Punters getting nervous about a Labour 4th term
October 28th, 2005-
Chances rated at lowest level since the General Election
After a week which has seen highly publicised cabinet splits over education policy and smoking and a month that has been dominated by the Tory leadership race there’s been a move against Labour on the betting markets.
The chart shows the implied probability of Labour winning most seats at the next General Election based on best betting prices. A month ago Labour was rated at 66-67% - this morning the figure is down to less than 59% - the lowest point it has been since the General Election.
Labour is still the over-whelming favourite but there has been a shift because there is little support for Labour at the price levels we have seen.
-
This is being driven by two elements. The first began in the days after the Tory conference as punters assessed the likely impact of a Cameron victory - the second has been in the past week with all the reports of Cabinet splits.
Normally the “who will win most seats” General election market is driven by opinion poll ratings and the latest, last week from ICM, had Labour three points ahead. Even if the next election ended with both parties level on votes Labour would have a very comfortable margin on seats.
The Cantor Spreadfair spread betting exchange has the following election spreads: LAB 308-314: CON 248-249: LD 59-62 Commons seats.
In the next few days we should see the October YouGov survey and November’s Populus poll in the Times. Solid Labour leads in both should ease the jitters. If the Tories are closing the gap then there’ll be further moves in the betting.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
If they are not favorable to the Government, these polls could be the start of momentum in the other direction.
Any news on last night’s local government by-elections?
I’m surprised anyone is taking a chance on what happens in four years time. So much is changing. It’s buying a pig in a poke.
OT. Michael Cove has just announced himself as a Neo Con and proud of it. In todays climate it’s up there with paedophilia. Silly man. he should have stuck to writing his dull collumn in the Times.
(He’s an interesting film critic though)
4 - Yes Roger, I’m sure that’s a view held by the electorate, rather than a fairly odious, prejudiced view held by yourself.
4 - Not quite sure if atlanticism makes one a paedophile though. Think that’s going a bit far!
oh sorry… it’s you Roger
On the original point who on earth is tying their money up this far in advance? I’d be going short on the Lib Dems at that spread.
David. How do you make that smiling face? (It might stop Max losing his temper with me once in a while)
I’ve always argued that the seat markets overstate the Tories more than a few months out, but perhaps those kinds of punter have lost the will to live now. FWIW I expect the Tories to get around 280 seats, not to do nearly as well as they expect against LDs and very well indeed against Labour.
Using punctuation the wink is semi-colon followed by a closing bracket.
like so a smile is a colon 
Roger - to make a Smiley face you type a colon and then next to it place a bracket sign
or a question-mark 
There are many other variations
8 - I can’t understand a Labour slide though. They are stonking favourites for the GE certainly to be the largest party. I think most people here would be unsurprised if Labour no longer had mush of a majority but few of us would bet on the Tories actually overtaking Labour?
It doesn’t seem to have worked.
If this works thanks again
lol
15 - Question of the day. Which 3 of the new intake do you think will really make it to the top? I’m plumping for Adam Afriye, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.
15 - I’m not that impressed with Afriye or Clegg and whilst Milliband is clearly bright I don’t think he has the personality to be a top politician. It’s going to be pretty hard for any of the new Tory intake to make it to the top if Cameron becomes leader and does well.
Until last night I would have said Nick clegg but I thought he was very disappointing. Lib Dems always come out well in those kind of shows because they dont have to watch their P’s and Q’s like the more disciplined larger parties. But he was outshone by Edwina even who also had the freedon of no party discipline
17 - Perhaps I should watch Question Time before making rash statements
I thought i’d throw the question in the air since I have boring work to do and I can’t see speculation on the general election 2009/10 keeping us occupied for long!
6 - you aren’t tying up your money. You can cash out when the price moves and you close your position.
From the BBC website
British support for a US invasion of Iran “is not on the agenda, I happen to think that it is inconceivable,” Jack Straw told BBC radio
So, he’s going to be doing a Robin Cook then…
7:
Let your mouse hover on the smileys, they will reveal their secrets
19 - ooh. You can make a killing then on spreadbetting when you have professional knowledge of politics? So if you can spot trends you can make a continual stream of dosh?
**finally understands the point of the site**
I’m signing up ASAP!!!
Re. Michael Gove outing himself as a neo-conservative, it was fairly clear he was one from his (well-written and lucid) contribution to Irwin Stelzer ed ‘Neo-conservatism’.
I’m not surprised about the wariness re. a fourth Labour term. The smoking ban has seen almost a total collapse of Cabinet discipline (has Tony lost the dressing room?) The nonsensical compromise (which will lead to a load of pubs choosing not to serve food, thus leading to a sharp rise in disorder as more people get utterly bladdered because they’ve drunk on an empty stomach) may in turn be defeated by a backbench rebellion.
As for the electoral system, Andrew Gamble points out in the last Fabian Review that, while the 8% rise in the Tory vote share necessary to win an overall majority at the last election is a tall order, they managed it in 79.
David Cameron v a gruff Scot with limited people skills, who knows? Or, worse still, from Labour’s point of view David Cameron v a Tony Blair everyone’s sick of, who’s presided over a collapse of Cabinet discipline over three years, and who is at odds with ‘Prime Minister designate’ Gordon Brown (who will become PM if/when Blair manages to win a fourth term for Labour), with them being so busy squabbling over the campaign (and who takes credit for it) that they’re too busy to fight the Tories. It may be an utterly loopy plan, entirely unsuited to the British system, but Blair may well fancy it.
The Cabinet, with its collapse in discipline, and the way in which it has agreed to a nonsensical compromise almost worthy of Monty Python, has made the government a laughing stock. I hope the PLP repairs the damage (as it well might). John Reid, a man who stayed in a Geneva hotel courtesy of Dr Radovan Karadzic, should not even be in public life anymore, let alone forcing such ridiculous compromises on the rest of the Cabinet. If the single mother on a council estate he asks us to feel sorry for wants to smoke, she can do it in her own house/flat (or outside). Needless to say, Reid did not mention all those single parents who work behind bars and have (as the law stands) to inhale other people’s smoke, and go home with their clothes reeking of it. The man’s an absolute disgrace (I think it’s within the libel laws to say that).
17 - I’ve never seen him speak, but if he can hold his Taunton seat Jeremy Browne also has an impressive CV. Others I’m told worth looking out for are the new MPs for Leeds NW, Cardiff Central, and Withington.
And its nice to be talking about something other than the Odd Couple
Re. the Monty Python point, I meant this ridiculous business of when is food food? We know crisps won’t be. But what about pre-packed sandwiches etc? What counts as ‘ambient’ and what does not? C4 News and Newsnight have had an absolute field day with it.
I think the reason I’m so furious is that the last week, with its collapse in Cabinet discipline and this mess of pottage compromise, has made the government look very much like the last days of the Major government. It’s beginning, excuse the pun, to look like the fag end of Tony’s premiership.
24 - I don’t know him so wouldn’t want to make rash judgements but the new MP for Withington seems to have a CV largely composed of burger flipping?
23 - Agree re John Reid. He’s hardly the most reasoned debater either.
26 - at last! An Mp with a real job, not some bloody lawyer
23 - Discipline will be very important throughout the party given that Tony Blair has made it clear he will be standing down (although we don’t know when yet). I’m sure that if it becomes crystal clear that GB will take over then discipline should be easier to maintain. However if another credible challenger emerges (which I still can’t see to be totally honest) their may be a degree of factionalism that will give the Labour Party an impression of disunity.
I think the scenario you paint may be a little too gloomy but I certainly agree with you on John Reid. I’ve no idea why Blair still persists with him.
29 - because he doesn’t want a “Glasgow kiss”?
24 - re Jeremy Brown. Do you think Public Affairs consultants and party apparatchiks are becoming the vogueish people for the political parties to get as MPs?
26 - Reminds me of a friend from down south who walked into a pub in a rough part of Edinburgh and asked if he could get a sandwitch. He was escorted out by the Landlord who pointed to the sign and asked him ‘Now tell me, where the f**k does it say that this is a f*****g restaurant’!
Can’t remember the name of the place but apparently the guy does this on a regular basis. I can only assume it’s a’local’s local’.
o/t I heard on the radio this morning that they were talking about DC as an Aston Villa supporter. Is this another case of journos getting their stories off here?
I know we aren’t supposed to talk about policy but I find this smoking ban almost outrageous. I remember being in the Florida and being told I couldn’t smoke in a taxi which I thought was surprising and later in a workplace where we had a smokers terrace. I’d never heard of anything like this before.
Things in this area seem to have moved so fast that I’m sure a total ban will come pretty soon. And from being a heavy smoker I don’t smoke any more but I really don’t like too many of these sorts of regulations. And If I still smoked I would be very angry.
34 - classic! You are clearly a powerful man, woody.
Totally agree with Richard…. this government already has a touch of the Majors about it. In short order we’ve had smoking, schools reform, Blunkett several times, GDP targets missed by miles, and in my view most poisonous the pension climbdown.
That’s why I think Labour are heading for a crushing. If we all think back the terminal damage to the Tory government was done within a few months of their re-election in 1992.
It’s also why I think LDs should be alright against the Tories next time out… because a realistic threat of a Tory government should re-energise Lab-LD tactical switches in those marginals. Though I don’t suppose Labour would helpfully talk up the dangers of a Tory government if they really believed it to be likely…
35 - I wouldn’t appreciate you smoking in my car if I didn’t. That’s just rude.
I have been surprised by the press coverage of the smoking ban - seems a reasonable compromise to me - that is likely to allow diversity - traditional boozer, or gastro pub - you’ll be able to take your pick. This together with seeming choruses of ‘all hail Cameron, the new Messiah’ is an indication of the fact that the media have become so bored with New Labour hegemony, that they will latch onto anything that might break it.
David at 38. That’s true now but fifteen years ago that didn’t seem to apply. If you ask any smoker of that time they’ll tell you it was acceptable to smoke anywhere. Even in other peoples kitchens! looking back from here it’s extraordinary but it’s the way it was. I was on the back row of a transatlantic flight in club class and two Americans infront asked if they could be moved because they didn’t like my and the person sitting next to me’s smoke. It seemed at the time as though they were being obtuse!
35. My natural instinct is that this is typical labour banning everything. However, I have to speak personally about a smoking ban. I suffer with crohns disease which mean I’m very intolerant of passive smoke. This means I either have to say no to nights out in very smokey pubs or just spend a limited amount of time there. If I do go into a smokey atmosphere, I come out with stomach aches which last a few hours and obviously, it’s not helping my condition. Now if you are in a wheelchair, you have rights to enter pubs and they have to install ramps. I’m being discrimated against due to selfish smokers who believe they have rights to infect everyone around the. Rant Over.
36. Good isn’t it. Another notch on the PB.com bedpost.
“the terminal damage to the Tory government was done within a few months of their re-election in 1992″ - Yes, but this damage was Black [some day of the week] when we wasted £Billions and crashed out of the ERM. The economy might not be perfect, but cabinet splits over smoking bans is hardly equivalent.
Didn’t Thatcher have a bunch of people resign from her government several times and still get re-elected? Certainly the end of Blair is nigh. The question is: What shape the Labour party is in once he’s gone?
42 - That is indeed the $64,000 question.
42. £3.3 billion.
40 What is a good Socialist like you Roger doing flying Club Class? Don’t you like being with the riff-raff?
42. I’d link to think the smoking ban was the start of New Labour’s demise…but sorry I can’t see it! they have had plenty of shambolic policy episodes before, like foot and mouth/beef on the bone, which have done them little harm. The public aren’t interested in this kind of stuff most of the time. Once Blair is gone, they conceivably might be a bit more.
On the smoking issue - if there is so much demand for no smoking pubs, why have they not sprung up across the country in recent years? there were only a handful until Wetherspoons’ recent policy change, which I think was an opportunistic attempt to grab some publicity once they saw a ban was coming.
We are heading in the direction of Switzerland where it seems that everything that is not compulsory is prohibited.
I think the reaction to the Cabinet divisions on smoking has been overdone. This is much more of a return to the way Cabinets are supposed to behave, discussing and disagreeing with contentious Bills and particular provisions. The “command-and-control” style Cabinet that Blair and Brown have presided over up until now has simply been unhealthy, and a new situation is good for our constitution, if not for Blair. A situation where we learn to treat Cabinet battles as disastrous in themselves is dangerous.
I think Davis’ tax-cutting interview on R4 this morning was a clever move - it finds the G-Spot of the blue-rinsers.
49 - As I have said before the limited amount of research that has been done suggests that is not the case. I don’t think anyone can speak for the views of the membership - least of all a member of a rival party!
49. You’ve just put an horrific image in my mind.
50, 51 -
I don’t think it was anything like £3.3 billion… that might have been the daily mark to market but I don’t think the loss was taken… i.e. the Bank didn’t subsequently sell the pounds it had bought at a worse equivalent rate. Had they just kept the position until now for example there would be a huge net profit.
It is understandable that Nulab with its natural bent to controlling peoples lives and how they should live them is in favour of banning smoking in workplaces , pubs and eventually even peoples own homes . It is rather less comprehensible that Conservatives given their basic beliefs in freedom of choice and the a free market are in support of it .
The same people who argue in favour of the rights of the minority who hunt foxes want to restrict the rights of the much larger minority who want to go down the pub on a Friday night for karoake , a drink and a smoke with their friends .
With 70% non-smokers a free market would be leading to 70% of pubs being non-smoking but instead we know that in a high street with 2 adjacent pubs , 1 allowing smoking and 1 not , the one allowing smoking will be doing the better trade .
53. Correct Jon - a lot of rubbish is talked about the supposed ‘losses’ of Black Wednesday by people who have no understanding of foreign exchange markets or central banking. The real ‘costs’ of the whole ERM debacle were shouldered much earlier, in the year or so up to Sterling’s ejection, in the form of a recession that lasted much longer than was necessary. These ‘costs’ in terms of lost output were a lot bigger than GBP3.3bn. The ‘costs’ to the public came in the form of lost income both through lower employment and for those in work, higher taxes to fund the ballooning welfare bill.
54. Do the staff have rights?
The smoking issue is insignificant in itself; after all, it’s a dying habit. However, it’s the latest in a long line of policy and administrative mistakes which add up to an overall loss of credibility. To me, it really is starting to feel like the latter days of the Major government. A lot of voters cast their vote on ‘feel’, not some rational calculation, so what appears to be a minor slip-up can assume great significance in the broader context of a government perceived to be losing it.
I wouldn’t want to overstate it. The Conservatives are a still a long way from power but if I were one (and I am not!) I’d have a bit more of a spring in my step today.
Labour is losing it. The Conservatives are starting to get it together. Interesting times…especially for punters.
I’m sorry to hear of your condition Woody, but smoking and pubs have gone together for centuries. When people go out with friends, a lot of them like to smoke, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to pass laws prohibiting them from doing so, regardless of the wishes of the pub’s clientele or its owner.
I think a smoking ban is reasonable in places that people have no choice but to use in order to obtain life’s necessities, but, in the case of private leisure pursuits, I think it is reasonable to leave it to the discretion of the owner.
#53: Just checked a few places and it seems that the daily mark to market was about an order of magnitude greater than £3.3billion the £3.3 billion is a figure comparing what the financial position would be if Black Wednesday hadn’t happened [according to William Keegan of The Observer.
Agree with #48 - that is the whole point of ‘Cabinet’ as opposed to ‘Presidential’ style government. I think the newspapers have to hype it all up to sell themselves though. “Cabinet has a debate - no serious casualties” is a less impressive headline.
This does mean though that the media will always try to present everything as a crisis. Also everyone now assumes that everyone else is always lying.
Mark, I didn’t think the Conservatives were in favour of this legislation.
60 - No but the chances of us ever repealing it are absolutely zero.
56 - The fact is that in most pubs , the majority of staff smoke
60 - Sean , my impression is that all the main parties support the ban on smoking in pubs which as I have argued before leaves a substantial minority of voters without a political party representing their wishes , a vacuum that could be exploited by a far right party .
58. I speak from a position of hating smoking and hating it’s effects on me so I’m probably not the best person to look at it impartially. However, many things havegone together for years which do not now fit into the modern world. I just wonder in 50 years time whether people will be saying, I can’t believe they allowed people to carry on doing that for so long.
59. The £3.3 billion figure was from the treasury when it was disclosed under the freedom of information act. You could argue it cost more through taxs and welfare paymenst, or you could argue that it was a price worth paying for the economic growth that followed it.
62 - I’ve worked in plenty of pubs with lots of non-smoking staff. Of course… we might as well smoke.
62. Would people actually change there voting pattern so they can have a fag in a pub rather than outside. It would show people to be incredibly shallow.
I just can’t see how this is going to be policed in some parts of the country. In the village I’m from we don’t have a local policeman anymore. And I can’t see that they’ll send somone from 15 miles away to make sure no one’s having a fag.
Perhaps this move by Davis is good for some Conservative supporters, but I think we need to look outside of our current members, who all being well will vote for us in a General Election.
My views on the policy move by Davis are:
If Davis saying these cuts will be achieved simply by reducing the levels of future public spending. then this could well be a resonable policy direction.
However, and it is a big however - by already going down the road of using language like “tax cuts” (for media attention) people presume, often unfairly this will mean cuts in existing spending - most people do not recognise the subtle difference between reducing future spending and cutting current spending.
As such Davis is falling in to the trap of playing to the media who like to portray Conservatives as public service destroyers. Why could he not have said we want to simply reduce the speed of spending growth which all being well should help us reduce the tax burden - that way you do not scare lots of people who think the local bus is under threat the second the Conservatives get in power.
After all our first job as a party is to get listened to - without that any tax cutting policies will be largely ignored, we will not get in power and never have the chance to show how our ideas can work well.
64 - For too long pubs have treated the majority with contempt. Putting non-smokers out of the way. Personally I’d like there to be smoking sections rather than non-smoking sections with the bar a smoke-free zone. I think that would have been workable but a total ban is inevitable eventually. I can’t imagine what the tube must have been like when people smoked on there.
52:
The point about the smoking ban is that it is absoutely NOT purely a personal choice such as, for example, only eating fatty foods would be. Smoke affects other people, and it is harmful and smells truly horrible. The fact is that the majority of people support a ban, including many smokers. It is FUNDAMENTALLY different from a ban on high fat pies or some such genuinely illiberal scenario.
It was summed up very neatly on another website yesterday - “having smoking areas in pubs is as acceptable as having peeing areas in swimming pools”. Long overdue this ban.
68 - The majority of people who drink in my local also smoke. And I don’t believe for a second that the pub will start to fill up with non-smokers once a ban comes into force.
62. Why should it be the ‘far right’ that exploits peoples desire to carry on smoking? Hitler was a passionate anti-smoker, the Nazis in general were very ‘green’ and ‘ecosensitive’, indeed quite politically correct in many ways. PCness, authoritarianism and nanny-statism can be found, and not found, from the far left to the far right. At the moment I would say that the greatest concentration of blue-nosed interfering-nes is to be found in NuLabour. They are a bunch of puritanical, prissy, ID-card imposing, religious hatred outlawing, foxhunt-prohibiting tight-a*ses, who can’t see people having fun without trying to change and police it in some way. Hitler would be proud of Patricia Hewitt, that’s for sure.
66 - They’ll make the council police it by threatening to remove licenses. It will be self-policed effectively. It might last a little longer in the country but in city’s the ban will be enforced. Dublin pubs are the model.
I’m not a smoker myself - I’m simply indifferent to other people smoking. And I do feel quite strongly that what goes on on private property ought generally to be a matter for its proprietor.
A smoking ban may well be inevitable - but then fashions change. Plenty of people would have thought in the generation leading up to 1918 that a drinking ban was inevitable in the USA - but later opinion changed.
70 - You must live in a very strange area. What do people where you live do? Its a damn long time since I’ve been in a full pub where the majority smoke.
73 - Since this is a betting site I bet you a fiver this law is never repealed once passed!
I’m aware of two local authority results from yesterday; there are others I have not heard. In the rather aristocratic sounding Curzon and Westminster ward of Chester City, Conservative hold: Con 875 (63.8%, -1.1 since 2003) LD 258 (18.8%, +1.9) Lab 238 (17.4%, -0.8). In Kirk Hallam, Erewash, Lab gain from Independent Lab 707 (77.0%, +48.2 on 2003) Con 132 (14.4%. +1.1) LD 79 (8.6%, -16.0). The Kirk Hallam result was clearly very good for Labour. The percentages in a by-election there in October 2004 were Lab 52.1, LD 23.1, Con 11.9, UKIP 12.8.
Sorry, but the current situation is not remotely reminiscent of the last days of Major. Don’t be ridiculous.
Sean - “I do feel quite strongly that what goes on on private property ought generally to be a matter for its proprietor.”
You don’t actually mean that in a broader sense do you? If you do then its a view I don’t think any sane person could agree with. And if you don’t, then its not an argument at all.
74 - It’s a small village in the Borders. The situation is different in my local in Edinburgh but when I go home most people in the local pubs smoke. If enough of the smokers decided to stay at home where they could enjoy a cigareete then I doubt the pubs would survive.
66 - Max “I just can’t see how this is going to be policed in some parts of the country. In the village I’m from we don’t have a local policeman anymore. And I can’t see that they’ll send somone from 15 miles away to make sure no one’s having a fag.”
What will happen is this - those who really resent others smoking (and there are many people that positively SEETH about it) will shop the establishment to the law.
A couple of Council byelection results from lat night :-
Chester Council Curzon/Westminster Con 875 Lib Dem 258 Lab 238 2003 result Con 923 Lab 260 Lib Dem 241 - small swing Con to Lib Dem
Erewash Council Kirk Hallom Lab gain from Ind , Lab 707 Con 132 Lib Dem 79 2004 result Lab 525 Con 120 Lib Dem 232 UKIP 129 .
Does anyone else find it ironic while at the same time labour is keen on protecting people’s physical health via a smoking ban, they were planning to worsen mental health problems in this country with an expansion of gambling, with the dangerous and financially ruinous culture that can go along with it.
59. ‘an order of magnitude higher than 3.3bn’…so you mean 33bn, then? Sterling lost about 3% on Sep 16 1992. To generate a mark to market loss of 33bn the BoE would have had to put on trading positions worth over a trillion pounds. Its reserves were around USD40bn at the time! The actual trading losses on the day were a few hundred million. The loss of reserves from end-July to end-September was about 3bn.
74 I frequent typical pubs in working class estates rather thsn city centre cafe style pubs in name only
Countryman at 45. Comrade I agree! We should all travel steerage unless we can find some more uncomfortable way to travel. I have taken up this issue with the commissar on several occasions. Unfortunately travelling in the decadent Club Class is part of my employment agreement but I’m hoping to be able to change the rules so in future I can travel by coach.
Re: smoking in pubs. People thought the breathalyser would be the death of the country pub when it was first introduced in the 1960s, that drink drive laws would be unenforceable etc etc. Barbara Castle was reviled with many of the same sorts of arguments as are taking place over smoking at the moment - denial of freedom, state intrusion, nannying etc. But is anyone seriously proposing that breathalysers not be used and drink driving not be against the law now? I doubt any future government would reintroduce smoking in pubs either if it were banned now.
69. Sorry, but you haven’t remotely thought through what you are saying. I can easily envisage a nanny state law, based on the same principles as the anti-smoking law, against things like “high fat pies”.
For a start, high fat pies make people, well, fat. I find fat people offensive, and contemptible. Like, stop eating all the burgers, get off your lardy butt, and go for a walk. These butterballs impinge on my quality of life, and it is arguable they should be protected from their own greed.
Moreover, I have to pay for their pork-scratching habit, because fat people are a burden on the NHS, which I fund through my taxes. Why should I fork out hundreds of quid a year so that people who can’t control their Krispy Kreme doughnut consumption get treated for their diabetes and varicose veins and stupid fat peoples’ diseases?
This, if you recall, was exactly the argument used when the nanny state brought in the motorcycle helmet law. Ostensibly, the choice of whether to wear a crash helmet is entirely personal, it affects no one else. But the proposers of the law said people should be protected from their own stupidity, AND the rest of us shouldn’t have to pay for non-helmet-wearing motorbike crash victims being treated in hospital.
Same for seat belts. Etc etc etc.
You see now? On this basis you could practically bring in a law against anything that is remotely regarded as unhealthy or dangerous, which is just about everything. I’m waiting for this government to bring in the law against oral sex, butter, overly sharp knives, shouting, jokes against religions (whoops, done that), kippers, stiletto heels and non-regular toothbrushing.
Where the F does it stop? Mm? when it becomes a vote loser, I’d say. Because that’s all that this government cares about, subconsciously; this is nothing to do with principle.
86. Kippers??????????
Many a true word is spoken in jest SeanT.
83 - eeeh by eck lad. Tha’s working class and tha knows it. I can’t stand wine-bars as a rule and some of the most abysmal pubs I’ve been in are of good working class stock. Now take off the “Working class” badge and make a proper argument.
86 - Now your argument is getting ridiculous. The fat guy eating a pie next to me is not forcing my arteries to block.
26 & 37 ‘This government has a touch of the Majors about it’
Agree its already looking tired,directionless & now with cabinet members squabbling amongst themselves.
Any policies that are perceived as unpopular (council tax rebanding & public sector pension reform)are simply ducked & left to the next government to sort out.
In terms of direct comparison with Major,housing repossessions are now at 1996 levels & consumer debt (still increasing) at £ 1.1 trillion & is now more than the total external debt of Africa & South America combined.
I don’t expect much movement in the polls yet as the economic indicators (all going in the wrong direction) need time to work through the system.Next year’s council elections & the polls this time next year will be interesting.
42-’When we wasted £ 8 billion & crashed out of the ERM’
Looks small by current standards when the same amount of money is wasted on an unworkable NHS computer system & overpayment of tax credits.
86. I presume you would be in favour of a fat tax then?
I’m not so sure Lewis. In California, people are finding all sorts of ingenious ways round the public smoking ban (such as giving members of staff equity stakes in bars and restaurants, or converting them into private clubs). So long as there is a critical mass of people who regard a law of this type as unreasonable, they will find ways around any ban.
Most Americans supported Prohibition. But a sufficiently large minority were opposed to make Prohibition unworkable.
91. Ha, very good.
I think one of the best quips in relation to the ban on smoking in public places was, “Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose.” Smoking in an enclosed space is an act of violence against people who have a right to use that space without compromising their health. As far as I’m concerned, libertarian arguments in favour of allowing smoking are so much nonsense.
What’s interesting about this debate is that cuts completely across normal party alignments.
I don’t know why I get so irked about something that won’t affect me in the least, but I do.
86. Read what I said. Again.
87. Kippers i would regard as a prime candidate for New Labour Prohibition, because those poor kipper-workers have to stand around in the cancer-inducing smoke of the smokehouse. Kippers also contain a strange substance caled BFK (literally: ‘brown for kippers’) which is what makes kippers that lovely golden colour (they should be grey). BFK has been linked with some nasty diseases, allegedly.
Ban Kippers Now! And Toast! (all that carcinogenic carbon in the burnt bits). Ban Everything! Ban Pompous, Humourless, Witless New Labour Health Ministers Who Make Me Gag!
I have had two coffees this morning.
Ban coffee!
65 - Woody , That is a very strange statement a number of people were “shallow enough” to allow their support for fox hunting to effect their vote so why should not threstening the lifestyle that they rightly or wrongly enjoy effect their vote .
Re. 1st ten posts or so - if the Tories do get a hung parliament, my own opinion is that they must not, under any circumstances, take part in a co-alition. Firstly co-alitions only ever favour the smaller partner(s) and not large one(s). Secondly, I highly doubt the Tories even at the stage will be quite “ready for government”. Thirdly, the long-term strategy must be to let a co-alition of others hobble along, collapse, and then demand a clear mandate from the electorate. The only danger comes from a potential large-scale crisis from which a co-alition can seek a sympathy vote, but this is unlikely to happen.
Sean, thanks for the comment. I’ve no doubt that there will be a certain amount of non-compliance, particularly in remote village pubs. But anecdotal evidence from Ireland suggests that non-compliance is less than might have been expected, and perhaps less than long-established flouting of long-established laws about closing times in such locations! Would you support “24 hour drinking” in Ireland on the basis that closing times are essentially unenforceable in rural areas and lack active support from the population?
However, with drink drive laws there was a lot of non-compliance at first, and also a social attitude that it was still acceptable to do it. Drink driving is one of the few issues in which people of my and younger generations are more censorious than my parents’ generation; the fewer people old enough to drive pre-1967 still around, the more respected and socially enforced drink drive laws have become. The same may be true of smoking in public places - only it won’t take as long for the smokers to die off.
Before anyone else spots this, or perhsps they already have, the Times has a damning article on the LDs from one Stephen Pollard as well as a letter from Michael Brown setting out his position on his donation to the Party. I’m sure Rik and others will enjoy reading them both no end..
Setting aside the question of the donation, which seems to be a vote of confidence on Charles Kennedy rather than his “muppets” (whoever they may be), the Pollard article rakes over the coals of the LD administration in Tower Hamlets in the early 90s which wasn’t a great success and was routed by Labour in 1994. It also indulges in a pretty vitriolic assault on Kennedy and suggests the “Orange Bookers” are the way forward.
Well, maybe, maybe not….Pollard seems to write from a curious Rightist viewpoint but his venom towards the LDs is pretty sincere.
96. Perhaps some kind of mask might be in order.
97. I think animal rights arouses a little more passion than smoking in public rights. You were saying a far right party could capitalise. I was simply arguing that if people were willing to vote for a racist party which wanted to install white supremacy on the basis that they want to smoke in a public place, then I’d think they were shallow. I think that’s a fair statement.
102 - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1846594,00.html
86 - seanT said “I’m waiting for this government to bring in the law against oral sex, …”
Of course anal sex between a man and a woman is illegal, how funny is that
Timesonline / Pollard - thanks, good link. Tabman - what are your thoughts on his sentiments?
103 - Not so, I think Michael Howard legalised heterosexual anal sex in 1994.
98 - i notice you use “co-alition” instead of the normal “coalition”. Perhaps that is because you have some basis for saying the latter is a corruption of English or something, but that kind of thing makes you look a pedantic TWEED & CORDS WEARING LOON and distracts from what might otherwise have been a good point.
105 - aha really. Are you sure? Can someone confirm?
Re: 98 - I’m not sure this is true, Anatole. Historical evidence of LDs in coalitions with Labour (1923, 1929, mid-70s) suggests otherwise. Indeed, it’s clear that Ramsay Macdonald “used” the Liberals in both 1923 and 1929. He wanted to destroy them and almost succeeded. The mid-70s was rather different.
It all depends on the arithmetic but I would consider a Con-LD coalition as more likely than a Lab-LD partnership. This may surprise some but I think it would be foolish for the LDs to hitch their wagon to a discredited and exhausted Labour Party just as it would have been unwise for Thorpe to hook up with the Tories in Feb 1974.
98&106 - It certainly makes someone look pedantic!
104 - Julian, I’m not going to comment on the donation issue per se, but the sentiment that the Lib Dems need a sound economic policy is the right one. I believe in our social justice aims but in order to pay for them the economics need to be right.
The probability of Saddam being executed is more interesting than Davis vs Cameron - could this forum please MOVE ON !!!!
107 - well, seanT is a big enough fan to have coined a new verb in its celebration.
81 No
109. You beat me to it!
108. I agree that if we were to be as ruthless as the Labour party were in 1923-24, it could be done. However much more pertinent are examples such as our contemporary German ills, recent Italian politics and even the politics of devolution in this country.
112. Thankyou, Tabman, someone noticed! Bless. I am hoping my verb will appear in the next Roger Mellie’s Profanisaurus, in Viz magazine, the definitive lexicon of rude new words.
111. There has been very little talk about the 2 Davids today indeed the postings have varied between smoking and anal sex. I don’t really see your problem.
105. Just googled Micheal Howard anal sex (doesn’t look good in the history) but it didn’t come up with much. I do remember reading it was illegal a couple of years ago.
110. Yuh I should have specified - I meant the economic issues rather than the donation one. Admittedly I’ve only scanned the article; will give it a proper read over lunch.
116 - I’m surprised any of these posts are making it through the spam filter!
Sorry to annoy 111 and move back to the leadership race but DD is looking to cat income tax by 8p. A last desperate gambit but do you think it can get him back in the race
See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940033_en_15.htm for the text of the relevant part of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, which is written in non gender specific language. The age of consent for heterosexual anal sex in this Act is 18. Not sure if it was reduced to 16 more recently. So, people, think of Michael Howard with gratitude whenever the situation arises.
119 - income tax on cats? Not enough feline voters to be a winner surely
118. Yes so was I. I blame SeanT for leading us astray.
101 - Woody , The far right parties are quite adept at promoting grievances that will get people to vote for them . Envisage a byelection in a working class inner city area where they already have some support and they actively target smokers with a campaign to protect their right to their own lifestyle and to lend them their votes for this election only so that their voice is heard . My partner who is a smoker would certainly vote for them under those circumstances .
I mean income tax cuts. The alternative sounds like the sort of Screaming Lord Sutch policy that becomes law 20yrs later
120 Good on the old bugger!
120. ’situation arises’ It’s like a carry on film script.
123. I can’t believe that many people would be taken in by a far right party to vote over one issue like that. Still we are dealing with the Great British public so anything is possible.
Re Spam filter. We’ve relaxed a lot of the rules having put in place other measures to stop the spam. In spite of this posts mentioning Gallow*y are held for moderation.
Another result from last night :- Newport Council Marshfield Con hold Con 561 Lib Dem 409 Lab 339 PC 22 Green 13 - 2004 2 seats Con 809,787 Lab 590,333 PC 179 . A good performance by the Lib Dems .
127 - I think George Galloway is a very nice man.
Testing Testing
Heh. Love it.
That Newport result suggests that the towns in Wales are becoming real Lib Dem battlegrounds. I think Cardiff in particular will be fascinating in the next couple of elections.
The idea that Labour has a “touch of the Majors”- (Not so much Midas as Merde-as touch) really is pretty half baked. The problem for the Tories is not the Policies, not even the Presentation- its the people… What destroyed Major was not just the ERM fiasco, it was the constant stream of sleaze- the ghastly Hamilton, the vile Mellor. Archer, Aitken, Ashcroft all the way to Tim Yeo via Piers Merchant and, it now appears, Major himself. The sanctimonious lecturing on morality, while they were trousering the odd brown envelope bung here, or engaged in “illicit romps” there.
OK this government has had the embarassment of Blunkett and Mandelson, (or even the slight problems of the sainted Robin Cook) but this is a miniscule fraction of what the Major government had.
And you know what, DC’s alleged use of Coke really is in the same tradition as Major- “Do what we say, not what we do”. So come on policy issues are what politicans are supposed to debate and anyway nobody actually expects every member of the cabinet to agree 100%- which is why dissenters become so popular.
130 - Well back to basics was about politics not morality but by that point the press were sick of the Tories and so were the public. There’s very little the Tories did that was any sleazier than Mandelson’s little loan, the Ecclestone bribe and the hinduja affair. Just saying the Tories are sleazy and Labour are bright, shiny and new is ridiculous.
130 - Oh and just because he’s dead doesn’t make Cook “Sorry love you’re dumped. Mr Campbell told me to tell you” any more excused.
59 - dunno what sources you checked but the idea the mark to market loss on Black Wednesday was more than £10 b is comically daft. This must reflect on the ignorance of the people commenting on it, which is why you can safely ignore the rest of what they say. It’s easy to do the sums for yourself.
My belief is that the total amount of pounds bought by the Bank was of the order of £10-15b…. it couldn’t have been much more as the reserves weren’t that big. The loss on the whole of that September then couldn’t have been more than £2 bio.
Tabman at 112. I didn’t understand your reference to SeanT inventing ‘oral sex’ as a new verb? My christian name has made me particularly sensitive to nouns used as verbs!
134 LOL.
134 - look at his blog (warning: not for the faint hearted or anyone with functioning critical faculties).
I just heard a lady on “talkback” on radio 4 say “Could the BBC desist from referring to their correspondents as’Royal correspondents’. They are not ‘Royal correspondents but correspondents reporting on Royalty”
137 - ie Royalty correspondents.
137 she’s right though
137. ‘He’s just ghastly’ Superb line from Charlie that was.
131-You forgot to include on your list Blunkett (twice now),Byers,Labour postal votes in Birmingham,Milburn scanners & of course Cherie.
Not to mention dossiers justifying war & Railtrack nationalisation.
141. And let’s not forget Jo Moore.
127 Mike Smithson - you should add cocaine to words that trigger the spam filter!
David R 131. Cash for questions perhaps?
142 - I was more using illustration than trying to be exhaustive
But the Major government was a complete shambles by the end and nulab are nothing like a complete shambles at the moment.
144 - Millions in cash for Billions in cash is even worse re Ecclestone.
145. ‘at the moment’ Got another 4 years to develop into one though.
147 - **Crosses fingers**
148. Did you know about DCs passion for Aston Villa BTW David?
105/116.I couldn’t be away for a half-day and when I come back I find the main topic is Michael Howard and anal sex!
149 - We were talking about this the other day. I am very dubous about DC’s football fan rumour since when questioned about who the England keeper is he said “Not sure, it’s not David Seaman I know that”. I’m not saying a PM should be a footy man but I think it’s a bit sad pretending to follow footy when you don’t.
151. I think the link to Villa is because he has an uncle who’s a director or something. I think he should be briefed on The England team in football cricket and rugby pretty quickly as your average Sun reader expects a potential prime minister to know these things.
Local by-elections now on http://politics.guardian.co.uk/byelections/story/0,11043,1603895,00.html and presumably elsewhere. No great overall trends. The Lib Dem loss in Uttlesford (NW Essex) is the second since their surprising sweep in the 2003 elections - the local administration hasn’t been exactly brilliant since then (or indeed before).
152 - your average Sun reader wouldn’t know a rugby ball if it hit him in the face. Apart from northern readers who might know a bit about rugby league but they wouldn’t expect a “southern ponce” to know about that.
Has everyone seen this photo of Davis from the Telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/10/28/weekpix/051021_davis.jpg
Re: 153 – I don’t find the results anywhere near as depressing as the top of the Guardian piece suggested. They are a confused and confusing bunch given the changes in parties fighting.
For example: in Carrick, the Tories didn’t contest last time but fought this time. The LDs didn’t contest the Newport seat last time and did this time while the absence of Independent candidates must have had an effect in Uttlesford and South Oxfordshire.
I’m encouraged by the performance in South Somerset, a seat perhaps the Conservatives might have “expected to gain” under other circumstances. Not a bad week for Labour though at all and certainly good results for a governing Party. They will be particularly heartened by the result in Erewash, I would think.
Looking ahead to next week, the Conservatives are defending seats in Test Valley and Wokingham, which should provide a useful indicator of how the party is doing in its heartlands.
154. Shouldn’t have put rugby in. I was just thinking in case we’re near winning the world cup again or something like that.
One month’s local electoral figures must always be treated with caution, but this must be the first month for a very long time in which the Conservatives have polled a vote share equivalent to 40%+.