ICM Tory members’ poll gives Cameron 76%
October 30th, 2005-
Punters believe that the 39 year old is a near certainty
There’s been an overnight rush to back David Cameron on the betting markets following the publication of the first poll of Tory party members since the end of the MPs’ stage of the leadership selection process.
The survey by ICM for the BBC’s Politics Show involved interviews with 215 party members who went for the younger man by more than three to one. The figures were Cameron 76%: Davis 24%.
-
With the ballot papers due to go out in less than a week’s time it’s hard to see how the 56 year old Shadow Home Secretary can make up such a huge gap.
The ICM results are in line with a YouGov survey of party members after the Blackpool conference which had Cameron beating Davis by 66-27. Then, of course, the MP ballots had not taken place and there were other contenders still in the race.
Methodology note. We have yet to see the details of the survey but ICM did a similar poll in August 2001 when it spoke to 229 Tory members. In an important caveat last time ICM noted “Interviews were conducted in four areas - New Forest East, Blaydon, Gateshead East & Washington and Thanet South. The results are un-weighted and the poll is NOT designed or suggested to be representative of all Conservative Party members.” That poll reported an IDS win over Ken Clarke by 76-24 - the same shares, interestingly, as this survey. The actual result was IDS by 61-39.
In another big boost for TeamCameron the Cornerstone Group of right-wingers is reported by the Sunday Telegraph to be ready to put their weight behind the old-Etonian. They had previously backed Liam Fox.
News of the poll caused a huge rush on the Betfair betting exchange. At 9pm last night the Cameron price was 0.13/1. Four hours later this was down to 0.1/1. So a £100 winning bet from last night would produce a £13 profit - now the best you could get is £10. Davis is 8.2/1.
The best conventional bookmaker prices are Cameron 1/12: Davis 13/2.
We have now got to a stage where punters are attracted by the prospect of 10% return for what appears to be a near certainty just for locking their money up for five weeks. Unless there are unexpected problems for Cameron the price will tighten even further.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Does any one else think this whole cameron thing has a slight air of dot.com or tulip bubbles?is there really any evidence that he is that mould breaking or popular with the public? I quite accept he appears nice, telegenic and is a step in the right direction of the “generational shift” the tories need. However equally I do pick up a slight feeling of a stampeeding buffalo herd.
PLEASE NOTE I have just added a note on how ICM conducted a similar poll in 2001. As of yet we do not know whether the current poll was carried out along the same lines but if it was then there are important caveats - see above. There is no qualification on the BBC Online report of the survey linked to above.
What’s the point of doing a poll that’s “not intended to be representative”? At least the 24 hr news channels have the excuse that they’re trying to make money out of it.
Mike - the poll last time did not include a London constituency as one of its four. It is clear that the membership of the party in London is a lot different that the membership outside the capital - I hate to generalise but the party membership in London is younger and more socially liberal.
The last time my take is that they backed Clarke in a greater percentage than those in the rest of the country. However my feeling is this time they will be backing Cameron in greater numbers than the provinces so if this poll was carried out in a similar way the Cameron number may be understated.
…and I think you need to put the clock back
Andy 5. The clock is on the server and my son Robert is the only one who knows how to do it!!!
I wondered whether ICM has gone back to the same places that it surveyed last time. It might even have gone to the same people because getting lists of party members must be quite difficult.
What is wrong is that the BBC are featuring the poll without any explanation of how it was carried out.
What is clear enough is that Cameron, alone of the candidates, appreciated that, as in a General Election campaign, he had to fight through the (mainstream) media, and the way to do that was to recognise that they need to believe that they can make, not just report, the news. Perhaps the only ground for surprise is that only one candidate twigged this - or perhaps not, since we’re dealing with the Conservative Party here.
One test of whether he’s really as smart as he’s painted will come immediately after his election - he’d do well to publish a set of (audited) campaign accounts - not because I think there’s anything dodgy in them, but to show that there isn’t and to stamp on innuendo before it can get started. And to set a precedent.
O/T: Many people here will probably like Philip Cowley’s new book, The Rebels - How Blair mislaid his majority. (To declare an interest: Philip, who lectures on politics at Nottingham, is a constituent and I gave him some input for the book.) The launch at Westminster was a huge success, with scores of MPs, rebels and non-rebels alike, queuing up for copies. The book dismembers the ’supine backbencher’ myth, discusses why Labour post-2001 has had so many rebels, and looks at what makes loyalists and rebels tick and how they interact with the whips.
http://www.revolts.co.uk/therebels/
has details for anyone interested.
Has anyone got a link to this story about Cameron 100 target MPs story?
9. I really should check my posts before I submit them.
[8] Thanks for the link, Nick. The conclusion I draw is that Hilary Armstrong is a very effective Chief Whip - the Government gets its business through, MPs appear to have minds of their own, and the reputation of Parliament can be said to be enhanced :).
The late Roy Jenkins wrote an excellent book on Chancellors - perhaps someone would like to do the same for Chief Whips?
1. Couldn’t agree with you more! The egg on various faces would be a joy to behold if it wasn’t that the same people havent yet wiped it off from the last one! This time though the stakes are higher. Another IDS fiasco and it’s difficult to see the Party recovering. The dot.com bubble is a good analogy. Like the National Lottery “It could be you!” it’s got a feeling of chance about it that I’ve never seen before in choosing a leader.
11. Innocent Abroad, my conclusion is that Hilary Amrstrong is an innefective whip.
How many pages are devoted to Jeremy Corbyn? Do they consider rebellions when he votes against the government or when he actually vote with the government?
Roger 12. - I think it is far too early to be coming to any judgement on the impact of a Cameron leadership. Looking at the papers this morning and the party that appears to be in soup is Labour. Splits all over the place and TB’s “I’ll go before the end of the parliament” strategy looks as stupid as everybody said it would. Of course there is in-fighting because ministers do not know how long their boss will be there and who it is they should be trying to please.
Now we have the ludicrous idea of Labour putting a ban on having a glass of wine while on a train.
I get a sense that the media is giving up on Labour fast and if Cameron can capitalise on that then the whole environment could be different. Having seen Menzies Campbell last night on Platell & Morgan you can only wonder how things would have been different if he had not been recovering from his illness at the time of the last LD leadership election. He is a giant and puts all others of all parties into the shade.
But on Cameron it is all too early to be coming to any judgements.
16.” Of course there is in-fighting because ministers do not know how long their bosss will be there and who it is they should be trying to please. ”
there was a good article in The Guardian just after the summer about ministers not knowing who to please, because they know Blair will go, but at the same time Blair will stay enough time to demote them in the next reshuffle.
OT: New peerages. According to the Independent, the new list should include Ian Paisley’s wife, LAbour and Tory’s donors, a new Green (with their nominal leader proposing himself) and Maggie Jones (the candidate who lost Blaenau Gwent to Peter Law). Libdem’s new peers could include former MPs (not name given yet)
I agree Mike. The Labour party are becoming shambolic. I’m looking forward to the Brown takeover if only to see a huge shake-up. At the moment all we can do is enjoy the discomfort of all parties and see who if anyone comes out of this tunnel smelling of roses.
All three parties are desperate need a new and invigorating leadership. My guess is that Labour have the best chance in choosing Brown. I have a real sense that the zeitgeist isn’t right for Cameron and he’s going to be a disappointment. But nonetheless during his brief honeymoon he’s likely to expose the weakness of Charlie who I doubt will survive the next two years. But yes, Labour’s cabinet is looking seriously stale.
PS. I agree that the only political figures who look like leaders are Campbell and Brown. Who Knows…..?
This saga about government’s splits is really interesting (it’s better than a soap opera!).
It seems we’ll get a very exciting political winter (especially if the tories will be back in shape).
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/comment/0,9236,1604762,00.html
18. It certainly is feeling like that old political expression ’sea-change’ is just around the corner. I remember the last time it happened in the mid-90’s everyone seems powerless to prevent the change of scene. I think the sands are running out not just for Blair but for Labour too. Gordon must be concerned that he will be a Callaghan figure who has spent his entire political life aiming for the top only to get there and find that the ground he stands on crumbles beneath his feet.
If Iran/Israel did something silly wouldn’t we want to stick with Blair?
Also, as Roger #17 is reduced to agreeing with himself, I’d have to say that I find Ming comes across as a pompous windbag.
19. “Gordon must be concerned that he will be a Callaghan figure who has spent his entire political life aiming for the top only to get there and find that the ground he stands on crumbles beneath his feet. ”
Another problem for Gordon is that Labour’s majority has been cut this time and so next time he couldn’t afford to lose many seats. If Lab would have kept a 100+ majority this time, it would have been in a stronger position to win next GE.
Btw, the Guardian is reporting that the rebels will try to block the Education Bill until Blair is gone. How the hell could they block it so long?
Will they start to tell the story of their lives during Education debates or will BMA just place himself in front of the “aye” lobby to prevent MPs to vote?
I can’t see the LibDem support from Muslims holding if the Iran thing progresses as it is at present. Campbell sounded very hawkish when interviewed the other day, which he is forced to be since “the UN” is currently sounding very hawkish. It was the lack of UN support which allowed the LibDems to oppose the Iraq war, as constituted, but I’m not sure it was a fine distinction that made much difference in Muslim minds.
21. The only realistic way is to get Blair out quick I can not see any procedural way of doing it.
21 - All they have to do is demonstrate significant opposition which will encourage the Lords to oppose it and keep opposing it. Of course this depends somewhat on the Conservatives.
“If Iran/Israel did something silly wouldn’t we want to stick with Blair?”
I used to be a big fan of Blair. I still think when the dust settles he’ll be recognized as the best PM we’ve had certainly since the war but unfortunately like Mrs T before him he’s suffering the Doctor Strangelove Syndrome. It seems to happen to all PM’s after eight or nine years. So if Iran/Israel blows up Tony Blair is the last person I would want incharge.
23. well, I suppose it’s their aim too. They’re probably hoping in a government defeat in the Commons, it could be enough to get him out of Number 10. Then they could always try with a physichal fight between Tony and Glenda.
24. They could count on the new Green Lord.
Btw, ok, losing a seat with a 60% majority is a big achievement, but I didn’t think it’s the kind of achievement you’ve to do to get a peerage.
Anyone know who’re the Libdem former MPs to get the peerage?
I echo Nick’s recommendation of Phil Cowley’s new book (declaring my own interest, Phil was one of my tutors at university), but his work invariably make subjects that could be dry in someone else’s hands immensely readable (amongst present company, I’m sure Parliamentary rebellions aren’t a dry subject anyway). I would have been at his launch, but I’m on paternity leave changing nappies
On ICM’s methodology, I have no iodea how they did this particular poll, but they have conducted several polls of Conservative party members since 2001 using a far more representative methodology. Specifically they recontact Conservative party members who have identified themselves as such during normal quasi-random ICM polls in the past - effectively they have over time built up a ‘panel’ of Conservative party members who are willing to be interviewed.
Does anyone know the margin of error on a sample of 215?
Also on BBC Politics Show someone said that 25% were undecided. So I think the split of 76-24 is actually based on a sample of 161. What is the margin of error on that?
About 7% I think
29. Thanks.
Andrea at 13: There’s a mini-chapter on each of half a dozen compare-and-contrast MPs, one (half of one) of which is on Jeremy Corbyn.
One of the many entertaining bits is a challenge to the reader, especially the reader inclined to be scornful of MPs who vote without fully understanding the issue. Cowley presents a short (and not unusually complex or obscure) amendment in detail, plus the section of law that it’s amending, and asks the reader to decide for himself whether he’s for or against. It can be done in 20 minutes or so. Then Cowley asks if the reader could do it 200 times a week, once for each vote…
One item which was news to me is that the Commons votes on Lords reform failed by accident. On a crucial (free) vote, 4 MPs got confused about which amendment was up and voted against the 60% elected option that they intended to support. It went down by 3.
The Cornerstone development is quite interest. If it materialises, it will demonstrate the new dominance that Cameron has come to dominate the Conservative political landscape since the conference. As the leader states, this must be an enormous blow to David Davis as it becomes more and more difficult to see where he could possibly come up with the votes to make a go of this now that Cameron appears to have the party establishment, the socially liberal wing and now the right of the party rallying to his banner. I wonder if Andy at 4 is indeed correct when he says that, with these factors in mind, Cameron’s share could be slightly underestimated by this.
32 - Bah… Mike, we really need an edit feature on this forum!!
‘will come to demonstrate the new dominance that Cameron now exercises over the Conservative political landscape…’, rather.
or something like that..
31. Nick, I’m under the suspicion that Corbyn and McDonnell look at what the whips told them to vote and then make the opposite. Labour whips should avoid to tell them what they would like them to vote.
33/34. AH Matlock, wasn’t ToryBoy and John T’s blood good enough to keep you go on and on?
36 - John and I had a very cordial exchange, but Tory Boy still hasn’t emailed me!!! He is in serious trouble now, I can tell you…
31/35. So the majority of MPs don’t know what they’re voting about. Because if it takes long time for rebels to understand what they’re rebelling about, it should take long time for loyalists to understand what they’re supporting about…….
It’s not a UK only problem though. We’ve the same situation here. Actually it’s even worse, because many amendments are allowed on a bill (I’m talking about hundreds of amendments). Only ministers, under-secretaries and members of the committee usually know what the various amendments are dealing with. Before a vote, a represenatitive of the government have to say if the government is supporting the amendment or not. So opposition MPs and majority MPs know how to vote.
A couple of months ago a curious thing happened. A right wing MP tabled a pro-nuclear amendment. The government opposed it (becuase it was too pro-nuclear) and the under-secretary said to vote against. Hearing the opposition of the government, Green MPs voted in favour of the amendment. So now it seems the Greens are pro nuclear!
37. ToryBoy doesn’t appear often during the day…..another Michael’s friend?
38 - One never knows.
39. I’m not surprised anymore by Widdy’s will to retire…..it’s a dangerous situation for her.
15. Yes, Lady Eileen is going to the Lords, along with one other DUP man - probably Wallace Brown and Maurice Morrow, the party Chairman. The choice of Eileen Paisley is interesting; on the one hand due to the DUP’s success in the election, all of their prominent figures are now MPs. Eileen Paisley doesn’t play a political role in Northern Ireland, or at least hasn’t done for about 30 years, although I believe that she is still quite prominent in the Free Presbyterian Church. It will be interesting to see what the citation is for.
One convenient effect, as far as the Big Man is concerned, is that, when combined with his appointment to the Privy Council, it now makes him the Rt. Hon. Rev. Dr. Sir Ian Paisley (whatever the dodgy provenance of his doctorate!)
24. I’d be surprised if Labour appointed a Green Lord: surely the potential boost that the Green Party could accrue from having a member in the legislature increases the already acute danger of them Taking Brighton Pavilion off Labour next time round?
41. *two other DUP men*
42. It seems that the Green Lord will be Hugo Charlton (according to the Independent on Sunday). He stood in Battersea this year.
Our clock - end of summertime We have now worked out how to move the clock. This might mean that comments on this thread will be in the wrong sequence for a short while. Apologies.
x
44. Personally I welcome the move, but it surprises me that Labour are doing this when the next election could be on a knife-edge!
46. It was only a test, because I had problems to post earlier.
42/44. Actually the Greens already have a member of the House of Lords: Timothy Beaumont, Baron Beaumont of Whitley.
He was a Libdem who defected to the Greens in 1999, because the Libdems support free trade.
48. He certainly knows how to make his presence not felt!
There should be at least a handful of Green peers, and to be fair UKIP probably deserve some too
49. Look at him:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Tim_Beaumont_green_party.jpg/180px-Tim_Beaumont_green_party.jpg
He introduced the Air Traffic Emissions Reduction Bill.
Has UKIP any Lords? I don’t seem to recall them having any of them. Are their members not accepting peerages? If they’re going peerages to the Greens, they should give them to UKIP too.
51 - a number of peers had the whip withdrawn after urging voters a while ago to vote UKIP although I don’t think they ever formally switched parties.
52. Thanks. Lord Stevens of Ludgate now sits as “Conservative Independent”. Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke are now “Non-affiliated”. Baroness Cox of Queensbury is now a cross-bencher.
“Interviews were conducted in four areas - New Forest East, Blaydon, Gateshead East & Washington and Thanet South.”
I’ve just noticed, but 3 out 4 of these seats were(and are) Labour held constituencies and the 4th was a Con/Libdem marginal.
Not a great choice as sample. They could have included at least one Tory heartland (I suppose there’re more Tory members in strong tories areas than in Blaydon).
Btw, someone mentioned here during Lab conference that Gordon has lost weight. It doesn’t seem so to me:
http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/56009658.jpg?x=x&dasite=GettyImages&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=AB27D0502010942195534B1B9E10FCFB2EBD4FC9D8ECFA70AC9EDBE4E6F952F6
Evening all. Hope you had good weekends. What is the feeling of the pb.c posters of the two main things today? Blunkett’s new problems and the ridiculous idea of stopping me getting a beer on the train home to Manchester. I think Blunkett is a bit of a non-story but the alcohol ban looks incongruous with the 24-hour party people law?
55. I’m surprised no Tory poster has brought up the issue of John Reid (a Scottish MP) lobbying about an English issue (smoking ban in England).
I guess he has no choice. Though think of the poor wee working classes whose only pleasure is killing themselves with fags Mr Reid.
56 - Andrea, it’s the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Regarding the anti-social behaviour agenda, what does creating “acceptable behaviour zones” mean?
It seems they’re creating areas where anti-social behaviour is not allowed, but the implication is that in other areas ASB is allowed! I don’t think it’s their aim.
Then according to “The Times”, a big spin operation is being prepared to sell them with Howell James (permanent secretary responsible for government communications) playing a major role in it.
58. In the past tories posters here have complained about Scottish MPs being decisive on English issues, while English MPs couldn’t legislate on Scottish mattters, because Scotland has its own Parliament now.
Well no-one has solved the West Lothian question and Labour will never try to.
obviously
But I think there is plenty to attack Labour with this week without resorting to such a hackneyed argument as that!
61. I had the cynic suspicions that there weren’t those attacks becuase they agree more with Reid than with Hewitt/Jowell on this issues.
Btw, I thought “Nanny” was Hewitt’s nickname, but one of today’s newpapers uses it for Jowell.
As newspapers have pointed out, the most worrying part of this week’s splits in the government is that they are coming from Blairites ministers.
Gordon has done anything this time (except watching and hosting parties with celebrities).
The Gurdian stressed that Blair could always use a reshuffle to try to solve problems and regain his authority. But it couldn’t send Prezza away and the other problems regarded loyalists like Hewitt, Jowell, Reid, Blunkett and Kelly.
The reason TB can get away with all these crass, illogical measures, is that broadly speaking the majority of them are populist. The same was true of section 28 when the Tories introduced it. It was unneccessary and illogical, but populist.
That is the problem. I’m feeling very sorry for him.
**snigger**
60 - I can only speak for myself, but I think many Conservative supporters will agree. I want everywhere in the UK to be equal, ruled by one sovereign government in London (not Brussels and not Edinburgh). I strongly opposed the setting up the Scottish parliament as I believed, and still do, that it will demand ever greater powers and will end up splitting the Union. I want to abolish it, but that would be electorally disastrous, so I have to whine about the unfairness of it all and how England should have a parliament too (which most people regard as ridiculous) and try to point out silly little discrepancies that no-one really cares about. Of course I don’t care if Reid is Scottish, or elected to a Scottish constituency - I want them all equal.
Re. the tipping point bit, I’m beginning to hear what I heard after Black Wednesday, the fuel crisis and the long hot summers of 03 and 04, ie dark mutterings that ‘they won’t get in again’.
In the last three cases TWIA was wrong BUT it’s interesting that the government’s stock should have fallen so quickly, and so fast, in all of five months since its re-election.
It may be that Blair’s new lease of life after the Olympic bid and the no votes to the European Constitution was just a blip. Next year’s local elections should be very interesting (especially if Blair’s still PM).
62.”But it couldn’t ”
ops, it should be “he”. St Tony is still an human being (I think).
66. Richard. I was a bit surprised about all this chaos emerging in a week. It was unexpected.
It seemed that all was quite calm with only the usual suspects having something to complain (and they weren’t even protesting so much). Then everything erupted: Prescott against Kelly, Prescott against Blair, Reid against Hewitt, Jowell against Reid, Hewitt having problems ta the meeting with MPs, Blair wanting a more radical reform but not being able to present it, white papers on education with spelling mistakes, ….. as I said it was better than a soap opera with everyone leaking something to the press.
An interesting test of whether the Tories really are on the up again (particularly if David Cameron wins the leadership contest) would be a by-election in a marginal Labour seat.
69. well, yes, it would be interesting. It wouyld be interesting a a by-election in a Libdem/Con marginal too, but I wouldn’t like something bad happening to an MP.
19-Are there any odds yet on Brown’s premiership being shorter than Alec Douglas Home’s ?
66-Apart from the shambles of last week the condition of the economy must be worrying the government.
Actual 2005 economic growth now running at 40/50% of GB’s forecast,house repossessions worst since 1996 ,personal bankruptcies now at highest level since records began in the 1960’s.
Consumer debt now £ 1.1 trillion equal to total debt of Africa & South America combined.
62-Sometimes known as Granny Hewitt.
72 - Though that LOOKS Like a scary fact our economy is worth more than Africa and South America too. Though I agree Brown will come undone over the economy as Eden came undone over foreign policy.
Andrea 68. Some of the newspapers have been quick to compare the current situation with the dying days of Major. From the first day of this administration there were disloyal mutterings. Perhaps Blair’s authority is being gradually but fundementally weakened.
75 - That is the inevitable result of anybody in a position of senior leadership such as Blair announcing their retirement years ahead of time. Authority gradually but irreversibly ebbs away as those who remain turn their gaze toward trying to please their (likely) future master.
AH Matlock 76. It’s not as if a Cabinet reshuffle - or a Night of the Long Knives - will help him either. There isn’t much talent to promote and Blair seems to be a reluctant butcher.
74. I think it’s better than Italian one too.
72. “…..house repossessions worst since 1996″
The problem for Conservatives is that this is still only a tenth as bad as they were in 1992/3 when the Tories were last elected. And the electorate have memories like elephants when the Tories are involved. Perhaps this could be the moment for the Lib Dems to make a move?
77. I’m not sure who he could domote from the cabinet either. There were talks about getting rid of Margharet Beckett to make room for some young Blairites, but I think Beckett is the less of his problems at the moment.
As always Roger your dismissal of the Tories is mildly amusing. I would suggest that were the Lib Dems every going to move ahead of the Tories they’d have done it by now.
Much as I would like it so, I honestly don’t believe that analogies with the gruesome gotterdaemerung of 1997 are apt, at least for the present. For a start, the govt retains a large majority, Labour retains a lead in the polls (not a double digit deficit), no Ministers have been forced out of office sine May, there is not yet much economic ‘pain’, still less collapse. Nope, that putrid sense of decay has yet to reach my finely-honed nostrils
:(.
But one day, one day..
David. It’s just that when you get more than a few Tory posters together the optimism quickly gets out of control. I just feel that as one not one of the faith it’s my job to TRY to keep you grounded!
One of the faith obviously thinks the same……Bravo JohnO!
82. John, in which part of the world are you today?
80. I think Reid and Hewitt are fighting for the mantle of main New Labour challenger for the succession and the Brown pepole are watching with interest.
82 - Andrea, An all too brief stop-over in the Hersham Winter Palace
Our JohnO agreeing with Roger?!?!
What is the meaning of this!?
Plaudits from Roger
- I thank him and my joy is unconfined.
86. According to the Guardian (or The Times) Reid was disappointed by the fact that Jowell said Brown is the natural choice as next leader.
I think Hewitt could seriously look forward to the position of deputy leader.
Reid seems the only one (with Milburn) ready to face Gordon at the moment.
Alastair, Fear not, Excellency, all part of a policy-lite cunning plan. Hmmm, details to be unveiled…
87. Any of my (long list of) favourites on TV tonight?
88. He’s on the verge of defecting. I was able to convince him. He’ll become Lord Chamberlain under the reign of Queen Glenda I.
If Reid or Hewitt got anywhere near the leadership of the Labour Party I would become a Cameroon!
Shocking, John. Utterly shocking!
Glenda has already been queen. I remember when she died.
We’ve not had a cataclysmic moment like Golden Wednesday.
Yet few, I think, could say what point there is to the government now.
93. Roger, did you mean you’re leaving the country to go in Cameroon, right?
92 - Andrea: Oh, I see! I suggest you take great care to keep your neck covered!
94 - See, already working beyond my wildest dreams, Roger is beginning to see the right
97. No Andrea. I took a sneak look at Conservativehome.com and that’s how the followers of the new Messiah are known.
99 - Are you quite sure we really want him?
95. David. Which version?
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Pelicula/ERTV.JPG
http://www.somebuddy.ca/goodwomen/mostwanted/images/glenda_qe250.jpg
OT. Isn’t Evan Davies the BBC ecconomics editor in a class of his own?
101 - Oh, he’d have to go through a Cornerstone re-programming first
98. AH Matlock. General Bob Marshall Andrews, head of the troops of the Kingdom, is protecting me.
http://www.epolitix.com/NR/rdonlyres/4C05E513-D6F3-494B-88D8-993C167CEBF5/0/bobmarshallandrewsmarsh.jpg
(he’s looking if there are evil tories in sight)
I’m not convinced by comparisons between 2005 and any previous election. There was a view in the immediate aftermath that the voters had won and the parties had all lost and I have yet to read anything here or elsewhere that refutes or undermines that judgment.
In particular, this is the first time that Labour have had a third term. It’s a very human reaction to hug the nearest tree when the wood itself is unlike any seen before.
BBC series Elizabeth R
107. So first pic!
I read she was terrific in that series. She really shaved her head to look more realistic.
test
“There was a view in the immediate aftermath that the voters had won and the parties had all lost”
Indeed - Shirley Williams was, I think, the first person to say it, just after the exit poll came out. It’s difficult to think of a recent election with a similar result - not 1987, but not necessarily 1992 either. We’re coming to the end of an epoch which Labour has dominated, but there’s no credible alternative as yet - although that could change very soon.
100. roger, don’t frequent that website! They always talk abd about Hanky
IA 106. I remember from reading in the book ‘Voters Parties and leaders’ at school that if the Conservatives lost the deferential vote they wouldn’t win another election. Maybe that’s what’s happened.
Hanky?
112 - Another classic written by a madcap socialist? I remember reading lots of books in 1992/93 saying Labour wouldn’t ever win. That was a crock of crap too.
112 - The deferential vote ceased to be a factor by the 1950s, if not earlier, although it was of great importance until the early decades of this century. Among the traditional working classes (who are nowhere near important as they once were) the Conservatives made longstanding inroads into the socially aspirational vote (the working-class Tory a century ago was derisively said to have three characteristics: “pride, poverty and a piano”), and also among the economically aspirational once the old Liberal Party faded away, and could also win over working-class voters on specific issues like Unionism and Tariff Reform, which played roughly the same role that immigraiton and Europe might play today.
However, what really hurts to Tories now is the loss of AB voters and women, neither of which were outstadningly deferential groups.
113. Alan Duncan.
in IMHO,the Tories are roughly at 1987 in terms of their ‘trough’,mirroring the trevails the Labour Prty went through in the 1980s-yes,they can start to see the way out of the wilderness,’wood from the trees’ to coin a colloqialism,but I would still stake a fair wad of notes that the next Conservative govt is 10 years off-any takers?
117 - Well if your right the next election will be out 1992. And Labour should have won that election so I wouldn’t bank on a Labour fourth term.
Thanks Observer. “The deferential vote ceased to be a factor by the 1950s”
We were still using it as our text book for voting behaviour in the seventies! As I remember at the time approximately 30% of the working class voted Tory for deferential reasons. I’ve tried looking the book up but so far without luck. I think it was by Blundell. Anyway I’m going to see if I can find reference to it
118. David, if 2005 is Lab’s 1987 for the tories, Lab will win 2009 too (tories being in Lab’s 1992 situation).
118,Neither would I: (a)Growing sympathy for ‘time for a change (b)An incumbent PM(GB) who is closely assocaited with perceived (from the right)errors since 1997.
BUT ,on the other hand,Britons are largely conservative with a small ‘c’,and whilst it is ludicrously early to make sweeping generalisations,over the the intervening period,in IMHO,GB will be able to portray himself as the ‘More of the same’ candidate,and with the best will in the world,DC (or member(s) of his Shadow Cabinet) will derailhim,and a fourth,Brown victory will follow around spring 2009-I would add that the Lib Dems will experience a squeeze in the South,with old Tory bastions like Lewes,maybe Devon North turning blue again-if I were a Lib Dem,I would be quite nervous about what may happen next time,as I feel (at least in the SE), DC may take the ’sting’ out of voting Tory-indeed,I’m prepared to admit a ‘1950 scenario’ may occur-where,lets say GB wins,without an overall majority,and only manages 18 months before having to go to the country once again-as I said,its far too early to call,but I do feel ‘two-party politics’ may at least have some kind of renaissance
118;Might Neil Kinnock have won if he had’nt yelled ‘well,alright?Well alright?!WELL ALRIGHT??!!’ at Sheffield;personally I am convinced that moment made the difference between victory and defeat
121. if there’s a strong “time for a change” feeling in 2009/10, the Libdems could lose seats to Cameron’s tories in rge south, but they’ll gain lots from your party.
123,a fair few in the SE,but once you approach the Midlands?North West (2 of the marginal-rich areas),I bet my bottom dollar DC will be perceived as a (pardon my frankness) ’smarmy southern git’, and,in the same way Michael Howard made neglible progress outside London,so will (roughly occur) for DC; I do feel he will make sufficent progress to have a second tilt,in 2013/4
David Blunkett has unfortunately made himself look foolish and I think it’s going to be difficult for this government to get ahead of the game again until they get rid of him. At the moment it’s only the nasty opportunism of the ghastly Grayling that seems to be saving him. I don’t think he should ever have been brought back. It makes the government look like it had no other talent. I don’t think this financial mishap is more than a storm in a teacup but once you’re damaged goods all mud sticks.
125.”the nasty opportunism of the ghastly Grayling ”
Grayling is doing his job. All politicians of all parties are opportunists!
125 - The whole Blunkett thing is the worst thing to happen to this government of its own making. I think the Iraq war was more important (obviously) but I don’t think TB can be blamed entirely for that. Blunkett being allowed to remain in his ministerial flat while waiting for the next reshuffle really left a nasty taste in the mouth. Of course he broke the rules (a few times it seems now) and if he hadn’t been TB’s biggest pal he would have been out on his ear. The speed of his return to the cabinet stank.
**Has flashbacks to Nick Robinson’s interview - “That little lad”**
Excuse me all I need to just go and be sick.
122 - I think the Tories would have been the largest party in a hung parliament without that awful rally. Though I do know a Labour member who the day after said “We’ve lost”.
125. I’m surprised he didn’t pay more attention. It was easy to predict he would be a “target” for opposition parties.
In Netherlands it seems they’ve different kinds of problems:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article323479.ece
The polls did start to go the Tories’ before Sheffield had time to filter in though - the first ones registering the final week surge were literally being published as the rally reached its climaz. The unanswerable question is whether the surge would have spluttered out wihtout the Rally, or whether the rally gave it momentum. It was a brilliant electoral spectacle, even if overdone: in retrospect, it was the last hurrah of Old Labour.
74-David R-The £1.1 trillion debt relates to UK Consumer debt only & excludes govenment & corporate debt.
Whereas the comparison to Africa & South America,was our consumer debt only (£1.1 trillion) is now more than the total combined debts (consumer,government & corporate) of the continents of Africa & South America combined.
79-Roger-Give your party a chance as they have already hit 1996 levels of house repossessions & there’s still 4 years left in office for Labour with the economy rapidly going south.
Personal Bankrupties have now overtaken the worst of the Major years & are currently the worst since records began in the 60’s.
119-Roger-To bring you a little more upto date,in 83 & 87 more trade union members voted Tory than Labour & that was not out of defference!
From today’s Telegraph:
‘The number of Tory MPs backing David Cameron’s leadership bid reaches 100 today, taking him past the important threshold of more than half the parliamentary party at Westminster.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, 10 Conservative MPs, including the prominent eurosceptic Bill Cash, who previously supported Liam Fox, say Mr Cameron has “huge talent, intellectual ability and sound judgment”.
“We believe he can appeal across the political spectrum to voters who did not support us in the last three general elections,” the letter states.
The MPs are Peter Bone (Wellingborough), David Burrowes (Enfield Southgate), Mr Cash (Stone), Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire), Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby), Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon), Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham), Brooks Newmark (Braintree), Gary Streeter (Devon SW), and Desmond Swayne (New Forest W).
Ten days ago, when the 198 Tory MPs chose the final shortlist of two candidates to be put to supporters in the country, Mr Cameron received 90 votes and David Davis 57.’
Further details at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/31/ntory31.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/31/ixnewstop.html
82 John O I think there is a general if not specific comparison with 1992. After a fourth election victory a tired and often emotional party started to break apart almost immediately. For most polls following the GE in April, May, June and July and part of August the Tories stayed ahead of Labour. Then the polling rot set in.
As with the Tories in 1992 to 1995
- the governing party is starting to fall apart with cabinet ‘briefing’ against colleagues including the major step of leaking inter Cabinet memos, talks of a leadership change, and increasing rebelliousness from government back benchers
- legislation rushed through for populist vote chasing rather than sound governance reasons, and
- a sleazy feel beginning to attach to the government (with Cherie and Blunkett building on the F1, Tony’ Cronies in the Lords, Mandelson and Robinson episodes ) ,
- clear ministerial incompetence leading to resignations
- taking previously popular positions and making them so far out as to be absurd (the health fascists and the nanny staters, multiculturalism as separate development for example)
- the press turning as worms usually do, and
- a party showing the arrogance of being in power for a generation showing the moral and political corruption which that often generates, Tories , Liberals and Labour alike. It’s a sort of political aging process. Mrs T held off the effects for longer by being tough on renewing the cabinet. Blair seemed incapable of that before the last GE and now is in no position, as a lame duck, to be as tough as he ought to have been previously.
And then the opposition starts a real revival with an attractive and young leader with no political baggage to speak of, but who seems to connect with the voters real tastes.
The Telegraph piece by Matthew D’Ancona today is fascinating. Cameron, he concludes, is the post Blair leader NuLab loyalists were praying for, and hell of hells on earth, he is in the wrong party and believes in right wing policies that Blair would love to adopt but dare not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/30/do3003.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/10/30/ixop.html
Sic transit gordo, as they say in the posh schools.
131 — rather than the last hurrah of Old Labour, plucking defeat from the jaws of victory in 1992 was the first almighty cock-up of New Labour, and it was noticeable that John Smith cast Mandelson & Co into outer darkness.
Its worth remembering that the £1.1 trillion personal debt includes mortgages which are secured against an assest.albeit one you can argue is over valued. bankrupcies are up but have been made signifigantly easier by recent legislation. so hostorical comparisions with figures in the 60’s are problematic.
I do accept that the economy is slowing and that that has political signifigance but we currently have low inflation, low unemployment, reasonable economic optimism and growth. I see the curerent economic figures as the first leaves of autumn of problems ahead. not a comparison with the mid 90’s and all the fall out that had for the major government.
133. should I expect Edward Leigh’s endorsement soon?
I think that’s correct Lord Goderich. I’ve said before I’m not anticipating an economic crash. What I am expecting is that this government will continue its steady progress of assimilating this country to the continental model of lavish public spending and low economic growth.
137- Indeed. The great and the good from the hard right (Bone, Swayne, Cash) at least have the desire to win.
139. Don’t forget the lovely Baroness O’Cathain!
This is shocking can I found a club Cameroons for Cameron before the conference. It is nice to see other people showing the will to gain Power. I also pointed out months ago people that people on the right of the party would be attrated to Cameron. He is not a Blair. While Blair was ashamed of socialism Cameron is unashmably tory but also can present his case well
141. S Penketh, are you a bit latinant in recent times?
Blunkett has committed two sins. The first, the failure to comply with a voluntary code of conduct is a westminster story but has no resonance with the public. More serious is the sense of conflict of interest over the share ownership. while none may actually exist it LOOKS bad. If he has any sense and sells today he will survive. If the story drags on then it will begin to feed on its self. at that point the actual facts will cease to matter.
test