel like old Conservative of the 60’s and 70’s but the Conservative party has changed.
Quoting Lord Ashcroft
“The Conservative Party’s problem is its brand. Conservatives
loathe being told this but it is an inescapable fact. Tony Blair once
said that he knew the 1992 election was lost when he met a man
washing his car. The man said he had always voted Labour in the
past, but now that he had started his own business he was going to
vote Tory. The Conservative Party, in other words, was associated
not just with success but with aspiration, with getting on in life.
What is it associated with now? Not with those things, or
opportunity for all, or economic competence, or the delivery
of good public services, or with looking after the less fortunate,
or with life in modern Britain.”
I should add that the GE candidate, Williams, was local. That, together with the increased motivation of local activists and party members, would have helped Labour win.
Re. Uxbridge: Yet Labour (finally) tried a local candidate, Cllr Rod Marhsall, against Tory MP John Randall in 2005 and still saw the Con majority increase.
86 - true, but in the meantime there had been a swing to the Tories in the south-east, which didn’t really apply at the time of the by-election.
Well it was Wales so they may have been. No worries all cleared up now.
Anyone seen Guido’s New Lib Dem Mascot Graphic? Hilarious.
Ps When was the CK Photograph Taken? Also what is Oaten’s Majority thesedays. Someone was saying cut at the Electiona.
88 WAS for 82.
Indeed not - Labour had achieved some of its best results in Greater London (including the 18% swing in Brent North), and the by-election took place when Tony still walked on water (just before, in fact, he got approval ratings of 93%). 2005 couldn’t have been more different (in my part of the world, we left him out of our leaflets, and had instead a Gordon Brown direct mailing on tax credits etc)
Mark Oaten still has over 50% of the vote (well 50.6%) but his majority did decrease:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/0,9338,-1439,00.html
88 - Wouldn’t hold your breath on winkling Oaten out anytime soon, David. It was cut slightly at the general election (mostly due to a small Labour recovery unusually - but it is down in risky deposit territory still). But it is still over 7,000 with a vote over 50%.
Good to see King Arthur getting into triple figures in Winchester, vastly outperforming previous non-celebrity Wessex Regionalists. I wonder who he takes his votes from.
68 - I agree with John C. The Bramhall end of the constituency would ertainly be considered Tory heartland - leafy commuter area etc. Don’t forget that while the Tories have collapsed in Withington constituency to the north, the Cheshire set areas to the South - Wilmslow (Tatton) and Prestbury (Macclesfield) are still among the safest Tory seats in the country.
IIRC Cheshire is the richest county in the country when you measure local incomes against local living costs.
94 - And Congelton
95 - It is. The Surrey of the north.
92 - And boundary changes make it marginally safer still
Don´t boundary changes make Hampshire East a good Lib Dem prospect. And has anyone an informed view of the impact of the revised recommendations in Birmingham?
98 - I am working on the Hampshire figures as a whole but as the recommendations are still provisional , it will be better to wait to see the final recommendations .
Glosboy - Mr Wells has East Hampshire/Meon Valley as a Lib Dem/Con marginal (1000votes in it). And someone has commented that the Yardley seat will be better for the Lib Dems than the original proposal, and that the new Hall Green seat is promising for Lib Dems.
http://pollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php?p=404#comments
7 - I find it hard to accept that the Tories have had no winnable byelection prospects since 1997. Leicester South afterall was a Tory seat for some of the 80s and was in the end won by a party from third place at the previous election. Brent East had a history of Conservatives in second place and running it very close in the 1980s similarly. Ipswich also has a Conservative tradition. Its not just confinded to the last Parliamentary session. The Tories should have run Labour much closer in West Bromwich West, coming as it did just after the fuel strikes. These seats were hardly no go areas for the Conservatives.
101 You kidding!? As you point out in most of the Cases even in the best possible Circumstances they were coming second not actually winning, and that was under the most benign Circumstances. How many Marginal came up where it was ultra winable eg Majority 3k or less to Labour? The average age reduction of MP’s made the post 1997 Parliament probably a record for the fewest number of by-elections ever.
The Conservative vote went up in 2005, not down, Lib Dems went up more. The Lib Dems took Cheadle by chipping away at the council seats. The Council is now largely a Lib/Lab fight, as someone said no love lost between LD and Lab locally, Labour need Cons to snatch some LD seats for the Council to go hung - so expect them to workl the by-election. In 1992 they worked Hazel Grove hard enough to keep their vote up and the Tory MP in.
Having done some canvassing in Truro for that by-election there was a huge sympathy vote there for a much loved MP, if the same is true in Cheadle the LDs will walk it - depends what the locals think of their Council as LD Cand is the Leader.
Patsy Calton was a Cllr in Bramhall, but actually lost her saet in (I think) 2002
77 Anthony — thanks for link to Ashcroft polls. I like the finding at table 37 of the Con/LD marginals poll that a clear majority, 59%, of respondents agreed with the statement that:
“If by the end of the election campaign I think one candidate has worked especially hard locally and would be a very good local MP I would consider voting for them even if they weren’t from the party that I’d otherwise tend to vote for”
Pretty heartening stuff for all candidates, I would think!
Leicester South had a Labour majority of 30% over the Tories. The Lib Dems have a history of by-election upsets. Under such circumstances, tactical voting by Tories for Lib Dems is not unusual. The only election that Leicester South fell to the Tories was the landslide of 1983, and that by 7 votes.
Brent East has never been Tory since first contested in Feb 74. Not even in the peak Tory years of the eighties. It was never going to go Tory. The Labour majority was 45% over the Tories.
Ipswich had a Labour majority over 20% and was fought shortly after 9/11. The Labour majority fell to 16% at the by-election and is now 12.7%.
When a “safe seat” is fought, the Lib Dems have their greatest shot at an upset, no matter where they stand to begin with, as the voters from either party will, recognizing that their candidate has little chance, often vote tactically for the Lib Dems. And, of course, the Lib Dem by-election machine is tried and tested under such circumstances.
In West Browmwich West, there was no Conservative candidate in 1997 (of course), in 1992, Betty Boothroyd had a 20% majority. In 2005, the Labour majority was more than 30%. Getting to within 18% at the by-election was a creditable performance (looking at the figures, the Conservative turnout was 6408 in 2000, 7997 in 2001 and 8057 in 2005, against Labour figures of 9640, 19352 and 18951 respectively, so a good by-election turnout for the Tories, there). Again, West Bromwich West has always been Labour (or Speaker, of course) since first fought in 1974.
I’ll clarify my position: There were no Labour/Conservative marginals in by-elections fought in 2001-2005 (or LibDem/Conservative ones, for that matter).
101 - No other party insists on a seat having a majority below 3,000 before counting it as a winnable at a by-election, David! You Tories seem to want the moon on a stick. I don’t just mean the Lib Dems - Labour frequently came from well behind to win by-elections in the 80s and 90s. Ipswich is the best example of a good opportunity missed - the swing required was only in the region of 10%.
103 - I believe Patsy Calton lost her council seat in 2002 to the chap who is now the Veritas candidate (no significance in that - pure trivia).
Brent East was marginal in the first Livingstone election of 1987. That was the time when Brent was regarded as the barmiest of barmy Boroughs.
As for Leicester South a quick look at Dr Waller’s tome will tell you that the constituency is demographically unrecognisable from the marginal seat of 1974-83.
The government by election gains sinsce the war were a Labour gain from ILP in the 1940s (it sort of counts, Sunderland South in 1953 (Abingdon which follwed showed also showed a swing to the Conservatives). It is said that the ending of rationing had a lot to do with those two by elections.
Brighouse and Spenborough in 1960. Labour were being introspective, and this was the time of “Fight, fight and fight again for the party I love” (sounds familiar Conservative posters).
Hull North in 1966 sort of counts as Labour retained the seat gained in 1964, increasing their majority from 1,100 to 5351.Can you imagine the Conservatives (or any party) choosing a by election candidate in the form of Toby Jessel, who went around Hull with young “gels” from Chelsea distributing tea spoons with the legend “Stir it up with Toby Jessel”
Then of course came Mitcham and Morden in the aftermath of the SDP fall out.
103 Can you be a Councillor and an MP at the Same Time? Since she became an MP in 2001 would she not have stood down?
106 I’m not a member of any Party James. I won’t go to sayt more as i think Andy Cooke at 105 has put it out it better than i can. Have a Looka.
Yes, although it is mainly people who have been elected MP’s and complete their term as a councillor. Like,
http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/blog.htm
And of course there is Welsh Assembly member and MP David TC Davies:
http://daviddaviesam.blogspot.com/
109 - I never said you were a member of any party, David. I refuse to accept that Ipswich in particular was unwinnable - a 10% swing at a by-election is absolutely commonplace even where the Libs are not involved and for the Tory vote to go down there was atrocious.
111 - I like it when they insist on staying on the parish council. I fear Lib Dems are among the worst offenders in this regard (okay, I suppose there is nothing wrong with it really but it is a bit tragic).
111 - I have to say I feel a bit sorry for him over the “Close friends call him T.C.” thing. But no doubt I’d be singing it from the benches too.
Well there are worse things than being called Top Cat (and of course it was Boss Cat in the UK…). He seems to have taken it pretty well!
As long as he doesn’t get too carried away on the perceived wave of cross-party adulation, and appear in purple hat and waistcoat on his election leaflets next time round.
It was Boss Cat here wasn’t it, in a crusade against unwitting corporate influence by the dastardly pet food industry, but I don’t think they were sufficiently zealous anti-capitalists to change the theme tune.
So what you make 112 of the posts at 105 and 107?
Labour’s wins in the 80’s and 90’s:
In 1982, Labour won Birmingham Northfield from 0.3% behind.
In 1986, Labour won Fulham from 12.2% behind.
In 1989, Labour won the Vale of Glamorgan from 11.9% behind.
In the poll tax era, Labour won Mid Staffs from 18.3% behind (1990), Monmouth from 13.6% behind and Langborough from 13% behind on huge swings.
The three by-election victories by Labour over the Tories in the 92-97 Parliament produced landslide swings; they started from 8.8% behind, 11.5% behind and 15.8% behind respectively.
They did not win any seats at by-elections when starting from as far behind as the Tories were in Ipswich, let alone in Leicester South or Brent East.
The starting positions of Labour and Tories in by-elections genuinely effects the outcome - when the difference is large, the Lib Dems have their best chance due to tactical voting by either side.
Its like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles became Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles in the UK (the BBC or whoever didn’t want to promote violence amongst the young) but again, they didn’t change them theme tune.
I remember that - but I always thought they did change the tune for that one. I have a worryingly vivid memory of the tune going “Teenage Mutant HERO Turtles”. Still, even if this has somehow been planted in my mind, I if no one else have been saved from a desperate, martial arts-laden existence. Thanks BBC.
116, 117 - I think that’s a bit misleading on the basis that although the majorities happened to be a bit below Ipswich levels, the swing achieved by Labour in the 80s and 90s by-elections was sometimes well above that which would have been required by the Tories in Ipswich.
I don’t really believe people looked at it in Fulham in 1986 and said “Oh, Labour are only 12% behind with the Alliance in a poor third so I will vote Labour. If they had been 20% behind with the Alliance in a poor third I would have thrown my vote away on David Steel’s boys.”
There was no real excuse for the Tory vote falling back in Ipswich or for the Tories losing second place in Brent, Leicester and Birmingham (and one or two others in recent years - Tottenham? Leeds?). This evidence points to the Tories being bad at by-elections.
121 - not also forgetting Winchester and Romsey - where the Tories continued to get ‘incumbent government’ type swings against them despite now being in opposition.
The last time this happened to the official opposition was in the heyday of the Alliance - Bermondsey and Greenwich.
120 & 121 - I think this was comprehensively explained before as resulting from the long period in Government and the Post Govt hangover, which lasted a long time. MOst of the things that the Tories are attacked for being bad at result from our unprecedented previous success in winning elections.
The pendulum seems to be swinging back and it is to be expected that the Tories will once again find winning ways at by-elections against the Govt, provided of course that we get the leadership sorted! I think this will come too late to help in Cheadle but who knows.
rIK THAT POST AT 247 ON THE id thREAD FROM YOUR FELLOW Tory give you hope? Or is it bullsh*t in your humble opiniona?
P: please try and keep discussion to the current thread. Thanks, Robert
Apologies if this has been answered above. Do we know, or can we guess, why betfair has suspended the market? Is my bet that I placed when the market opened pretty much still valid?
111. He’s not the only one who is both Welsh Assembly member and MP. Peter “I’m a real socia-list” is both of them too.
Meanwhile Sophia’s favourite Derek Conway has said he will continue to back David Davis even if his oldest friend Alan Duncan will stand. He hopes little Duncan will understand and continue their friendship.
http://www.bexleyexpress.co.uk/content/bexley/express/news/story.aspx?brand=BXEOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsbxe&itemid=WeED30%20Jun%202005%2010%3A08%3A44%3A863
But will Aland understand or will he turn all his affections to his newly found ducks? and the biggest question: will someone vote for Alan Duncan?
All the answers in next week episode….
123 - I would never suggest that it is BS but it is not what I am hearing from other sources. Still, I would be delighted if he is right!
PS sorry, at 125, I meant why has betfair suspended the market ON CHEADLE and does my bet, placed before the suspension, still stand?
124 Robert it is about the Current Thread, it was a report from someone albeit on the ID Card THread who Claimed to have been Canvassing for the Conservatives in Cheadlea.
Really interesting about the 3 government gains since the war - it’s as many as 10% of Parliamentary by-elections that change hand, that are won by the government. However of course that’s not directly relevant to Cheadle.
I agree with Mike now that perhaps I was a bit rash betting immediately at very short odds on a Lib Dem win. Politics, as I’ve said about Brown for Labour leader, is usually just not that predictable. However I think the Lib Dems must be strong favourites, and 1.2 may be about right. We shall see.
By-election swings, James at 120. I don’t think the previous position matters because of voters looking at the record and voting accordingly.
The previous result shows you a lot about the demographics and therefore how the constituency ‘naturally’ falls between Labour and Tory, or left and right, in the context of the previous election. It also tells you a lot about how the parties are organised locally, but since the national parties take over the campaign (is this true in all parties?) that aspect is not much of a guide to how well they’ll do. In a by-election campaign, credibility comes mostly from the number of leaflets that go through letterboxes. I think people start to believe that whoever’s putting in that much effort must be in with a real chance. The ‘result last time’ graph is significant, but only when it’s on a load of leaflets.
Wasn’t Sir Charles Irving a district and county councillor as well as being an MP?
Richard @ 132 - he was Leader of the District Council at the same time as being the MP too, if I recall correctly. Impossible these days, with the pressures on MPs and Council Leaders.
98 etc ,
My first rough calculations show Winchester a little safer for the Lib Dems and interestingly the County Council results unusually followed the Norman Lamb trend with some Conservatives voting for him at the GE so despite some views on here , Mark Oaten is locally popular . Eastleigh is also rather safer on the new boundaries . Both the new Hants E and Meon Valley appear to be Conservative with small majorities but the latter could be wiped out if the Labour voyers transferring from Havant could be persuaded to vote tactically .
133 - Especially if like Letwin and others you have outside jobs as well .
One thing about by-elections - they’re a lot rarer these days. I think that the 1959-1964 Parliament had more than 60!
On changing hands between elections, I think that the 1966-1970 Parliament holds the record - at the dissolution, the Conservatives had an even dozen seats that Labour had won in 1966. Overall, the Labour majority was cut by 30 during that Parliament - 1 seat each to the Liberals, SNP and Plaid and 12 to the Tories. Labour held ten of the 25 they defended in that Parliament.
The earlier post-war Parliaments had fewer seats changing hands, although plenty of by-elections. We seem to have dropped from about 10 per year to one or two - probably due to MP demographics.
In the light of the two latest thread pictures of Charles Clarke and revolvers and a disturbed Charlie Kennedy I was suprised to receive via E-mail a whole series of pictures stolen from the vaults chez Smithson. This would account for the difficulties on the site this morning as the break-in at Smithsongate was investigated. Amongst the photographs are :
1. A be-cloaked Michael Howard leaving a Hythe graveyard at midnight.
2. Anne Widdecombe pole dancing in Soho .
3. Nicholas Soames at a “Eat as much as you can” restaurant.
4. Roger Knappman kissing Prodi on both cheeks.
5. George Galloway prostrating himself in the Oval Office…..”Sir I salute you……..”
6. Ian Paisley dancing the tango with Gerry Adams.
7. Jack Straw shaking hands with Robert Mugabe ?!?!?
8. Gordon Brown entering a casino with a sack of cash.
9. Charles Kennedy leaving a pub……………..sober.
10. Margaret Thatcher singing the “Red Flag” and giving a black power salute.
Who is deep-throating me this information I do not know. However I understand that the President (of the West Bridgford Lib Dems) will be making a state-wide broadcast on who is responsible for the break-in :
“…….people have got to know whether this President is a crook . Well I’m not a crook . I’ve earned everything I’ve got……..”
Nevertheless I understand Vice President Gerald Book Value is on standby.
Is the Labour candidate the same one of last month election or not?
Last month candidate was someone called Martin Miller, yesterday bbc.co.uk reported that the name of Lab candidate for the by-election is Mark Miller. Is it a mistake or are they 2 different men?
If the Libdems need to rely on labour tactical voteers, it’s easy to make them switch if Labour has an unknown candidate and not a candidate who already campaigned for months.
ops, now all my comments which failed to show up this morning have now re-appeared. Now I seem a very disturbed man who posted the same message 4 or 5 times.
Btw I discovered the word which blocked them : it’s “mov ie”.
137 , Andrea . I’m expecting my 137 to appear a few times ……talk about BBC repeats!! I thought it got spammed , but it’s more likely my stupidity !!
Sorry not to read through all 140 but have I missed posts about Betfair suspending the market?
Back to Cameron and the marriage thing, the Times is already criticizing this strategy:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-1675950,00.html
The tories need to work this message well, it could risk to be counter-productive. How they’ll present this view will be crucial. After being accused to be racist in this campaign, they could be accused to be bigots in the next one.
142 Andrea the Times is still being sued by the Tories as far as i’m aware along with three of their Journalists personally Guy Peirce etc by Crosby etc a decision taken while Cameron was part of that Election team. Just to remind you of the current Background of the Times and the Toriesa.
143. If they’ll build this message about marriage well, it could go down well with voters, but if they won’t present it well, they will be open to attacks from other parties. Many people will be delighted to talk about the tories as tradionalist bigots (I’m already hearing the Guardian and the Independent).
Tony Benn stars on Question Time , made the other panellists look second class and they knew it . Lembot Asteroid actually of this world tonight and Otis Ferry MFH out of his depth.
Andrea Politically i think theuy or Cameton will not gove(there’s pun_) **** what those Papers think they’ll SLaughter them regardless. They’ll only care if the Sun lays into them for it, which is very unlikely quit the opposite in facta.
pS oNE huNDRED And Forty Five HFM?
Sorry One Hundred and Forty Five that should have been of course MFH?
146. At the beginning the newspapers start to talk about it, then the other parties, then the TV and at the end everyone is talking about it.
However The Daily Mail will love a campaign to save the marriage. If the economy will be in good shape, it could be see as something far from the real problems. And IMHO few voters will believe that the Labour government did things that undermined families (like Cameron claimed).
145. I don’t know about Benn - blaming all Africa’s ills on slavery was a bit lame.
146. MFH = Master of Fox Hounds
149. At least he didn’t blame France cows for Africa poverty (like Brown implied).
Andrea are you receiving Question Time in Italy?