ICM blow for Cameron’s Tories
November 22nd, 2005
-
Still not through the 33% ceiling
Tucked away in the Guardian today is the November ICM poll showing CON 33(NC)LAB 38 (+2)LD. Given the high profile that the Tory leadership contest has had in the media this must be something of a disappointment to the party.
The 33% share is what the party achieved in the General Election itself and is just one point higher than what ICM recorded in their final pre-May 5th survey.
In one way it might be useful for the Cameron camp because it is a further reminder that the party has a huge mountain to climb. There will be big expectations when the 39 year old takes over on December 6th and each poll will be analysed closely to see if he is making a difference.
The poll will also be a disappointment to the Liberal Democrats who have been rather crowded out of the media in recent weeks. Even the latest change on tax thinking did not command the attention it might have done.
For Labour the maintenance of a solid ICM poll rating will be a welcome reassurance following all the rumpus over the defeat on the Terror Bill. It might also take the pressure of Tony Blair.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I like the Cameron picture, but as this poll show its a little too early for Conservatives to elevate him to the Sainthood.
and as he went to Eton i guess “elevate” may be the wrong word
What, really did they expect? The Conservatives under Cameron will be roughly where they were under Howard, under Duncan Smith and under Hague. For all they now speak of the “disaster” of IDS and the “joke” that was Hague, the supposed panaceas Howard and Cameron have done nothing.
It is not about the leader. It was never about the leader. For David Cameron to enter Downing Street there needs to be firstly a reason for most former Labour supporters not to vote Labour, and secondly a reason for them to vote Conservative, and the first is more important than the second. A strategy of supporting the Prime Minister’s reforms and legislation seems ill-designed to do either.
3. ‘most’ former labour supporters need to stop voting Labour for the Tories to win an election? erm…you mean their vote share has to go down 18% next time? I think that would leave them with about 50 seats. Methinks a bit of an exaggeration here…are you actually Roger, by any chance?
4 - most “floating” Labour supporters, then. The point is that continually changing the leader won’t help just as it hasn’t done in the recent past. Being younger than Gordon Brown is not enough.
As to reasons for the Government’s popularity to fall, I would suggest that “it’s the economy, stupid” and that doubled wholesale gas prices and £100 a household on Council Tax are the start of the opposition parties’ opportunity. Cameron’s problem will be translating that into support for his party when (unlike 1979) the minor parties are not tainted with propping up a (supposedly) incompetent Government.
After the last two Labour wins they’ve gone up in the polls at the expense of the Lib Dems over the following perhaps six months or so. So I don’t think there’s too much to worry about for the Lib Dems there. It’s just reversion to normal after media and voters pay them
a bit more attention during the election campaign.
However it’s interesting that the Tories haven’t improved. I suspect all this enthusiasm and positive feeling for Cameron will last him through a six-month honeymoon, just like Howard, and then the poll ratings may well drop back to where they were before.
That’s unless the economy plunges of course.
PS You’ve left out the Lib Dem score and how it’s moved since last time.
PPS nice to see you’re all being even handed as usual. I could never guess who was on which side from your comments!
Cameronites are not too bothered about this, time after time polling by ICM has given a labour lead that simply doesn’t exist.
Cameron is not like Howard, as people get to know him more, I suspect they will vote for him…howard’s surge was mostly due to IDS crapyness in comparison.
My early prediction of the next GE would see the labour vote at around 37% and the tories picking upto 35% with cameron…but as thats just a far-fetched guess…does it really matter what opinion polls are saying right now?
Depends if they think Cameron is centrist.
Blair has won on this ground three times, I`m fairly sure Brown will fight there again next time.
Most people myself included don`t know what Cameron and the tories policies will be at the next election.
Going by form, Like Hague,Ids, Howard, they will start centrist then under pressure Cameron will shore up the right vote, don`t know why as the right has no where else to go.
Must be the threat of The Mail, telegraph and possibly next time Murdoch.
I think it’s rather absurd for people to expect Cameron to be shifting our poll ratings before he has even won the leadership. There will be a bounce if (when) he does win but I think other contributors are right to say that it will be the spring at the earliest before we have enough data to assess any trends. Local council byelections have been very encouraging though.
9. I constant problem is restricted stakes. Send me an e-mail at woody662@hotmail.com and I’ll tell you more.
Off topic alert!
Fascinating story in the Guardian…
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,9061,1647765,00.html
I think the main reason this would be disappointing for the Tories is because the recent political events have been pretty dire for Labour and Blair, yet the response of the public [if the opinion polls are a reliable guide] is to shrug their shoulders.
I’d imagine it would leave people at Conservative Central Office scratching their heads wondering what they have to do to shake the public ‘out of their complacency’ or some such.
The ICM poll is embarrassing for the government. The voting intention hare Nick Palmer set running is rather obscuring the critical findings on pensions and retirement.
The Guardian says Most - 59% - say they want to stick to the present age limit of 65 even if it means receiving a lower state pension.
Opposition is particularly strong among the first group of workers likely to be affected by the plans, with 66% of 35-64-year-olds opposing the later retirement date.
With a greying population this is serious stuff, but considering that the report has only been leaked very recently, this rumour has got its boots on very fast and travelled at light speed.
The opposition within younger age groups is less but its still supported by a bare majority (51%). And that age group are less likely, in normal circumstances, to vote than their elders, who if their more immediate future is threatened will be motivated even more to do so.
The cave in on civil service pensions as demanded by the Nulab Trade Union barons has set the stage for a very difficult period for the government. Until civil servants, MPs and judges and ministers are seen to make sacrifices why should their employers (us that is) contemplate doing so.
When the Labour government have contributed so heavily to the pensions crisis through tax raids and bumbling ineptitude in initiating reform or redress, they are unlikely to garner anything but odium on this issue.
And this is much bigger news than the fairly meaningless (at this stage) changes in voting intentions which are all within the margin of error in any case.
13 - Go Maggie!
13 F Mitterand had to have visits from a shrink twice a week and we believe him?
More worrying still, he controlled the French nukes and he had a shrink visit him twice a week.
Nixon on speed! Geronimooooooooooooooo
8 - What Howard surge? The Conservatives did about as well under Howard as under the alleged (by Tory MPs) disaster IDS and under the alleged (by Tories) joke figure Hague. And if we believe this poll, it will be the same under Cameron. That is the point. Doubtless it would be the same under Davis should he recover to win the leadership. The leader’s personal popularity counts for little in our parliamentary system.
It is not just the Conservatives. Most Lib Dems will tell you how useless Charles Kennedy is yet the electorate keep sticking their Xs next to the LD candidate.
11,
I agree one would have to wait until Cameron has been in place for a while, next summer to get a feel for where its going.
Personally I hope Cameron is the pragmatic leader he has shown so far.
However if he shifts to the right, the people who I know, who are genunine floating voters, will not shift in the numbers required.
My father voted for Wilson, Thatcher, Blair, and is closely looking at Cameron.
So we will wait and see.
ICM poll has Lib Dems on 19 (-3).
Peter, 9, I know two (and a half) successful and genuinely professional gamblers (out of perhaps 200 in the country). They have been banned from numerous bookmakers and are always searching around for other people to act as cover for them when they want to bet.
They’re usually prepared to cut you a small slice of the action if you want to help!
I would have thought it was pointless paying attention to polls four years before an election. At least I think it will be four years. I think that after the Council elections next year would be a good time to start educated guesses.
[9] I am repeatedly cut down, sometimes to silly amounts. Many firms prefer to do that rather than ban you completely. I’d like people who are interested to help me ‘get on’. Similarly, sometimes I can help you place a bet. If you are interested, my email address is dk@diyhire.com
“The ICM poll is embarrassing for the government”.
Extremely embarrassing for the government Blue2win. If instead of a Labour lead of 5% (up three from last time) it had shown a Labour lead of say 10% I’m sure we would have been demanding that Blair should go now, without further ado.
(Max. You often accuse me of talking partizan rubbish. Do you ever take the trouble to read Blue2win?)
More trouble for the government of its own making.
Anthony Wells reports A new ICM poll for No2ID, the campaign against ID cards, seems to indicate that support is back on a downwards trend. In June 2005 ICM/No2ID found that 55% of people thought ID cards were a good idea, while 43% thought they were a bad idea. ICM asked the question again this week, using identical wording, and found that 50% of people thought they were a good idea, while 47% thought them a bad idea.
http://www.yougov.com/interactive/blogIntro.asp?jID=3&sID=4&kID=http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=99
And then there is the Council tax and nuclear power as well as pensions, education reforms, NHS deficits………..
Retirement age: Anthony Wells reports on the latest poll findings.
http://www.yougov.com/interactive/blogIntro.asp?jID=3&sID=4&kID=http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=98
I’ll be surprised if Cameron makes the same ‘jump to the right’ mistake this time. I suspect he probably is fairly right-wing, but the fact that he’s had the courage to take the public on on the drugs issue rather suggests he’ll have the courage to take the Tory right-wingers on too- do a ‘Blair/Brown’ act and tell both sides what they want to hear in private, and the public what it wants to hear in public.
This Tory contest kept us away from true important political facts. We missed the constitution of Veritas NEC….there weren’t enough candidates to fill all the 12 places!
They’ve their first meeting last week: http://www.veritasparty.com/cgi-bin/datacgi/database.cgi?file=News&report=SingleArticle&ArticleID=0406
Respect is having their annual autumn conference. The leadership even managed to lose a vote over gay rights.
28,
looks like the activists who attend Respect only agree on the war then.
Not very liberal of them, are they out of step with george g.
29. Dez, they’re out of step with their voters (uhm, everytime the leaderships of any party lose a vote at their conference, they claim their grassroots members are out of step with the voters). Actually this time they’re not only out of step with their (conservative Muslim) voters, but they’re also moved by a “secret agenda” and in “bad faith” (according to Lindsay German).
Now we should only wait to see if the 12 Veritas members will start to disagree with each other too!
John L at 18 - I can’t believe you have seriously studied politics.
The Leader of a Party make a huge difference in our parliamentary system. Candidates make only marginal differences (last studies suggest 2,000 votes either way for a non-celebrity candidate). The Leader is the figurehead and, from my limited doorstep experience, is a major factor.
Most LibDems say how useless CK is - again, not true, as polls show LibDems members to be happy with his performance and most voters rate him a more credible PM that most of the Tory Leaders of late.
They keep putting their X against the LibDem candidate - we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that they are a 3rd party with 62 MPs. Roughly 80% of people don’t vote LibDem shock.
Tories done as well under Howard as IDS? There isn’t a single credible figure who suggests that IDS would have done as well as Howard. Including IDS (probably!)
Please think about these posts before you make them or people will assume that you are Roger.
Tone 31. Which polls had high ratings for CK as a potential Prime Minister? There might have been such a survey but I cannot recall it.
He has come out reasonably well to these questions - from MORI & ICM: Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Mr Kennedy is doing his job as Leader of the Liberal Democrats?
YouGov: Do you think Charles Kennedy is doing well or badly as Leader of the Liberal Democrats?
But these are not asking about his potential as a PM.
See http://www.yougov.com/interactive/blogIntro.asp?jID=3&sID=4&kID=http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php
for range of CK-specific polls.
31. I don’t seem to recall any single credible figure saying that the Tories [i]wouldn’t[i] have done as well under IDS, Tone. Just under half the Tory gains were due to Lab->LD switchers; I was no IDS fan, but I think even he could have picked up a dozen or more seats for the Tories.
What was it he was polling when he was dumped? Oh yes, that’s right - 33%. Sounds a bit familiar, doesn’t it…
32 - Mike, this is rather off topic but may I ask when you and Robert plan to reinstate the most recent comment facility? Soon or are you going to wait until after the announcement of the leadership election? I expect traffic might be rather heavy on 6th December.
IDS would have been a disaster had he led us into an election. I certainly don’t see how we would have got the result we did under Howard with him.
31 - Of course the leader can make a difference but by where and how they lead the party and not by simply being more or less popular than the other fellow. Margaret Thatcher was hugely influential on her party, the country and the Labour Party but if it were down to her personal popularity then she’d have lost in 1979, just as the hugely popular and not uninfluential Churchill did in 1945. Broadly speaking, voters vote for parties, not for leaders and not (as you say) for individual candidates.
At the last general election, the Conservatives under Michael Howard got around a third of the votes which is where they were under Hague and under Duncan Smith (so far as we can tell from polls and other election results since IDS did not fight a general election). My conclusion is that IDS was not as disastrous nor Howard as successful as many Conservatives believe.
That is not to say the leader is unimportant. When many Labour supporters were repelled by the Iraq war or by ID cards, Michael Howard slammed the door in their faces by not opposing these policies.
So yes, David Cameron might in time bring about elicit a revival of Conservative fortunes but he won’t do it simply by being younger, prettier and a better television performer than Gordon Brown because history shows us that even if the public does prefer Cameron to Brown (or Clarke or Milliband), this does not mean they’ll vote for his party. The electorate en masse is more sophisticated than the professionals like to think.
35 - I agree. There is no way that IDS could have achieved a vote share of 33% in the General Election. The Conservatives would most likely have slipped below 30% and been competing with the Lib Dems for second place.
37 - The campaign would have been inept, the party would have lacked the discipline that Howard brought, Crosby would probably never have been brought in and the targetting strategy that helped to deliver increased seats (though I concede that it masks anaemic growth in our vote share) would probably not have been adopted. Conservative turnout would probably have been down and we wouldn’t have won the popular vote in England. Or, that’s what my political antennae tell me would have happened at any rate.
38. I am unconvinced, and take reference from the poll numbers. But we can all guess away to our hearts’ content…
For my money, the difference was not the leader, per se; it was that the Tories stopped undermining their leader. Even those who were pro-IDS threw their lot in behind MH because they knew that all their hides depended on Howard making a go of it.
That sounds about right Alistair. I don’t think we would have got more than 185 seats under IDS. Every poll showed that Michael Howard was regarded as a much more plausible potential Prime Minister than IDS was.
When people ask why did Michael Howard or William Hague move to the Right in the run up to their respective general elections, I should think the answer is obvious. Moving to the Centre was costing the Party votes, overall.
39 - Your prerogative, Chrisco. But I am sure that my ‘guess’ is as good as yours.
40 - Sean. I think you’re probably about right on the seat figure, and Howard certainly had a stature and gravitas that IDS lacked. I’m not sure that I agree with you when you say that moving toward the centre will ultimately cost us votes, but doubtless that is why we are backing different leadership candidates.
Moving to the Centre may not necessarily cost the Conservatives votes in the future - but it was costing us votes under William Hague and Michael Howard. It’s hardly as if they abandoned an election-winning strategy just to please the Daily Mail.
My point is that when people criticise Hague and Howard for adopting a “core vote” strategy in the run up to each election, they did so because the alternative wasn’t working. If it had been working, they wouldn’t have adopted a core vote strategy.
42 - Yes, I agree with that. Labour had sucked up all the political oxygen on the centre ground in ‘01 and to a lesser but still powerful extent in ‘05. Fatigue is setting in with this government now though, and they won’t have Blair next time and I for one don’t believe that Brown is going to have anything like the same appeal to middle England that Blair has had over the past 8 years. In fact, I think so many people have such great expectations of him that he’s bound to be a disappointment when he finally gets the job ala the Canadian situation between Chretien and Martin.
“John L at 18 - I can’t believe you have seriously studied politics”.
Is that compulsory or can we all have an opinion? Though John isn’t me I rather agree with his post 18. Whoever leads the Tories achieves the same result. You don’t need to be a student of politics to read three past election results and a few polls. Why the Tories are stuck in this 30-33% box whoever the leader is an interesting question. My own theory is that it’s all down to the brand. 70% of the population think the brand is rotten. Rather like M&S a new MD in itself makes no difference at all. But whereas Marks can change it’s merchandize and put out some good ads for the Tories it’s more difficult. They’ve been selling junk for so long a face lift isn’t going to do it for them.
As for IDS…….Never underestimate the determination of a quiet man because the quiet man is here to stay - and he’s turning up the volume.
Off Stage “Oh No He Isn’t!!
That may be so Roger. But what do you think will happen once 70%+ think the Labour brand is rotten (64% did so in May)?
Sean at 46. Exactly the same as is happening to the Tories now. but i don’t agree that 64% of the population are anti-Labour in the same way I think 70% are anti Tory. Neither of us can be certain but various polls show that the anti-Tory vote is larger and more solid than the anti-Labour one. And in my humble opinion you have the Iron Lady otherwise known as Lady Macbeth to thank for that.
44,
Agreed no Blair next time is a huge oppurtunity for Cameron to move or percieved to have moved to a more centrist position.
He will I believe get a much more favourable media coverage than the incumbent Brown.
I think the strategy will be not to take the daily mail line as murdoch will be on board, as he always likes a winner.
Therfore Cameron has a great chance of at least leading the largest party in parliament in 09.
47,
Roger,its 15 years to the day since she was made to resign by her own party.
Still a divisive figure and a divisive act for the conservative party.
dez. Indeed. I think many people underestimate her influence on peoples attitude to the Tory party now, which, as you say is 15 years later. She is identified with the Tory party in a way that Blair never will be with the Labour party. And though a lot of Tories love her a far greater number of non-Tories hate her and will never vote Tory because of their memory of her. Blairs biggest enemies are on his own side so it’s possible to be Labour through and through but still detest TB.
Roger I agree,
Many of my friends feel the way you describe.
Due to the way they felt they were treated in the recessions of the 80`s redundancy etc
These people of a certain age will never vot conservative because of her legacy and the memories.
Roger, Well, if the number of voters who supported the Tories in 1983, 87, and 1992 (i.e. well over 40%, and presumably with Mrs T very much in mind), then I for one will be more than content….
The defenestration of Margaret Thatcher was probably the daftest thing the Conservative Party has done (to itself) in my life time. Setting aside the fact the personal facet of the issue (most of us rank and file members in the country were fiercely loyal to her), would it not have been better to have stood by her? I felt very strongly that if Margaret Thatcher was going to be dismissed from office, it should have been by British public and not a bunch of nervous nellies on the Tory backbenches. In hindsight, I believe it would have been better for her to have carried on as our leader and to have lost the 1992 election (which I don’t think was at all certainty) than to have gone through the trauma and turmoil of the past 15 years that the manner of her removal set in motion. Even had we lost in ‘92, we surely would have recovered faster from that than we have (or are still trying to) from that infamous and incredibly stupid act of regicide.
There, I’ve outed myself as a diehard Thatcherite now!
53 - How embarrassing! I repeat my plea for an edit facility!
The departure date will be later rather than earlier and a rocky and turbulent, if not bloody, road too it seems from a report in the Independent today.
In an echo of his belief that it is better to have fought the good fight and lose, Tony Blair denied that there was “political opposition to choice”. He said: “It is better that we carry on carrying through the programme we were elected on for a third time,” he said.
“Whenever you take those decisions, you cause a certain amount of turbulence and difficulty but the important thing if you are doing the right thing is to carry on doing it…………..”
The full report is in at here
53 - I’m not sure, AHM. Loyalty is all very well, but it’s dangerous in politics when taken past a certain limit. No leader should be allowed to become bigger than the party. One precedent would be with Gladstone. He achieved great things as a minister, and as a PM in two governments, but, after 1885, he’d dominated the party for so long (even hijacking the leading role after resigning from the leadership in 1875) that he identified the party with his personal whims and instincts. He drove the Liberal Unionists out of his party, causing a serious long-term weakness, made himself indespensible although he was really no longer fit enough to govern, and left such a hole after his final resignation in 1894 that the Liberals were reduced to a weak, squabbling, divided party incapable of being led until the fresh divisions over the Boer War died down - and even then, the divisions left their mark on future events. The weakness of the Liberals at this juncture helped paved the way for the eventual rise of Labour. The Tories, in the fifteen years after Mrs. T, have suffered from many of the same symptoms, and they could have been even worse had she survived for longer.
56 - Interesting comparision, Observer. Of course, you may well be right.
Or perhaps Mrs Thatcher would have been persuaded to go on her own after having narrowly won the leadership ballot in November 1990 - which would have been far less divisive than the way she was forced out.
Or perhaps the Tories would have been narrowly defeated at the 1992 election and Labour could have been left to deal with the fallout of the ERM debacle and all economic baggage that has left us with.
Who can say, really… but it’s difficult to imagine the damage resulting from either of those scenarios being worse than what has actually come to pass.
56 - Further, I wonder if you would email me on alastairmatlock@gmail.com when you have a free moment? Thanks!
50-Roger-So why did Thatcher win three elections?
So why did more trade unionists vote Conservative when
50-Roger-So why did Thatcher win three elections?
So why,in two out of the three elections Thatcher won,did more trade unionists vote Conservative than Labour?
So why,if her policies were so unpopular were most of them adopted by Labour?
60,
She was helped to win three elections by the centre left completley splitting.
The hard left was percieved as taking over the Labour Party.
Michael Foot, wasnt seen as a Prime Minister.
In essence the centre left made it a lot easier for her because they were seen as unelectable by a centrist electorate.
So that many trade unionists, as you state they even saw no alternative but a conservative government,through that period.
24 - It’s not what you say roger it’s the way you say it. You are utterly contemptious of anything and everything that is Conservative. Also B2W has never accused me of being a racist so I tend to have a bit more time for him.
It’s a huge mistake to assume that Labour and the Alliance formed a kind of anti-Thatcherite bloc that was somehow split apart.
The fact is that many more people preferred the Conservatives’ policies and vision to their Labour opposites.
You’d have to agree Roger, I think, that the anti-Conservative vote weakened at this election - which is why the Conservatives could win 33 more seats on a 0.6% increase in vote share - and the likelihood is that it will weaken still further in the future.
Robert @ 9 and David @ 23 - Thanks for your comments and kind offers but I won’t take them up. I have some experience of that kind of thing and it generally works out badly.
Incidentally, my earlier comment was intended to explain why it is that political betting is a bit of gold mine for serious minded punters. It won’t last for ever of course. When the big firms wake up to how much they are losing on this specialism they will start hiring proper odds compilers and the easy pickings will be over. Enjoy the fun while you can, my fellow PB posters!
The Falklands War was of course the other, vital factor that explains Mrs Thatcher’s dominance of 1980s’ politics.
63. The alleged anti-Thatcher sentiment is signficantly overplayed as part of the Left’s ham-fisted attempts to re-write history under Blair. I’m sure even Nick Palmer’s experience on the doorstep would not reveal the kind of gut-wrenching instinct implied by the likes of Roger.
Also overplayed is the “vote share” argument over the 2005 elections. Again, attempts to try and persuade us that Tories weren’t very happy the morning after, or Labour supporters very unhappy, simply aren’t going to wash are they? After all is only happened a few months agho and we can actually all remember it. Blair’s er-writing of the 1990s is cheecky; but this is just silly!
40 & 41. The Tories would have picked up a dozen seats purely on the Labour->LD swing. In another 4 seats the Lab-LD swing was bigger than the Tory majority. IDS was polling 33% when he was dumped. Polls indicated only 2% (net) of people said they were more likely to vote Conservative under Michael Howard. In the end the Tories got 33%. I felt all along that IDS was a suicidal choice of leader compared to Ken, but surely even IDS would have been able to see that a tight targeting strategy was needed, which is what netted the Tories the 20 other seats. If he was the sort of man who couldn’t see that, then maybe he was as bad as you believe!
But at the end of the day, I kind of agree with John about the importance of the leader. In elections that are not expected to be close, the leader is not that important - it can tweak a few results at the extremes, but the overall trend in results is much more influenced by the image of the party and the overall mood of the country with regard to the government. Whether people looked at MH as a more credible potential Prime Minister is that relevant - the mood of the country was give TB a bloody nose but keep Labour in. That would have happened under IDS or MH. My own gut instinct is that under IDS the Tories would have ended up in the low 190s rather than the high 190s, and that the difference would have been to the benefit of the Liberal Democrats rather than the government.
But at the end of the day, it’s all gut instinct and idle speculation. Though you have to admit Alastair, my gut instinct and idle speculation prior to the election was pretty damn close to the mark.
It’s the economy. If it goes into a downturn, then watch the Labour share fall.
67 - Chrisco. You and I will have to agree to differ the impact of IDS as leader then. If you check my entry on the prediction competition thread prior to the election, you will see that my instinct overall was quite close to the mark as well.
And then, of course, there was the Conclave that you didn’t fare quite so well at predicting…
In the end we are all dust. It is interesting to remind ourselves of what the real enduring legacy of Margaret Thatcher will be (besudes Blairism).
A son who got lost in the desert and who has got lost even more in life - and a daughter who (allegedly) piddles on ‘reality TV’.
Has Roger become even more partial in his commentary?
69. Well, to be honest Alastair, of one of us was going to be in tune with the thinking of a bunch of conservative septuagenarian men, it was unlikely to be me!
72. *if..*
The piece in the Indy about the brand preferences of party supporters yesterday was kind of interesting- and underlined why The Sun will probably not move to support the Tories next time. Looking at politics from the perspective of marketing it is hard to avoid the judgement that the Conservative party itself faces terrible trouble. So why is DC picking a fight with his MEPs on membership for the European Peoples Party? This is not a clause 4 issue, all it will do is remind people that the Tories are divided on Europe. If he succeeds he will drive out the last of the even faintly pro-Europeans in the Tories- not exactly “reaching for the centre ground”, if he fails he will look like a fool. Mind you, when you have people like Michael “I am a full neo-Con” Gove in his train, perhaps what DC meant to say was- I am just as much of a right wing nutter- sorry, “core vote strategist”- as my predecessors. Marketing speak says he should do that to preserve his brand. Politics says that this is barking.
72 - Well, can’t really argue with that! But, I am very young at heart you know..
Not exactly a chinless wonder, is he?
Given that we have had 2 months of wall to wall coverage of the tories most talented members surely you would expect a point or twos improvement of the tory vote?
Re. 63, Sean, I agree entirely. At least 50% of Alliance voters, I’m sure, had the Conservatives (not Labour) as their second preference. In 92, Labour squeezed the Lib Dem vote to less than 20% (in most of the marginals Labour gained that year, the Tory vote stood still, or dropped by only a little, with Labour’s increase coming from the LDs) but it just reduced the Tory majority to 21. Labour (or at least the modernisers) realised it wasn’t enough to whinge about a split anti-Tory majority (which ignored, for a start, how the Liberals tipped the Tories out of power in 64 and February 74 through splitting their vote), but that Labour would only win a GE through winning over voters directly from the Tories. To do this, Blair accepted (among other things) Thatcher’s legislation on pre-strike ballots (which we now take for granted, but which was seen as impossible or dangerously radical at the time, even by Tory wets such as Pym). Indeed, in a swipe at Margaret Beckett (who, through her utterly unprincipled and opportunistic flip-flopping on Labour’s internal left-right spectrum, has revealed herself to be one of the must two-faced and untrustworthy people in the Commons, let alone the government or Labour Party), he said at the 94 Party Conference (I paraphrase) ‘Nobody really believes that we should abolish pre-strike ballots or secret ballots for the election of trade union leaders - so why say we do? We should say what we mean, and mean what we say’.
In fact, I remember an old Ken Livingstone column from the Independent in which he opposed Alternative Vote for the very reason that a left-wing Labour Party would have been hammered by a coalition of Conservative voters and Alliance voters determined to keep Foot and Kinnock as away from power as possible.
More on that Beckett flip-flopping:
a) Wins election to the Commons as a Eurosceptic Bennite by unseating Dick Taverne
b) Agrees to take office as Schools Minister (after Joan Lestor’s resignation in protest at the IMF Cuts) under Callaghan
c) After losing Lincoln, and looking for a new seat in the days of Bennism, she attacks Neil Kinnock for treachery in refusing to back Benn’s destructive bid for the deputy leadership, sneering at Kinnock that he should put ‘thirty pieces of silver’ in for the Tribune Rally collection. She is promptly reminded of her own betrayal by Joan Lestor. After election as an MP for Derby South (what a pity she didn’t lose), she opposed expulsion of the Militant Tendency
c) Resigns from the Campaign Group, and becomes Shadow Chief Secretary, where she devises ‘Beckett’s Law’, in which spending increases can only take place ‘as resources allow’
d) Tries to stab John Smith in the back at the 93 Blackpool Party Conference, saying that the vote on OMOV is (I paraphrase) a matter for him, refusing to publicly support him.
e) In the leadership election of 94, advocates getting rid of all Thatcher’s trade union legislation
She deserves praise for her performance on the day of Smith’s death, but that’s all.
Re. 66, Anatole (and if you are Anatole Kaletsky, then may I say I still treasure your excellent piece the day after Black Wednesday), I, as a Labour Party member, was not very unhappy on May 6th. I admit to swearing after the Putney result, but when I found the BBC/ITV News exit poll was exactly right (a majority of 66), I was very, very tired (having stayed up all the way till 6am) but extremely relieved.
But yes the Tories were very happy (until at least Howard spoiled their party by resigning, which promptly made them feel ‘deja vu all over again’ and popped their balloon).
Unfortunately he is not Anatole Kaletsky. THAT Anatole votes Labour!
Come to think of it, our Anatole does seem slightly more right-wing than the one who writes for The Times
78. Richard, I think you can find Uturns (maybe not so many as Beckett) in the majority of Labour politicians who were active in the 80’s or before except your favourite Alice Mahon and her friends.
Think about Hewitt, Primarolo or Hodge…..
Yes, but at least they only u-turned (or ratted) just the once (Hodge, Boateng and co just went from left to right, instead of following Beckett’s example and going left-right, right-left, and so on).
I should add that I dislike Hodge, Boateng and co almost as much as Beckett, when they’ve gone from being wildly left-wing to wildly right-wing (apart from Hodge’s ridiculous suggestion that musical chairs should be banned as it makes children too competitive - that was a blast from her vile PC Islington past).
I think some of our Tory contributors (such as Sean Fear) are equally annoyed by the right-left lurch of Bercow et al.
82. I think Bercow’s situation is different. Those Labour MPs who went from left to right actually gained something in terms of political career with that move.
Bercow hasn’t gained anything going from right to left in the tory party.
While I find Bercow’s volte face very annoying, I think his conversion to left-wing politics is quite sincere.
84. Sean, have you followed the Equity Bill debate?
Bercow is apparently counting the days since he voted for the equal age of consent.
Desmond Turner (MP for Brighton Kemptown) referring to sexual orientation: “Legislation has gone hand in hand with the change in public attitudes over the past 50 years, but it is important to underpin this cultural change with legislation”
Bercow immediately rose to say :”I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. In my case, it dates back five years, nine months and 11 days.”
Fair points above. It’s ironic to compare Bercow with Woodward. Woodward only really disagreed with his first party on Clause 28 (and was sharply partisan against Labour) yet joined Labour, while Bercow disagrees with official policy on more than one issue, yet has stayed put. If the Price Diaries are right, Woodward was driven not just by Clause 28 but also by a certain amount of egotism (demanding, for instance, that was made Minister for Europe).
I am very surprised that John Bercow remains a member of the Conservative Party.