Are the Tories heading for a fourth successive defeat?
July 30th, 2005
-
What happens if the new leader makes no difference?
Although the poll moves away from the Tories have not been as great as after previous General Elections there’ve been few crumbs of comfort in the few surveys that have been carried out.
We have hardly mentioned the post-May 5th polls on the site because this close to the election the question of what respondents might do in four years time is not very relevant. Also the Olympic 2012 decision and the bombings have clearly helped the government. But from Cheadle and the limited data we have the best that can be said is that the Tory ceiling of 33% support is still in place.
Michael Howard’s move to go into an immediate leadership election has not helped as has his desire to change the rules which will ensure an ongoing row for several months. But is there anything that the party can feel positive about?
There is quite a range of bookies accepting bets on the outcome of the next UK General Election which we have hardly featured. The implied probability the prices represent is 65% for Labour. We can see no reason for betting now because of the need to lock your money up for so long.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Really is a bit tough to comment objectively at this stage.
We’ve all got our own hopes and aspirations which differ wildly but no-one surely can pretend to comment authoritively.
Potential changes of leadership in all three parties, questions over the economy to which none of us know the answer at this stage, god forbid event that could make 7/7 look tame, it’s all speculation.
Notwithstanding my personal preference for DD over DC and the fact that a quick resolution is associated with improving the chances of this coming about, the only area that I believe we can help ourselves
more than we are at the moment is to b****y well get a move on and get the thing sorted out ASAP (whoever wins).
We’re heading rapidly towards conference season and all that will be heard otherwise will be tales of Conservatives “Plotting”,”scheming”
and “back stabbing” rather than it being used as a platform for relaunching our policies and agenda.
As I say, notwithstanding the fact that it suits my preferred Candidate (which is why the anti DD gang is playing it long)I really don’t think this is doing us any favours.
On a broader theme though, as your intro alludes, the current levels of support seem to reflect “What part of how we voted in May don’t you understand” a they clamber towards WH Smith in the airport departure lounges. Let’s see what happens when the Autumn comes.
The election was less than two months ago and we have had a number of events since then. One would have to say that all outcomes are possible at this stage. Tories must hope that the electorate will forget just how bad they are at running the economy, and that the Brown economy hits serious problems. They have some hope on both scores…but the situation is not clear.
If changing the leader was gong to get them out of their hole, then one has to believe that they would have done it by now.
What will work against the Tories? The likely GB honeymoon period; their irrelevance in large numbers of our big cities (more obvious since May); perhaps a decline in the importance of Iraq as an issue (which might make it hard to hold onto several of their gains next time around).
Even the boundary changes are not quite as good as they appear. Around ten are quite clearly in the Tory column. The rest are going to be very tight contests.
“Tony Blair has said he’ll go before the next election - though the latest Populus Poll has 48% of Labour supporters saying that he should reconsider his decision to stand down and stay on longer ”
The fact that Blair could fight the next election again doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a disadvantage for the tories.
If Blair will decide to fighe for another term, the most interesting market that bookmakers should open is:”will Brown push him under a bus?”.
Accorging to Populus only 6% can recognise who Cameron is. He’s sometimes cofused with Osbuone.
Davis is confused with Dimbleby or Michael Grade. Theresa May is confused with Jowell, Hewitt and sometimes even with Ruth Kelly. Alan Duncan is confused with David Davis and Liam Fox is confused with Alex Salomond!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1713648,00.html
I think it is quite plausible that Davis as leader would indeed make no difference. Cameron is more likely to have an effect - trouble is, it could be in either direction!
2. ‘Tories must hope that the electorate will forget just how bad they are at running the economy’
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it the tories who took us from the sick man of Europe to the 4th largest ecomomy in the world and left the economy that has enabled GB to give money away willy nilly and create hundreds of thousands on non jobs in the public sector.
4 - “Alan Duncan is confused with David Davis”
Has this ever happened to you, Andrea?
“Liam Fox is confused with Alex Salomond!”
Actually, these days Liam Fox is a sort of cross between Oliver Letwin and Alex Salmond (in appearance, anyway).
The key will be the economy; if things go badly for Mr Brown ( and there are signs that they will) then the Tories will be back.
7-”“Alan Duncan is confused with David Davis”
Has this ever happened to you, Andrea?”
They’re pretty different:
http://www.conservatives.com/UploadedFiles/GRAPHIC/PORTRAIT/davis_p_1101.jpg
http://www.alanduncan.org.uk/images/mediapics/portculis1.jpg
But if they were able to confuse Theresa May with Ruth Kelly, everything is possible.
“Actually, these days Liam Fox is a sort of cross between Oliver Letwin and Alex Salmond (in appearance, anyway).”
I think that the majority of interviewees didn’t know who Letwin is.
7- The spam filter blocked my reply earlier. It didin’t seem to have banned words in it. Maybe it’s one of the links.
““Alan Duncan is confused with David Davis”
Has this ever happened to you, Andrea?”
They’re pretty different:
http://www.conservatives.com/UploadedFiles/GRAPHIC/PORTRAIT/davis_p_1101.jpg
http://www.conservatives.com/UploadedFiles/GRAPHIC/STDIMAGE/portrait-alanduncan-notie.jpg
But if they were able to confuse Theresa May with Ruth Kelly, everything is possible.
“Actually, these days Liam Fox is a sort of cross between Oliver Letwin and Alex Salmond (in appearance, anyway).”
I think that the majority of interviewees didn’t know who Letwin is.
Surprised no-one has mentioned the hung parliament which remains the most likely outcome next time.
It’s reasonably possible the Tories could have the largest number of seats (I’d say 30% chance) but very unlikely they can win a majority. I believe this will very much affect the behaviour of all parties 2-3 years hence.
Mike - not sure that CK has less appeal to Tory waverers per se; its more to do with policy (which I suppose you could argue ultimately was down to him).
The problem facing the LDs is similar to that faced by the Conservatives; a move in one direction to capture support may lose it from the other end, as it were. The trick, therefore, is to become more Liberal but at the same time retain progressive support.
11.”The trick, therefore, is to become more Liberal but at the same time retain progressive support”
It could be the opposite too: become more progressive, but retain liberla support.
10. If there’ll be a hung Parliament with Labour as the largest party, what will be the most likely outcome?
12. The Lib Dems also have an OMOV voting system that puts the leadership decision totally with the membership. There are potential Lib Dem leaders who would be more Tory-friendly but my guess is that they would be less likely to be elected because of OMOV. The Lib Dem membership being more “left” than those who support the party.
I always think that we got CK because he, with his TV appearances, was more well-known and he probably would not have been the choice of the parliamentary party - an IDS situation.
14 - we also got Paddy who seemed designed to appeal to Tory waverers
I suspect the aprty would vote for the “right” person were they perceived to be in the Party’s interest.
CK received by far the largest number of nominations by MP’s at the last leadership election. All the evidence suggests that he was the favoured candidate amongst MP’s, probably due to his ‘collegiate’ style compared with Paddy.
6 - The short answer , Woody is that no it wasn’t . The Conservatives had the huge benefit of North Sea Oil and Gas which could have been used to revitalise the economy but instead was used to give part of the electorate the benefit of tax cuts whilst the many parts of the country lost the major part of their manufacturing industry . The pack of cards collapsed with Nigel Lawson and Black Wednesday .
11. I somehow doubt that the idea that the most probable result is for the Conservatives or Labour to be the largest party but neither to have an overall majority. As in all elections it comes down to choices and according to polls a large majority don’t want a hung parliament. So if faced with this as a real possibility the electorate is likely to polarize and either give it to Labour or the Tories. The worst option for the Lib Dems in my opinion are the opinion polls at the next election showing the other parties neck or the Tories marginally infront.
…neck and neck
15 , Tabman . It’s not just Lib Dems who have to apppeal to Tories , I have just sent out a raiding party to capture some more supporters for my Jacobite Party whether the voters like it or not :
http://www.scenicscotland.net/pitlochry/visit//killiecrankie+battle/20.jpg
Maybe the tories have reached the low level in their support and the libdems even with the most appealing leader to Tory waverers couldn’t make more advances.
Polls do not show a large majority against a hung parliament Roger. Rather a lot of voters were keen on the idea in May.
Andrea - no idea what happens to be honest. The knee-jerk answer is LD/Lab pact but somehow I don’t think that this will happen with Brown in charge. Who knows what the next Tory leader might bring? After 13 years of Labour I think the voters will be tired and it would be rather dangerous for the LDs to keep Labour on political life support.
Though there is no real doubt the present LDs are closer to Labour a pact between Cons and LD would be more likely to beat the worst out of both sides IMHO.
When the Tories were crushed in 1997 I had a bet that the next time they were in power would be 2015 sharing it with the LibDems. Probably I am wrong but it is still not out of the question.
Mark @ 17, the UK economy was (by any measure you care to use) in much better shape in absolute and relative terms in 1997 than in 1979. Manufacturing fared badly, but the much larger services sector fared extremely well.
WRT a hung Parliament, a pact between Conservatives and Lib Dems seems most unlikely, yet is fairly common on local authorities (Birmingham being the most important). I think it would be a very difficult choice for the Lib Dems to make. They could lose out badly whichever party they put into power.
Andrea 21. Your supposition has a counter argument. It could be the other way around. Despite their relative failure in terms of seats at the last election, I get the impression that Lib Dems, both at party level and in the parliamentary party are starting to feel their political muscles somewhat. In the past LDs that I know would have been delighted at their performance at the last election. Now the same people seem to be disappointed and motivated at the same time. They appear to be talking a bigger game in terms of their objectives, which marks a sea change in the way they view themselves.
This is not to say that, if the Tories were to get their act together that that would be anything but a chimera for the LDs. But one of the main problems for the LDs has been perception, and that has been reflected both amongst the electorate, but also amongst their own. If their party becomes more imbued with ’self belief’ then that could be one of the main dangers to both Labour and the Conservatives.
Mark senior and Peter
I’m sorry in your anti tory view you may think were crap, but people do regonise we left the economy in better shape when we left than when we took over. Even Labour supporting family friends in Bury South I know give us this. I realise I may have been over optermistic in Cheadle, i call this condition Cheadpartylistic, and you seem to be exhibiting classic symptoms of it.
On a lighter note, although, polls are always important. I do not look to deeply at polls so soon after an election. Look at 1992 when Kinock resigned Labour dipped, it wasn’t intill much later and the late John Smith was elected as leader and the stock exchange collapsed, in late 19992 and early 1993, that things changed.
Mark senior and Peter
I’m sorry in your anti tory view you may think were crap, but people do regonise we left the economy in better shape when we left than when we took over. Even Labour supporting family friends in Bury South I know give us this. I realise I may have been over optermistic in Cheadle, i call this condition Cheadpartylistic, and you seem to be exhibiting classic symptoms of it.
On a lighter note, although, polls are always important. I do not look to deeply at polls so soon after an election. Look at 1992 when Kinock resigned Labour dipped, it wasn’t intill much later and the late John Smith was elected as leader and the stock exchange collapsed, in late 19992 and early 1993, that things changed.
(Hi Stuart)
22. Unless the Lib/Dem membership has changed radically from the one we all know and love any kind of Lib Dem/Tory pact would lose them most of their members. Sandals and beads with shirts and no ties…Nah!
re 16. The fact that CK received the largest number of nominations from LD MPs at the last leadership election does not mean they all voted for him. These guys are ambitious politicians and it might be a good idea to stay in a good favour with the obvious front runner.
On a secret ballot of LD MPs s today how many votes would CK get?
Hello Roger
I agree with Mike on the LIb Dems mps’. Although, with all party people I think they were over optermisitc on the gains they would make, especially when they had changed there tack to going left of Labour. Perhaps, if politics is war without the bullets, it goes to prove that a small army can not fight on two seperate fronts especially against two large fronts
That is assuming you consider the Tories a ‘large front’ these days Stuart, or merely a mid-size front
No I do`nt think the Tories are in for a fourth defeat.
If events continue or god forbid get worse.There will be a backlash against all centre left parties in the uk.
The call for ever more controls on immigration and extra security by the right wing media, will resonate in all sections of society.
Labour may try to meet some of this, but the liberal elements will then sit on there hands, and not vote at the forthcoming election,thus spliting the centre left vote.
A newly invogorated right wing government, will then bring in the new security agenda, leaving the centre left out of power for a generation.
7. I forgot to add that people confuse Ken Clarke with Prescott.
31.”The call for ever more controls on immigration and extra security by the right wing media, will resonate in all sections of society.”
Practically the Daily Mail will rule the country. Pretty scaring!
23/16 - Sean and Peter , Yes the economy in 1997 was better than the appaling state it was in in 1979 , but given the massive benefit of North Sea Oil that was not going to be difficult to achieve , but that is not to say that on the whole the Conservatives managed the economy well over the 18 years in power , there were som pretty awful errors made and at the end of the day ( and it is not just my opinion ) the opportunity to rebuild the economy given by North Sea Oil was squandered by right wing dogma .
Iwould not rule at a Con/Lib Dem coalition after the next election . This does happen at local level in a number of councils witness Birmingham . Hopefully , the fairly high probability of a hung parliament is something all 3 parties will address well before the next election .
Re. 6, George Soros deserves some credit for rescuing us from the deflationary folly of ERM membership. The economy recovered despite the Major government’s actions on White Wednesday, not because of it.
or because of them, even.
Unless there are some significant new events the government will win or lose based on the state of the economy,this has been the case almost without exception since the second world war.
If the economy goes down as most commentators predict then I can see that it could well be a case of hanging on until the end of a full parliament as per the Major government.
Can some of the 40% of the electorate that did not vote in the last two elections be mobilised to turn out,did they not participate because a Labour win was a forgone conclusion,was it dissafection with politicians in general,would they be receptive to a new message?
Will there be tax payer fatige following the significant tax increases that will be required over the next few years.
Originally the commentators claimed there was an £ 6 billion hole to fill,add to this the £1.9 billion to cover the GB’s tax credit’s overpayments plus several billions more to cover the tax revenue drop based on latest projections that growth forecast at 3 to 3.5% will be reduced to 1.7%.(some this of course could be avoided if Labour cut their spending programs).
Will we still be engaged in Iraq? if so the Liberals should keep the seats they took from Labour & maybe make further inroads.
Whilst it may be GB instead of TB,GB was the paymaster for the war & put his full support behind it.
Will the boundary changes effect tactical voting in as much as it will be unclear in some seats as to who is the favorite to win the seat?
Could Europe finally be a general election issue?Will it be time again to vote on a new European constitution or indeed the Euro,as once the economy takes a hit the usual suspects will be out blaming it on our failure to join.
At the end of the day if Labour loses 32 seats then we are into hung parliament territory.
It is at this stage odds-on that unless the Lib Dems get their act together a bit more, then Tories will win the next election. The likelihood is however that it will be the Blunkett/Clarke variety rather than the Davis/Cameron clan.
37? you’re saying blunkett to lead labour, ken clarke the tories?
Ps There was an article small on Clarke in todays telegraph i couldn’t find it online. would anyone be kind enough to provide a link? be good to stir debate on it.
No I think he is saying that Blunkett and Charles Clarke are Tories.
39. I wouldn’t have to use lots of imagination to picture Blunkett as a tory.
Blunkett as Labour’s leader could become more divisive than Blair. I suppose that Blunkett would cause strong headaches to the left.
37 - a bit unfair to the real Tories, most of whom have a far stronger grasp of liberty than the Blunkett/Clarke database statists.
41. Book Value, I’m stunned. Maybe you LD Activists might not lynch a Lib Dem Leader who entered coalition talks with the tories after All.
Well, the ID cards issue is certainly something I would be comfortable collaborating with Tories on. Sharing a platform on that boosts our chances of kicking the Bill out of the Lords.
43. Could a rejection of the ID cards bill by the Lords help to decrease the number of rebels in the Commons, because some leftwinged rebels won’t like to be associated with the Lords (and because they think that an unelected House couldn’t stop bills from the elected part of the Parliament)?
For the “where are they now?” section (the defeated MPs), Stephen Twigg has named Director of the Foreign Policy Centre (a well paid job according to the Independen).
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article300727.ece
BV, I haven’t still found news about Candy Atherton. I suspect she’s one of those former MPs will never be hear about.
I imagine Candy got the first train back to Islington on 6 May, somehow…
On ID cards, I think the point is that we have a very good case on the merits. We can make the common-sense arguments look stronger if we have a line that Tories and Lib Dems can agree on - and by the time it gets back to the Commons we have a Bill which there is a broad consensus is a bad idea. It’s hardly a matter of core Labour values to introduce it (whereas you could argue that the poll tax despite its unpopularity was much more in tune with Conservative or at least Thatcherite philosophy). So I hope that with Blair receiving even less deference, more Labour MPs will be able to stand up and tell him he’s wrong.
I think it unlikely Labour won’t win next time, unless the economy goes bad, something catastrophic happens, like another Bush invasion or Brown doesn’t become leader.
This is why:
None of the Tory leader contenders are at all inspiring.
The only heavyweight would split the Tories over Europe.
The Tories are unlikely to take the action they need to readdress their image.
Overall Brown will be seen as an improvement over Blair I expect.
Brown is a man the voters would have trusted for 12 years.
A new PM will get a honeymoon period with voters
Political backlash over Iraq will have faded greatly and much of the extra Lib Dem vote will return to Labour.
Labour will be sitting on 12 years of economic competence.
Some rather wild and over-the-top partisan comments on this especially from the Tory inclined. Of course, trying to predict the result of an election in 2009/10 from this distance is impossible - I’m struggling with the 3.25 at Goodwood this afternoon - and events we cannot foresee may well tear up the script completely.
I come back to the old adage - Oppositions don’t win elections, Governments lose them -. To a greater or lesser extent, it is the Government that dictates the agenda but it is also the Government that can become the victim of events and can seem out of control (eg: the Callaghan and Major Governments). By 1979 and 1997 respectively, the Government was on the point of political collapse even though (in the case of 1997) the economic situation wasn’t anywhere near as bleak.
Does the Labour Government of 2005 look on the brink of collapse ? At the moment, in all honesty, no. Compare Blair in 2005 with Major in 1997 and Callaghan in 1979 and there simply is no comparison. If/when Blair goes and (presumably) Brown takes over, there’s a chance he may lurch to crisis as Callaghan did after succeeding Wilson in 1976.
I think also there’s a need to differentiate between internal crisis and external crisis. As I’ve said before, events like 9/11 and 7/7 are easy for Governments. Crises tend to rally support behind the Government and silence any more critical voices. Internal crisis, such as fuel protests or strikes, are rather different and it is those which tend to weaken Governments more quickly.
Perhaps the central question between now and 2009/10 is whether growing disenchantment with Labour (if it occurs) will translate (as it has done in the past) to support for the Conservatives. The key political “fact” of 2005 was not the decline in the Labour majority but that those disenchanted with Labour did not turn directly to the Tories but instead to the Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens etc, etc.
To win a working majority in 2009/10, the Tories need to do more than wait for Labour to collapse (if that happens). The new leader will need to succeed where his three predecessors have failed - i.e: to break Tory support out of the 30-33% bunker.
Others on this site have spoken of the LD “blocking minority” and the fact that the Party has 62 seats, rather than 20, makes the Tory task of forming an outright majority Government even harder. It may be that by 2008 we will be considering coalition policies and politics more closely than we are at present. It will require both LD and Tory activists to tone down the rhetoric and the abuse. The signs, at least on this Forum, aren’t encouraging so far.
Stodge, just the Tory inclined? See 46.
I think you’re too harsh. Look at Book Value saying nice things re Tories, bet you didn’r expect that!
As this thread was re the Tories by the by George Jones was saying Clarke’s Campaign having got off to a slow start has been lifted by the polls showing his public popularity, as a measure of his earnestness this time he’s promising to junk all outside interests. Can someone post the article? I can’t find it.
46. A lot ifs there, as the old jewish sayiong goes, if, if, if and if my Granfather had Balls She’d be my grandfather!
46,
`Brown is a man the voters would have trusted for 12 years`
Well I hope so, but the nearer one gets to Blair`s departure watch the media turn, especially the conservative press.
The comparisons saying Brown,is not Prime minister material always start when they feel Blair may go.
The nearer it gets to the election the cresendo will be unbearable, don`t think that Browns ratings with the voters especially swing voters will be that high.
Mark, back in 1979, the consensus view was that the best Britain could hope for, economically, was managed decline. Treasury reports then suggested that our long term growth rate was about 1%, and I can remember articles about how places like Spain, Greece and even East Germany (!) would overhaul us before too long.
The consensus was certainly too pessimistic about our prospects, but there was nothing inevitable about our economic recovery, with or without North Sea Oil. The oil revenues were handy, but even at their peak, never amounted to more than about 6% of government income. They enabled income taxes to be cut, but that seems to me to be an entirely rational use of a windfall of this nature.
Richard, I quite agree that our membership of ERM was disastrous (a view I’ve expressed here before), and that the consequences of coming out of ERM were wholly benign. But I still consider that economic growth since September 1992 would be nothing like as strong as it has been if the economic reforms of the 1980s had not taken place.
Sorry should of course be if my grandmother had balls she’d be my grandfather.
48.Stodge, just the Tory inclined? See 46.
I think you’re too harsh. Look at Book Value saying nice things re Tories, bet you didn’r expect that!
As this thread was re the Tories by the by George Jones was saying Clarke’s Campaign having got off to a slow start has been lifted by the polls showing his public popularity, as a measure of his earnestness this time he’s promising to junk all outside interests. Can someone post the article? I can’t find it.
46. A lot ifs there, as the old jewish sayiong goes, if, if, if and if my Grandmother had Balls She’d be my grandfather!
49.”Well I hope so, but the nearer one gets to Blair`s departure watch the media turn, especially the conservative press.
The comparisons saying Brown,is not Prime minister material always start when they feel Blair may go.
The nearer it gets to the election the cresendo will be unbearable, don`t think that Browns ratings with the voters especially swing voters will be that high. ”
Brown’s ratings could not be so high, but what ratings will have the new tory leader?
The conservative press attacking Brown (or who will be the Labour’s leader if something will happen to Brown) won’t be hardly a surprise. I would be suprised if the tory press will back a Labour leader during a campaign.
A swing along the lines of May 6th, if repeated at the next election, would give a result of Conservative 33.8%, Labour 30.4%, Lib Dem 26.6%.
Assuming a further small unwind of anti-Conservative tactical voting Baxter comes up with a result of Con: 268, Lab: 270, LD 76. So the Lib Dems could put either party into office.
Boundary changes would make it likely that in fact, the Conservatives would have the most seats under such a result.
47 - thoughtful post, stodge. However, take heart - there are signs that constructive dialogue can be had, especially when in he flesh rather than mediated over the message board.
55 - Nuala, if you’d been able to come to the party you would have met some personable Lib Dems. And even some of those Tory PPCs who are a little strident on here were most amiable in person.
55 - Oh and by the way, do I get my £5 for unmasking you in Islington?
http://www.melaniemclean.com/blog/
Mr Value, never apologise, never explain! I’m sure it would be interesting to meet some of the personalities from this board, so please let me know if you have such an event again.
57- Have you made more researches into this story? Or are you to busy to enter in a coalition with the tories?
58 - most likely in January
59 - at present the investigation has reached a slow stage. However, I will keep the net closing in.
52.”A lot ifs there, as the old jewish sayiong goes, if, if, if and if my Granfather had Balls She’d be my grandfather! ”
4 years before the next election, it’s normal to use lots of “if” to make predictions. Everything could happen in 4 years!
“Look at Book Value saying nice things re Tories, bet you didn’r expect that!”
Have the Libdems such a bad reputation that it’s a surprise when they say nice words about other parties?
btw, is George Galloway on holiday? I haven’t heard him since the first bombings. Maybe he’s not interested in second attempt, because it didn’t happen in his constituency.
53,
Some of the right wing press gave Blair a fair ride when he took over the Labour leadership, and swing voters were impressed.
Brown has no chance of the same.
However the reverse may happen if someone like David Cameron gets the conservative leaders role.
Some in the Liberal press will give him a fair go, the conservative media will have to support him, and like the Blair factor, swing voters may follow in their droves for a time for a change.
62- Lots of “if” even in your post. If the tory press will destroy Brown, if Cameron will get the tory leadership, if the Guardian will support Cameron,….
I’m still waiting Cameron to explain how he wants to use the tax system to promote marriage (I doubt the Guardian and the Independent will like this idea). What does he want to do, tax the singles (now they couldn’t be called bachelors anymore)? During the fascism in Italy there was that tax.
63. No Andrea. The current tax system is basically a married couple living together have only one tax allowance ie the amount they warn before tax is paid. the same couple living together but unamarried would with their joint income have two allowances being counted as individuals. In other words ther is currently a discrmination against marriage in the tax system and a strong financial disincentive for less well off and middling couples not to marry. Don’t listen to the Guardian hysteria, Cameron is no Zealot, all he has in mind i think quite rightly is to equalise the tax Status of couples living together whether they are Married or NOt.
64 - I am sorry, Interest, but this is just not correct. Married couples are taxed independently, i.e. exactly as unmarried couples, and have been since 1990.
The only exception is that married couples over 70 get some tax benefit from being married.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pdfs/ir121.htm#14
Andrea,
I agree a lot of ifs but that whats its all about.
Its not about getting support in that sense, but getting a fair ride, as Blair did when he took over the Labour Leadership from a vast majority of the right wing press.
To neutralise the Murdoch attacks was important.
The same goes for the new conservative leader, if swing voters percieve a change and he gets a fair ride in the media, and is seen as credible, there is everything to play for after Blair.
65. Hmm ok i’ll do some digging and get back to you perhapss.
65.BV Knowing your web abilities if you could find todays Clarke article in the telegraph and link it here i would be grateful. cheers.
ps written by george jones.
68 - sorry, it doesn’t seem to be on the web: I could only find one George Jones article today, and that was about Brian Haw (the anti-war protestor outside Parliament)
64. Sorry, I don’t know if I’ve understood well.
The tax system is not my field.
A married couple will get only a tax allowance, because they’re counted not as two individuals, but as only one thing. An unmarried couple will get two tax allowances, becuase they’re counted as two people. Is it right?
Cameron wants to equalise the tax system for married and unmarried couple (I don’t disagree with this). But will he propose to give 2 tax allowances to married couples too or the opposite?
If he’ll consider unmarried couples like married couples (I would do this, because I’m in favour to give benefits to unmarried couples, but they’ve to accept negative parts of the acknowledgment of their status too), he’ll rise taxes for part of the society and then it would be incoherent to advocate taxes reductions.
I’m not sure that this will increase marriage rate anyway. An unmarried couple won’t have advantages anymore, but it won’t have disadvantages too. If those couples were ready not to married only to have tax benefits, it means that marriage is not very important for them. So they could stay unmarried even with the Cameron’s proposal (they don’t have disadvantages).
70 - “A married couple will get only a tax allowance, because they’re counted not as two individuals, but as only one thing. An unmarried couple will get two tax allowances, becuase they’re counted as two people. Is it right?”
This was the case in the past, but not since 1990. Since then, married couples are also treated as independent earners with independent tax allowances. Here is a summary:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/inmanual/html/In0145/04_0027_IN300.htm
As I say, married couples over 70 do get a slight tax advantage from being married.
Cheers 69. It is in the print edition, maybe they don’t put everything on the web/ if i can i will scan it on or maybe someone else can? it was only a small article, but interesting i thought that jones thought clarke’s campaign had been givwen a recent boost by all those polls, and kc was trying to show intent by vowing to ditch all outside interests if he wins. jones is a reliable hack, maybe kc is making more inroads than previously thought, even if he remains well of the pace behind the two front runners.
Cheers 69. It is in the print edition, maybe they don’t put everything on the web? if i can i will scan it on or maybe someone else can? it was only a small article, but interesting i thought that jones thought clarke’s campaign had been givwen a recent boost by all those polls, and kc was trying to show intent by vowing to ditch all outside interests if he wins. jones is a reliable hack, maybe kc is making more inroads than previously thought, even if he remains well of the pace behind the two front runners.
Cheers 69. It is in the print edition, maybe they don’t put everything on the web? if i can i will scan it on or maybe someone else can? it was only a small article, but interesting i thought that jones thought clarke’s campaign had been givwen a recent boost by all those polls, and kc was trying to show intent by vowing to ditch all outside interests if he wins. jones is a reliable hack, maybe kc is making more inroads than previously thought, even if he remains well of the pace behind the two front runners.
O/T , Andrea . Just thought you might like this Italian site . What fun you could have ….. hic
http://www.atuttabirra.com/catalogoscozia.htm
71. Sorry BV, I started to type my post @70 before your post @65. I took 15 minutes to type that post. I got lost in it!
76. Jack W, after a glass, I would already be out of control! I would not be able to say two word without laughing.
What are you doing here? I thought you were in Bromley to protest against the tories
Don’t worry for your safety, the police assured to protect the protesters (maybe the police thought that the Bromley tory leader was going to attack the protesters…..)
Just remember that all politics is local. One poster said Labour would lose their majority if 32 seats fell net (i.e. to any other opposition party). What are their 32 most marginal seats and do we have any thoughts on them?
Having said that, there is no way that I’d have put Crawley or Harwich into the Tory pile for ‘05 and they so nearly were! So any long shots too?
77 , Andrea . “…. after a glass , I would already be out of control! ”
You certainly would be after a couple of bottles of this . Rather an excellent name too !!
http://www.rakuten.co.jp/oosima/img1014485578.jpeg
78.”What are their 32 most marginal seats and do we have any thoughts on them?”
It’s difficult to say now because of boundary changes.
Pre boundary changes, look here:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf
(look at page 109)
Yes is the answer to the thread . On the balance of probabilities the Tories are heading for their fourth loss on the bounce . Of all the most likely scenarios the least likely is a majority Conservative government . On a previous thread I foolishly nailed my colours to the mast . The two most likely results are a small Labour majority or Labour as the largest party in a hung parliament.
The case for these two results have been well argued above and previously . Short of a cataclysm I see no sceneario presently that would lead me to expect a Tory win in 2009 . If Tory posters can put forward a reasoned case , short of TB & GB slaying the first born , I be willing to re-evaluate my foolishness .
Sean (and Mark)
I´m ready to give the Tories some credit for their structural reforms. But not for monetarism, not for the 1981 budget, not for mass unemployment; not for the Lawson Boom and bust; nor for the abominable Lamont singing in the bath. I think KC did well over the last years. This is largely because the pre-Euro budgetary framework worked well for the UK, and provided a benign regional environment for the UK economy.
How could the economy not be better in 1997 than in 1979 (1978 provides a starker contrast)? The economy normally grows over time; in 1979 (more so 1978) we were still suffering from the fallout from the oil crisis; in the meantime we had the single market process that boosted trade (respect to Lord Cockfield - I think you can take part of the credit for this).
Yes, Sean, you made some progress, but you took us through the rockiest road imaginable: mass unemployment, negative equity, Black Wednesday. And in economics it is usually feasible to hit one or two objectives (if all you want is low inflation, you can have that, if all you want is growth you can achieve that). Only Clarke managed to hit several targets at the same time. I think he did well. But the circumstances were favourable. And I don´t think he is a typical tory.
82 - Could not have put it better myself , Peter . I still maintain that the North Sea Oil windfall should have been spent on rejuvenating industry and not buying votes via tax cuts .
78.”Having said that, there is no way that I’d have put Crawley or Harwich into the Tory pile for ‘05 and they so nearly were!”
why do you consider Harwich a surprise? Labour’s majoirty wasn’t big (about 5%). It was at number 27 in Labour most vulnerable seats list.
Looking at http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf , on a quick check Labour would lose their overall majority on losing Wansdyke (maj. 1,839 3.6%). 5 of thier losses would be to the Lib Dems, 1 each to SNP and PC the rest to the Tories. Seems feasible.
For the Tories to get an overall majority though, they would need to gain 125 seats. Assuming 100 from Labour, they need to win Kingswood (maj, 7,873 14%), and 25 from the Lib Dems, they need to win Argyle & Bute (Maj. 5,726 13.2%).
OK, boundary changes may help a bit, but you have to be a super optimistic Tory you could win either of these seats.
83 - but how would you have rejuvenated industry? Looking back to the mindset that Thatcher eventually got rid of, the choices would have seemed to be fixed asset investments in nationalised industries, or state aid to whatever private winners the government chose to pick. Wasn’t there a great risk of wasting it all in ventures like that? Education and retraining for those workers who would inevitably lose jobs (through no real fault of their own) in dinosaur industries would have been more promising, I think.
To return to Sean’s point, I wouldn’t say the default should always be to go for tax cuts, but with the marginal rates the Tories inherited, there is a reasonable case that very sound returns came from using the oil money to tide the government over in the interim period whilst the revenue gains from tax cuts emerged, as punitive disincentives to earn went away.
83 Mark Senior Do you mean manufacturing industry was not reformed and enhanced in the Tory years? Or services? Or wealth creation mechanisms? Your argument is the sort that is redolent of Labour’s 80’s anti-Tory line. But it failed as the Tories were elected four times in a row during this period of disaster as you paint it. Perhaps you blame the electorate?
The means of wealth creation were very much restructured and revitalised and so successfully so that NuLab have continued with the same policies since 1997 while trying to spend their way to their version of social justice. If the Tories were so wrong why then do NuLab follow meakly behind with watered down privatisations and only marginally different monetary measures of the economy? Labour’s single real economic innovation is the quasi-independence of the Bank of England and that was a very clever and welcome move.
The Tories deserve the blame for the ERM cockup as they were in power at the time, but the economic credentials of the Labour and LibDems are even more suspect in this respect. A healthy number of Tories (including Mrs T) were very wary of the monetary convergence. They were proved right, while the gungho nature of the other parties who wanted in at any price stands out as demonstrating even worse economic nous that the deluded Majorettes.
Another good reason to stay clear of Ken Clarke, as he has never really recognised the mistake for what it is.
85. It should be interesting to see if the Libdems will be able to overtune big majorities (20%) like this year. If so, Charles Clarke and Margaret Beckett are in serious danger. And people like Short, Corbyn, MAria Eagle and maybe Primarolo,Diane Abbott and Nick Brown could’t be considered safe.
80 - Andrea, I think Tone probably meant Harlow which wasn’t even in the top 100 most winnable seats.
88 - In a hypothetical situation, but if the Labour Government did become as hated as the Tory Government in 1993-1997, and the country really wanted to get rid of the Labour Government, IMO, a lot of Lib Dems seats in the South would be in real peril.
86 I think the problem with the use of tax cuts is not that they were used to pay for tax cuts, but that they were used to pay for the dole. And they were used to pay for the dole because day-to day management of the economy was so poor. This has been retrospectively justifed as a deliberate “shake-out” policy. But actually it was just a cock-up.
90 - maybe. But Lib Dems didn’t lose many seats to Labour in 1997. and there will be many seats where voting against Labour means voting Lib Dem.
88. Beckett will more than likely retire at the end of this parliament. Derby south will be the lib dems for the taking as the Tories are very unlikely to make much of an effort with Derby North a marginal target.
RE BoE independence - only one party went into the 1997 (and 1992) election promising it, and it wasn’t Labour. In fact many Labourites were appalled by the idea.
You are quite right that the LDs and Labour had both been even more guilty of cheerleading the ERM than the Tories. It is one of life’s beautiful ironies that they won the 1992 election in order to take the blame for it.
Ken Clarke actually wanted to make the BOE independent during his term as chancellor but John major said no. Shame.
93 - “RE BoE independence - only one party went into the 1997 (and 1992) election promising it, and it wasn’t Labour.”
Quite right - I would be rather surprised, however, if we saw the same phenomenon again, and an incoming PM Brown abolished the DTI.
90. If the voters were just seeking to turf out a Labour government, the Lib Dems can expect to gain more seats from Labour than they lose to the Tories. In most Lib Dem / Tory marginals Labour are nowhere.
The most likely outcome of the next election is a repeat of this year but more so, Tory and Lib Dem gains from Labour and an exchange of seats both ways between Tory and Lib Dem. The scale at this stage though is unpredictable.
I find the opinion polls and the statistics that can be mined from them as much fun as anyone else, but at this stage they are fairly meaningless.
The election has just happened and we are into a terrorism crisis and if the government had not got a poll lead at this stage I would be worried for the state of civic morale in the UK.
I still believe that 2005 was the NuLAb 1992. An election not to win as winning hands you the leadership into the minefield ahead.
There are serious issues to tackle that will not get the mass support that the anti-terrorism effort has. Pensions, Council tax and the silly ID card fiasco are just three. And a leadership election too. That should split the party nicely.
The old bugbears will not go away: war, deceit , rising violent crime, Europe and immigration. And like Major in 92 to 97 all the best shots in the locker have been used, frittered away.
Blair simply cannot stay on now unless a cataclysm happens and all the Cabinet disappear. He would look like the dissembler he is. He would turn from liability to millstone. And a successor from the same government would carry the some of the same handicap, again as Major did.
97 , Blue2win . Even allowing for Labour difficulties in coming years the voters will not turn out Labour unless a credible alternative is in place . Neither the Tories or Lib Dems offered that prospect in May and they both have a great deal of ground to cover to make the difference . Both parties have to formulate effective strategies to turf out Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2009 , relying on Labour to blow it isn’t the way forward . This brings us neatly to the leadership and the question is not just who , but how ?
98. The leader is welcome to adopt my agenda Jack. I’ll send a copy to CCO once it’s decided.
I don’t think there’s much point speculating about whats going to happen in 2009 (allthough I personally am more immediately concerned with 2007). What I would say is that I think it is unlikely that the next leader (so long as its not Liam Fox) will be less popular than Hague/Howard/IDS. But its stll asking a hell of a lot to gain over 100 seats at a single election.
89. Thanks.
92. If she’ll think she could lose, I agree that she’ll probably retire. The same thing it could be said for Frack Dobson. The boundary changes should help Labour in St Pancras, but the seat could be vulnerable if Labour will lose votes again in 2009 and the Libdems will do strong against Labour like this year. In 2009 Dobson will 69 years with a 30 years career as an MP (he was elected in 1979 for the first time). If he will think he could lose, he’ll retire.
We’ll probably see Lord Dobbo of St Pancras and Baroness Beckett of Derby.
99 , Woody . Send a copy of your manifesto to Cowley Street - cover all bases . You never know in a decade or so they might merge and as the Social Democratic Party and Liberal Party Alliance became eventually the Liberal Democrats , so then ours might change :
Conservative and Unionist and Liberal Democatic Alliance Party
Conservist and Libecrat Alliance Party
Consevit and Liecra Alla Party
Con-evil Crap Art
Convict …………… Oh dear !!!!
103 - Was there not a party called the National Liberals who stood under that name but sat as Conservatives. IIRC Heseltine was first elected as a Nat. Liberal. Similarly in Scotland there was the Liberal Unionist Party. Can’t see it happening again though Jack!
103 - yes, (most of) the Liberals who stayed in the National Government after Samuel’s offical Liberals left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberal_Party_(UK)
The Liberal Unionists were those Liberals (mostly Whigs, but including Radicals like Chamberlain and Bright, and some non-aristocratic right-wingers like Goschen) who left the party in 1886 over Home Rule for Ireland. Some of them served in Salisbury’s administration in the 1890s and eventually they were absorbed into the Conservatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Unionist_Party
Max what do you think will happen in scotland in 2007? Not sure what will happen in Wales…at a guess I would expect Plaid, Libs and Tories all to make slight advance at labours expense….. its easier for Plaid and more difficult for the others in a Welsh election..much will depend on Plaid improving its campaigning skills before the 07 campaign…..
Had a trawl through the list of Labour held seats at the general election ……….I was educated by a certain Lord Rennard and in the past he reckoned a seat needing a 6.6% swing was always winnable…..there are a hell of a lot of Labour seats within that range (60-70) a few seats outside that range where Mps will retire etc…..a very small swing away from labour and possible more tactical voting amongst the non Labour vote could see Labour hurt badly….they will be very stretched having to defend all those marginals….
103 , Max . I think the National Liberals were a rump of Coalition Liberals from the 30’s . If I remember rightly in the early fifties Churchill tried to persaude the Liberals to join the National Liberals with the Conservatives . The Liberals refused and the rest is history . I think you’re right that for several elections some Conservatives added the tag National Liberal to Conservative and Unionist . I’m not sure when this died out or indeed who was the last MP or candidate to adopt such a name . Any answers out there ???
104 , book value . You swat !! LOL
105. Hain said to forget PC and that the Libdems are the real threat for Labour in Wales (and not only Wales).
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/newspolitics/tm_objectid=15743443&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=-lib-dems-could-pose-a-threat-to-a-significant-number-of-labour-mps–name_page.html
Mark - I’m really not sure. I think Labour will lose a few constituency seats, the SNP should pick up a number of list seats due to the poor performance of the SSP (only saving, I think, two deposits in 2005) since Tommy Sheridans departure. No idea how we’ll get on, it sounds like we’ll be a bit more bold with our manifesto but a lot will depend on the leader. And again with the LD’s i’m not sure if they’re general election sucess will filter through to the Scottish elections. They don’t have many realistic constituency targets and the list is a bit of a lottery.
The individual constituency battles should be interesting, the Western Isles, Dundee West, Dumfries, T,E&L, Rox. and Berwickshire, Perth, Ochil and Galloway and UN will be one’s to look out for.
105 - Andrea sounds like Hain is being a bit disingenous. Can’t think of many seats in the Welsh Assembly where the LD’s and Labour are head to head.
110. I think Hain was talking about GE more than the Welsh Assembly.
I think that PC could perform better at the Welsh Assembly election than in the GE.
Then Hain claimes on the election day that Labour was neck to neck with Adam Price and then they lost by a 17% margin (or something like this). So Hain’s definition of “head to head” is very large.
109 - Just to illustrate the point of the 34 seats with majorities of less than 4,000 the Lib Dems are 2nd in two, Tories 2nd in 6 and the SNP 2nd in 16. The low tunout last time means that nearly half of all the constituencies can be seen as marginal.
112. Max, in terms of %, how many seats have a less than 10% majority?
A question abour boundary changes for the next GE, how will Tessa Jowell’s seat be affected?
Andrea - I think its 28, which again is quite a lot.
Speaking to Lib Dems in walesthey said very little of interest- but they are positive about gaining a few seats, could target Swansea East or is it West (which could be bad news in disguise), obviously Ceredigion (although that would be difficult) and perhaps Cardiff South. The best bet is a few more list seats, which may well happen. They think there is a good chance that the second party in 2007 will be the tories (as things stand).
Why I say that the Swansea seat could be bad is that it is winnable, but that is the stomping ground of the very active AM Peter Black. By the party winning the seat he would probably lose his list seat- so a dilema- what does he do. I think he will stick to the list.
What will Peter Law do in Blaenau Gwent? He said he wants to create a new Welsh “party” to contest council seats in South Wales (a left winged old labour style party). Could he (or some of his supporters) run in South Wales for the Welsh Assembly?
115 - He could stand for the constituency and be the first name on the list. There’s no rule against it.
106 - The last National Liberal I can remember was John Nott. He brought shame upon his party by losing the Falkland Islands, and they were never heard of again. They became a here yesterday, gone today poltidcal party.
John Nott was an MP for a Cornish consituency IIRC and found the designation electorally advantageous.
Clement Davies, Leader of the Liberal Party before Grimond, was previously a National Liberal.
Is there a prize?
104, 106 - A timeline (or two) would clarify the complicated crossroads of the liberal and conservative parties:
http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/record.jsp?type=page&ID=66&liberaltimeline=liberal timeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_Kingdom
118 , Peter . “… Is there a prize ? ”
Yes , you become leader of the National Liberals (Veritas Wing).
Accordingly as a fellow leader of a mass party may I welcome you to such distinguished company !!
That’s very decent of you, old man. Do I get to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph?
109, 112. Max, things have moved on from 2003. The 2005 GE shows the SNP declining and the LDs rising. To your list of interesting seats I would add Inverness, Strathkelvin & Bearsden, Aberdeen North, Dundee East, and Edinburgh Central.
121 , Peter . Yes …… at the Cenotaph of Little Snoring in-the-Wolds . Also you may take part in Question Time ….. at the Womens Institute and of course you get special police protection from PC Hugh Janus escorting you on his bicycle with his large truncheon .
All in all , a highly coveted range of perks !!
117- yes there is- it is a new rule introduced by Labour. It stops Lib Dems, Tories and PC standing in a seat, coming last or whatever, and then setting up next to the constituency AMs office and being an AM too. Lib Dems don’t like it.
117 - Labour have complained about it in Scotland but haven’t acted on it, presumably because they don’t have a majority at Holyrood. Hadn’t realised they’d implemented it in Wales.
125. Isn’t Peter Peacock, a Labour Minister in the Executive a beneficiary of this system, though ?
The Scottish ratio of list to FPTP seats is more proportional than that in Wales.
121/123 , Peter . BTW here’s a snap of your special branch officer and friends , on the 360 degree lookout for Lib Dem leafleters !!
http://www.britishinvasion.co.uk/parade/pics/joeltwohead.jpg
He is and he stood for a constituency as well (I think it was Moray) but generally Labour MSP’s stand for one and not the other. Don’t think any of the other big name MSP’s are under strength. Also looks like Labour might make a fight of it in Ochil, the new candidate is a close ally of Jack McConnel.
107 But Jack, did BV also know that Dr Charles Hill (The Radio Doctor) represented Luton as a Liberal and Conservative? That’s my SWAT analysis for tonight…
43-45: I don’t think, regardless of the merits, that you’ll find the Lords fighting too fiercely on ID cards. As noted on an earlier thread, the Tories and LibDems both withdrew nearly all their amendments to the ID Cards Bill in the committee stage, and if you read Hansard you’ll see a marked casualness, and often jokiness, about the Opposition contributions. One of the Tory front-benchers said in passing that he expected it to become law. When entrenched opposition is planned in the Lords, it’s normally set up at committee stage, with lengthy speeches, lots of votes, etc., so the Lords can say it was steamrollered - in the event, the Opposition didn’t bother to use all the time the Government had offered for debate. It is, after all, a policy still backed by 61% of the electorate - it would be nice if 61% voted Labour but they don’t, so there must be lots of Opposition voters who like it…
The way the current list system works in Wales makes it very hard for any of the opposition parties to make real gains…..if the conservatives win Clwyd West and Pembroke they will lose a seat off regional lists in North wales and Mid and west wales unless they increase their vote substantially….
Its very funny reading Hain say the Lib dems are the threat in wales etc….yet the constant attacks on Plaid in the media continue and there are no attacks on the LDs….the Lds present little threat to Labour other than perhaps in the two swansea seats….and swansea west is a good seat for Plaid in the assembly elections if Dr Dai lloyd stands ….Labour think the Lib dems will keep them in power if Labour lose more seats …however there are suggestions that the Lib dems might be prepared to join a “not Labour” administration….if the Tories do become the main opposition in wales it will be a surprise and will mean Labour have a majority…the only way Labour can be beaten is if Plaid gets its act together….although that is happening it is happening slowly and I suspect not quickly enough to be decisive …..it may be the 2008 local elections that see a dramatic boost for Plaid…
Mark - What are the seats to look out for in 2007.
Cymrumark: how many times can Plaid have their big chance? In every election it is the same, yet you have gone backwards in both the AM and MP elections recently. I was interested that the Lib Dems really are not seeing Plaid as a serious problem at the moment- there is certainly infighting, disagreements about number of leaders/who should be leader, Ceredigion fallout (which Lib Dems say was really Plaid’s loss, not the Lib Dems gain) etc. Add to this Miss Wood’s ‘interesting’ comments.
Maybe Plaid can take advantage of the fact that the other parties in Wales have taken their eyes off Plaid… but surely your party must regroup and push your message hader if you really are to make headway.
Carmarthen west will be interesting b…..the Tories were very close in the GE but Plaid were close in Assembly….
Both Pembroke and Clwyd west will be fun….the Labour vote was much stronger in both than Plaid expected but they still lost……With the departure of the Welsgh speaking Gareth Thomas who worked the rural hinterland effectively Clwyd west will be a real three way fight …a lot will depend on the choice of candidates for Tories and Plaid……as it will in Pembroke
Both the swansea seats are worth watching …..If Dai Lloyd stands for Plaid in swansea west that will kill off the lib dem hopes…but Dai probably wouldnt win so I think he will stay on the list
Cardiff North and the Vale of Glamorgan will be good bets for the Tories and are “must win” seats….for them and Labour….Ceredigion will be a hard fight but I think Plaid will hold as the english students and Tory incomers who voted Lib dem last time wont bother in the assembly….
The new Aberconwy and Bangor and Caernarfon seats will be fun…I live in Aber Conwy and think it will be a clos