Is Andrew Neil right about Kennedy going?
December 10th, 2005-
Who would become the next Lib Dem leader?
In his “This Week” programme on BBC 1 late on Thursday night the veteran political commentator and ex-Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neil, made this statement - “I have heard that Charles Kennedy will stand down at the Lib Dems Spring Conference”
This does not appear to have been picked up elsewhere and although there has been much discussion on the position of the Lib Dems in the David Cameron era the suggestion that Kennedy has actually decided to call it a day has not been mentioned. Yes - there has been speculation but, as far as I can see, nobody has been more unequivocal than Andrew Neil.
-
For a couple of years now the view has been that the parliamentary party, would, if pushed, want Kennedy to stay because they fear that the party membership at large would elect Simon Hughes.
An obvious short-term replacement would be Menzies Campbell who was very ill at the time of the last contest and did not let his name go forward. Campbell will be 65 next May and has built up a formidable reputation over Iraq. A politician of real gravitas who would contrast sharply with the young Cameron.
Also with gravitas and a growing reputation would be the party’s Treasury spokesperson Vincent Cable who is two years younger and could take the party to the next General Election. In September Cable made the controversial suggestion that the party could cut a deal with the Conservatives in the event of a hung parliament.
The new crop of Lib Dem MPs from May contain a number of potential leaders but they really need to make their mark first before facing a leadership election. Two former MEPs Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne fit into this category.
There are names like the “not-publicity shy” Lembit Opik and Ed Davey who could be contenders. Also to consider is the well-attired ex-city banker, David Laws and possibly the Home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten.
So that makes nine separate options and I’m sure I’ve over-looked some. But for a leadership election there needs to be a vacancy and unless Andrew Neil is right Charles Kennedy looks set to remain. But it would be good to have another leadership betting market between now and whenever Tony Blair finally throws in the towel.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I really cannot see Kennedy fighting the next General Election as Leader. His entire niche in the market has been eclipsed by Cameron. The Lib Dems look set to return to the pre-1997 level of support. Kennedy should get out before he is pushed out.
It was on the news this morning that he’s going in March. He hasn’t got the energy to compete with Cameron apparently. A good move for the Lib Dems I think. Kennedy is quite liked by those not interested in politics but there’s only so far that a negative vote can sustain you. If the Lib Dems had a demon vote winner in their ranks we could be into some interesting three party politics with the Libs and Tories fighting it out to be the official opposition but as they havent I agree with Gary that we are heading for two party politics again with the fence sitters forced to make a serious choice.
This thread about the Libdems prompt me a question: where’s Tabman?
I am interested at the timing of this…last weekend there were further revelations about questionable donations this time made to kennerdys office by someone not entitled to give money as an individual but doing so through a company that employs no staff and (Someone correct me if I am wrong) does not have an office….seems to be a bit of a habit with Lds.
On his weblog Peter Balck AM said he had been involved in a discussion at the “National executive) dunno if thats british or Welsh…and said that the lds had nothing to worry about in terms of the Electoral commission taking action on the dodgy donation until the company accounts for 2005 are presented (next year?). Interestingly the company involved, 5th A venue Partnership failed to present its accounts on time to companies house for the period 2004….so one wonders what will happen next year…..and if there is no evidence of “trading” then presumably the Electoral commission will have to develop some backbone and tell the Lds to pay the money back regardless of the consequences….
Under the terms of the relevant act is it possible for an individual to take out a prosecution against a political party if the Electoral Commission wont act…ie to get the this tested in court?
Ed Davey, if he gets to raise his profile on the education white paper debate, is a good outside punt. A March elections really comes too soon for most. Sir Ming would be a caretaker and would be perfect but I’m not sure people vote for caretaker leader (Michael Howard anone?)
Tabman still in Australia I think. He wont be standing for the leadership this time though!
I think Kennedy has done a great job and am afraid of the options - there is no clear solution - a bit early for Clegg I think - perhaps Ming with Clegg as his no 2.
Lembit Opik? Erm, no!
Oh dear - another Blair babe in trouble!
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&xml=/news/2005/12/10/nfiona10.xml
8. Rik, a former Blair’s babe. If we look closely,we could probably find troubles for some tory’s candidates defeated 10 years ago too.
Actually, I think it’s quite a sad story. She was after all acquitted on appeal. But she should never have brought the claim for malicious prosecution.
9 - Andrea - i dont think there is anything recently like Fiona Jones and Jane Griffiths as former MPs!
10. That is a sad story really.
Would David Laws stand a chance at all or is he too Right Wing. I would have thought Hughes was the safest bet if it goes to left wing members. Is that the way they decide it?
12 - yes, they do a test to see if you are too right wing, and if so then you don’t get a vote
Serious answer - it’s a ballot of all members by STV, though candidates do need to be nominated by 10% of the parliamentary party.
11. yes, Rik, but in your party’s history there are more serious cases than these Fiona Jones’ troubles.
Btw, was Fiona Jones really an “high profile” MP (like the torygraph states) when she entered the Commons?
14 - I think she became high profile through her antics!
When was it that Jonathan Aitken lost his seat?
14 - What were her “antics”? Being charged with a crime she didn’t commit?
Well, I never heard of her prior to her conviction. As I say, we should remember that she was acquitted on appeal, so legally, she is innocent.
13. With Hughes grass roots links then, surely he would stand a very good chance.
15. The Telegraph implied she was high profile even before the antics.
19 - I’m not so sure. What goes down well with the activist base isn’t necessarily going to be representative of the membership as a whole.
Much more interestingly, does anyone else think Miss Philippines is outstanding value at 4-1 for tonight’s Miss World?
Fevered speculation aside, I don’t believe CK will stand down until after the local elections at the earliest. As I’ve always said, I think he has done an excellent job and I’m in no hurry to see him gone.
If he chooses to stand down, fine. As for a replacement, my preferred option is and always has been Andrew George. I find it reassuring that despite the jibes and barbs from activists of other parties, we have a number of highly competent and plausible candidates.
The issue, I think, is one of youth over experience. Against the youthful Cameron, Ming Campbell or Vince Cable might look to have more maturity and experience but either would be a short-term appointment and, as we know, being third-party leader is one of the hardest jobs going. If I’m thinking for the long-term, Clegg and Oaten look the front-runners but Davey has obvious claims. I’d still vote for Andrew George in front of all the last-named.
OK REALITY CHECK
Speaking as someone who actually has contacts with most of the names bandied around I have to give a reality check on the speculation.
Kennedy will not go at the Spring conference, he would not pluncge the party into a leadership contest ahead of local elections in May, there is though an outside chance that he might decide to go in the Summer.
Kennedy has been a successful Leader. He does though piss off the ‘political classes’ inlcuding many LibDem MPs because he doesn’t do it by the rule book yet still remains very popular with the wider party & public.
If Kennedy does decide to go after the locals then there are likley to be only 3 candidates. Lets look at those who are unlikely to run first.
Ming desperately wants to be Leader, he regrets not standing in 1999. Ming wants Kennedy to go but will not run unless he can be guaranteed a Michael Howard like coronation as caretaker through the next election, however that just won’t happen but others won’t stand aside.
Lembit Opik won’t run either - he maybe nuts but he’s not stupid, his failure to win the Party Presidency has shown he can’t win a leadership contest but he could try to become a kingmaker.
David Laws was deeply bruised by the Orange Book experience and knows a candidacy by him would be doomed. He’ll back someone else.
Nick Clegg & Chris Huhne both want to be Leader themselves but know this is too early for them and that they can’t mount serious campaigns before the next election.
Vince Cable just doesn’t have the support to run a campaign despite some obvious ’safe pair of hands’ credentials.
OK then who would run?
Well, Hughes is already running, using his position as Party President to tour the constituencies like crazy, he will definitely put his hat in the ring. He’s very popular in the party but far from unbeatable. He has extensive activist support but the wider membership ( which is concentrated in Tory leaning South East seats) are likely to view him as too left wing.
If Hughes stands then so will Oaten. he know this Parliament gives him the best chance of becoming Leader & he will not pass it up. He is likely to be the candidate of the right but with some surprising ‘leftwing’ support. The reverse of Hughes, he is far more popular with the wider party than with the activists. Remember that the LD activits base is 10-15% of the party but 60-65% vote in Leadership elections.
Ed Davey will run as the unity candidate but could be fatally wounded because his support base is from much the same section of the party as Hughes, and he will struggle as a result.
of course, the real question is who in the LibDems is intent on destabilising Kennedy- and what is he going to do about it if he really does want to stay. This, the money stories etc etc all look like inside jobs. So who are the Lib dem “bastards”?
As a floating voter who voted lib dem in May I suppose my view is useful.
I would desert the lib dems if Hughes was leader, I am not at all convinced by Oaten and would definitely consider voting for a Campbell led party.
If the lib dems move left with Hughes then maybe they could keep the potential labour voters they have gained but it would give Cameron a clearer run at getting votes like mine. In the long run that might be worthwhile if labour goes into decline, as looks likely. Maybe a socially liberal but left leaning party would be able to take on a tired centre left party forever tainted with the authoritarianism of New Labour.
Simon Hughes seems ok to me. A safe pair of hands.
Having said that, I recently saw it on TV and his eyes are strange. Does he frequent the sam doctor of Joan Collins?
18: Thanks, Sean Fear, for the fair-minded comment. I knew Fiona Jones quite well - she defeated me for the Newark selection in 1996 (which is just as well for me as things turned out), but we remained on friendly terms. She was spirited and outspoken (she once told a meeting of NFU members after listening to an hour’s harangue: “We’ve just voted to abolish single parents’ benefit. If we aren’t willing to give extra subsidies to single parents, we certainly aren’t willing to give them to you!”) and I was sorry to see her brought down. Basically an internal dissident alleged expenses violations which were dismissed in court, but by then her career was ruined. She argued that the police should have seen the allegations were baseless.
Re 1, Gary, I am sure the Lib Dems would relish their pre 1997 level of support, 21% in 1992, 23% in 1987 and 26% in 1983 (last two the Alliance.) That level would probably increase their number of MP’S
because of their second places in Labour seats and gaining the benefit there of an anti labour swing..
Regarding the leadership, Lyn Featherstone is a dark horse. Media savy, activists appreciate how she turned a moribund consituency into a winning seat in virtually two elections, female and comes with a new image, is neither young nor old, with little or no baggage, except what the Labour party may try to throw, they have been doing this apparently for years without any effect except to lose their seat.
I think worth an outside bet, Lib Dems have a considerable percentage of female members and interestingly their female MPs are being pushed, see the number of times they are on Question Time these days. LF usually comes across confidently when interviewed on Home Affairs.
But the best guess would be to do the opposite of what the Lib Dems normally do and go for someone who is probably one of the most respected and experienced politicians in the country, Ming Campbell.
He seems fit and strong and normally destroys those who try to intimidate him in interview or parliamentary exchange. Only problem is age but he would appear exeprienced and sound compared to the youth, inexperience and apparently keen to have right wing education and European policies of DC.
There you can all have a go at that!!!
29. I agree Lyn Featherstone is good. She looks like a good campaigner too.
O/T DC needs a policy on something, and I think it would be reasonable for him to have one on special schools. Sounds easy, doesn’t it: we don’t close any more.
Then you run into problems. Firstly, the issue is exactly parallel to the gypsy problem. (If you’re not close to a gypsy camp/serverely handicapped child, you are not interested, and think people who are ‘over-react’).
Secondly, the liberal establishment has views of ‘inclusion’/tolerance which bear little relationship to the current situation. Romanies have been replaced by a much more aggressive type of Irish tinker, and the vague and distant memory of the ‘wrong’ people being locked away in mental institutions is years out of date.
Thirdly, for quite different reasons, both problems are getting worse. The Irish govt has changed the rules on trespass, making England a far more attractive place to come to, especially if you are adept at playing the rules. And much improved ante-natal care has made the demand for special schools much greater at the exact time they are being closed.
The biggest problem is money. The govt allocates cash to local authorities who nominally have discretion on how its spent. The govt lays down ‘rights’ of gypsies and parents of handicapped children, and then doesn’t give the LA enough money to discharge its duties to those two groups.
And the solution is…search me.
But DC could do worse than make a start here, particularly if he is going to espouse ‘localism’.
Ming Campbell would be a very bad choice.
31. It’s an interesting point what Dc will do about localism. I spent all the conference promoting this and quite a few of his ’set’ were the principle cheerleaders and writers of the direct democracy book.
8. Talking about the “Blair’s babes”, they’re usually very criticized and it is sometimes said (usually by tories) that they’re pretty useless and show that all women short lists don’t help to bring in the Commons more good women.
I think it’s a bit unfair. First, not everyone could reach the frontbench (the frontbench positions are limited) and then the majority of the male 1997 intake aren’t a biggest stars than them.
8. Talking about the “Blair’s babe*” (the spam filter caught me), they’re usually very criticized and it is sometimes said that they’re pretty useless and how they show why all women short lists don’t help in bringing good women in the Commons.
I think it’s a bit unfair. First not everybody could reach the frontbench, then the majority of the male 1997’s intake aren’t bigger “stars” than them.
This EPP thing is beginning to look like a bit of an error. He must be praying that it remains a dispute only visible to political anoraks and Tory members. Picking a fight with your grassroots to appeal to the middle ground is one thing, but to do the opposite?
34 - quite. People going on and on about how “women must get there on merit” ignores the reality of the large number of men who… don’t.
Though I’d say the correct aim, for any political party, is to try to maximise the numbers who do get in on merit, and minimise the numbers who don’t (not that one can ever abolish wire-pulling and cliqueishness in a political party completely).
35 - I think the danger for Cameron is more that any disunity looks like the “same old Tories”. On the issue itself, he is on pretty safe ground. The EPP’s support of federalism and the mortally wounded constitution is not really the middle ground in a British context.
On the main topic. i note that Kennedy’s office have complained to the BBC that there is no good authority that could have told Neil that. Kennedy was going.
I think that’s a fair complaint. It reminds me a bit of Robinson’s “Davis to quit” nonsense ahead of the MPs ballot. A reporter is briefed by an insider with an agenda- reports it as authoritative news and sets a whole news cycle going which the subject of the report is put in an impossible position. Denial looks weak and silence lends the story weight.
I’m not saying that rumours shouldn’t be reported, but they need to be reported with care, and not reated casually as Robinson and neil seem to be doing- especially when they don’t give the subject of the report time to respond before popping up on national TV. In this case, it would be fair enough for Neil to say “some in the Lib dems are briefing that Kennedy will go, though his office are stoutly denying it” but this report was out of order.
OK, I’m biassed because I can’t see how someone with such huge conflicts of interest as neil can be a neutral presenter, but still i think the BBC needs to look very carefully at their political reporting.
33.woody. usually parties support localism when it suits them. For ex. I heard many tories (Michael Gove for example) to justify Kent’s proposal to re-introduce Section 28 claiming that local councils should be able to decide if they want something or not. Then, maybe in the same interview, they said that Section 28 was necessary to stop Islington Council and friends. Isn’t it a bit of double standard? kent council could decide, while Islington council not.
I suppose you could find other examples for Labour or Libdems too.
What I expect DC to do - and why he is prepared to take the not inconsiderable risk of scrapping the notion that the duty of the opposition is to oppose - is to understand the electoral arithmetic as well as anyone else in the country does. “Localism” or indeed any other policy will be supported to the extent that it supports that reality itself.
One difficulty is that in so many areas very different policies can be pursued under the same name. In education, for example, the reality of selection at age 11 in the 1960s meant one thing in Lincoln (where I grew up) where the entrenched Labour council believed that selection worked if you provided grammar school places for over one child in four and quite another in Kent or Surrey where the equally entrenched Tories assumed that the middle classes would send their kids into the private sector and provided state grammar places for fewer than one child in ten. Utterly different outcomes unnoticed because both Councils thought they were doing the same thing - implementing the 1944 Education Act.
The problem is to find a way to encourage creative innovation in service delivery while maintaining national standards - it would be interesting to know how many of our real-life Sir Humphreys believe, deep in their hearts, that this is a doable project.
Hopefully before long we shall have some results from the studies I’m sure are being undertaken by academics on Labour’s own localisms, elected mayors and (later on) PR in Scottish local government.
I think the real test of localism comes when there’s some kind of scandal and the tabloids scream “Something Must be Done”. Does the Party in government have the guts to say that it’s up to the local council to put it right, and not a matter for government?
Localism can only really work if the ruling party is prepared to accept that (a) its political opponents who control a particular local body will do things it disapproves of and (b) that local bodies might fail spectuacularly sometimes.
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/10/nboris110.xml
41 and 42 - excellent points both. I would just add that much of the effect of having an elected mayor in London has been anti-localist. Locally elected GLA members have almost no influence, and boroughs have seen losses of power - particularly in the planning sphere, where developers know they can rely on Livingstone to force through their plans over borough-level opposition.
Stopping the process of inclusion, which has destroyed so many classes and teachers, would be a good way to improve conservative support in the teaching profession.
I’ve argued against ‘one size fits all’ inclusion elsewhere but. as with all things, many people choose to ‘vote nice’. What they need to be told is how their ‘nice’ vote is counterproductive. Too many have no knowledge of the results of this, I have found, and are shocked when told about what has ensued.
Cameron needs to destroy that, frankly, smug self-satisfactory element of the labour vote if he’s going to get anywhere.
39 - I remember an incident at the Conference when Nick Robinson started reporting as effective “fact” that Michael Howard wanted Cameron to win, and he got given an enormous lecture by Lord Bell (I think) in the Daily Politics studio.
39. journalists mentioning “authorative sources” it’s like when they mention “senior backbenchers”. They could everybody and nobody at the same time.
We get excited and then we discover it was Brian Sedgemoor who told Diane Abbott who told Andrew Neil.
43 - I suspect most Tories are not going to regard the dissidents as a great loss. I don’t really see how the Tories can in good faith oppose the constitution (hypothetical a position as that is) while remaining in the EPP-ED: it’s a pretty fundamental difference.
Localism isone tf those things that politicians love until it stops them doing the things they want to do.
for example, take special schools. I beleive Cameron’s position is no more special school closures. Yet many local authorities would choose to close most special schools because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that mainstreaming is better for most children, and resources are better spent on supporting that inclusion.
That would, of course, blow a hole in Cameron’s national policy, which he would understandably not be happy about.
The Gypsy example provided earlier is another good example. AIUI a lot of the problem arose when the major government gave local authorities the right to decide to provide a local camp or not, where previously they’d had a statutory duty to provide facilities. Of course, many localist councils stopped spending money on camps, for perfectly understandable reasons. Trouble is, that just meant more illegal and more permanent camps as travellers tried to find places to stay.
Then of course central government steps in and makes those camps legit, setting of a quite understandable local firestorm.
So while localism generally is a good thing, it needs sensible political direction, not a free for all. A parallel might profitably, be drawn here with education admissions- but that’s an argument for another day.
49 - “Yet many local authorities would choose to close most special schools because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that mainstreaming is better for most children, and resources are better spent on supporting that inclusion.”
The local authorities have no discretion in the matter at the moment, so it seems hard to state with that much confidence that that’s the line they’d take.
43. I think all tory posters here are for the withdraw from the EPP group.
48 - because what the European Parliament thinks about the Constitution is a supreme irrelevance.
Anyway I’m of the opinion (and i presume a LibDem would have some sympathy for this view) that for the European Parliament to have any meaning, the Euro MPs should be completely independent of the UK parties and should fight Euro elections by themselves on their own manifestoes. That would, for example, avoid the situation of Labour voting for against the 48 hr opt-out in Europe whilst campaigning against it in the Euro elections. What’s the point in Labour standing on a Downing st constructed manifesto at the Euro elections, only to slavishly follow, and be bound by, the manifesto of the Socialist group when they come to vote on anything.
[44, 49] Quite so. Another example (I’m clearly in full reminiscence mode to-day :)) - in 1982 Labour held Southwark in the borough elections but it was in reality a change of control from the old centre-right O’Gradyite faction to a soft-left/hard-left co-alition. It promised (and delivered) a new way of writing a Borough Plan with hitherto unhead-of levels of popular consultation and participation. After the Public Inquiry the government’s Inspector condemned the “People’s Plan” roundly as “inward looking and backward looking.” But isn’t that just why we value community - so that we can look in and look back and otherwise nurture a sense of safety?
50. According to the BBC in May there were 1,148 special schools in the UK, with 91 closed since 1997. Presumably some Local Authorities would believe that inclusion was right for many pupils, or that they have surplus places, or that building schools for future capital investment means they could attach a new specialist unit to a new school being built.. but Cameron’s leadership speech said “a conservative Government will save special schools”. There’s the conflict with localism- Assuming a tory government (ahem) whenever the council makes that decision, the parents will appeal to the education Secretary and quote that speech at him/her.
48.Groups in the EU Parliament are heterogeneous, but it’s normal considering you’ve MEPs coming from 25 different countries.
It’s not the Libdems agree with every other parties of their group on every issue.
Sorry, I’m being far too reasonable. To get back to nakedly partisan point scoring, Under any future government, there wouldn’t be a building schools for the future programme- it would go to subsidise the pupils passport and “sharing” the proceeds of growth. I now return you to your consensual and interesting discussions.
I meant any future tory government, of course.. lol
[56, 57] Are you sure you weren’t right the first time :lol:?
As someone who has hypothryoidism, I often wonder if Kennedy hasn’t developed it (the puffy face, the weight gain, the zombie-like lethargy in PMQs). All he’s got to do is go to his GP, have a blood test, and if they find he has got an underproductive (or, indeed, non-productive) thyroid gland, they’ll give him some pills to take once a day.
Re. 23, I agree, Andrew George would be good (something I’ve been saying for a while here, good to see another poster agree with me on this one), as would Clegg, Campbell or Cable (Cable was the surprise package of the same Newsnight Frank Luntz survey which originally started the Cameron bandwagon rolling). Opik, Hughes or ’send TWOCERs go-karting’ Oaten wouldn’t be so good. As with Liam Fox, there’s something about Oaten which grates (probably the same unctuous self-regard).
Jeremy Browne would be a very good next leader-but-one, particularly if the LDs want to appeal to Tory/LD waverers. He looks and sounds like a Tory, far more so than Blair. If R4 (and vote2005.co.uk) was anything to go by, the margin of victory was so narrow when the Tory MP he defeated was also well-regarded in the constituency (there were, in fact, quite a few people who thought Flook might hold on, particularly through first-term incumbent’s bonus).
I agree with what book value says at 48 entirely. I don’t think there are many Conservatives in the land who are going to regard the loss of a few of these hard-core, pro-European dissidents as much of a loss at all. I would like to know how they propose to be re-elected next time without the patronage of the Conservative Party anyway? They should consider the support of which group (the Conservative Party or the EPP) they owe their position to before they make any rash decisions.
Also not entirely sure that Cameron being lectured by Angela Merkel and other European leaders on European issues does him much harm in this country either.
24 has said everything that needs to be said on this nonsence. The earliest he would go is summer but more probably after the expected good results in 2007. If he goes before the next election, likely ming coronation, if he goes after then a free for all with the best and the brightest of the 97 intake scraping away. I do agree though about lynne feathersone being a dark horse. she suffers from cameroons problem of being a bit posh but as a independently and self made wealth person, a good media persona and a real grass roots campaigner she could garner considerable support assume shes gets all this parliament to mature. if its earlier then no chance.
60.AHM, if the tories find other parties to create a new group, it’s ok. Otherwise you’ll be isolated and with little influence (ok that the Parliament has already little influence itself).
62 - Andrea, I take your point, but considering the EPP disagrees with us fundamentally on European federalism, the single currency, the European constitution and one could go on like this - I daresay that we have precious little influence as it is!
At least we would be consistent and true to our own convictions by severing our link with such a rabidly Euro-federalist entity.
63.Alistair, the thing is that teh EU Parliament has little power over this issues anyway. Their votes usually regard different matters.
Btw, UK is the second biggest nation in the EPP group behind Germany.
In the Canadian Liberal Party it’s a rule that alternate leaders are Anglophone and Francophone. I thought there was a similar rule amongst our own dear LDs that after a Scottish leader they had a West Country one. (Or perhaps the Welsh have atoned for Lloyd George by now…)
Bayswater Cathedral (aka Whiteley’s) beckons…
64 - True as that may be, Andrea, I think this is a matter of consistency. The Conservative Party is fundamentally a Eurosceptic group. At the risk of repeating Cameron’s well worn phrase - I think we do have to be consistent whether we’re Conservatives sitting at Westminster or in Brussels and Strasbourg. To my mind, the Conservative Party and the EPP are incompatible on these grounds and we should never have joined up in the first place.
66. well, AHM, you’re incompatible with the whole EU Union. You should just stop to contest EU elections
(just teasing you, Lord Matlock)
I should add to that last post that I no more want to see an unseemly public row over this than anyone else in the Conservative Party. Cameron has delegated responsibility for this issue to William Hague and I am content to let him take the time he needs in order to achieve this as amicably as possible. It’s not something that needs to be accomplished tomorrow as long as steps in the right direction are being taken.
66. Have to agree. We’ve no business being being in the EPP at all. Euro MEPs show the dangers of PR and integration. They are have little accountablity as few people either know who there MEP is or what they actually do. A proportion of Tory MEPs have succeeded in disenfranchising themselves from the national party and the grass roots in wanting to stay in a grouping that wants for example a euro army.
68. My dear, you should resolve it before the presidency of the Parliament and of all committees will be up again for re-election (end of 2006). So the the presidencies and all will represent the new composition of the parliament if the tories (and maybe others) will leave the EPP group.
67 -
Many a true word spoken in jest! 
69. PR has nothing to do with it. They’ve little accountablity,because voters don’t want to care about them.
Then again, an open lists system is better than the close lists one you have.
70 - I would certainly hope this has been sorted by the end of 2006! Cameron said ‘months, not years.’
Woody/AHM. I don’t know your MEPs very well, but here’s the list:
http://www.europarl.eu.int/members/expert/groupAndCountry/search.do?group=1533&country=GB&language=EN
If you know some of them could you separate the pro EPP (other than Atkins) and the anti-EPP (other than Hannan)?
74 - I assume that all MEPs who declared their support for Cameron also supported his plans vis a vis the EPP: Hannan, Sumberg, Callanan, Heaton Harris, Elles, Kamall, Tannock, van Orden, Parish.
Kirkhope, Atkins, MacMillan-Scott, Bushill-Matthews, Bowis are all in favour of retaining the links with the EPP.
I am unsure of the rest.
I think in relation to the next Lib Dem leader, the nation need to redress the scandalous underepresentation of Scots in the body politic, so a small input from north of the border of a aristocatic hue is in order. The clear choices in order of precedence are :
1. The Right Honourable The Viscount Thurso.
2. The Right Honourable Sir Menzies Campbell.
3. Sir Robert Smith. Bart.
Presumably splitting “the right”, and thereby making the Socialist group the largest block, would lead to them having control of all the key positions and committees.
74. I have the misfortune to have a certain Robert Kilroy-Silk as my MEP. Have a look at this if you can view it. There was a hunt by the local TV news to find him
http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/eastmidlandstoday/
75. The MEPs I spoke to at conference indicated the EPP withdrawal was their main concern in the leadership race.
76 - I like Thurso but, considering the flak that Cameron is getting for a supposedly privileged background, think what it would be like for him.
77. Alex, I think they use PR to decide the numbers of committees for each group. I don’t know how they do to decide which committees the various groups will get to chair. I suppose the biggest groups will get the more important committees leaving the less important to the Greens and to the communists.
I think the basic assuption is false. Supposedly, the Lib Dems under Kennedy will feel under threat from the Cameron-led Tories. Why? Because Cameron is comingout with one or two nice Lib-Dem style soundbites.
However, I agree with Mike on this. I see Cameron as a thoroughly nasty piece of work, sometimes very rude and aggressive (so much for ending the Punch and Judy show!) and at other times extremely arrogant. And behind it all, his real values and aims are just the same as those of George W. Bush.
As such, he is no threat at all to Charles Kennedy´s “nice” style and thorough decency.
75 - well time for us to start lobbying the ones in our patch then AHM! I will write to Bowis.
We should leave the EPP even if we sit alone.
75. You missed off Roger Helmer who should hopefully get the whip back soon. I’m fairly well served for Euro sceptics.
79 ukpaul. Perhaps, but one could hardly call Cameron a Scottish aristo !! ….. It’s all a touch disappointing …. todays Tory MP’s are rather parvenue …. a pretty rum lot really …. all Notting Hill and Nut cutlets …. these new touchy feely Tories are very disconcerting …. nearly Socialist Lite.
I do feel for Messrs Fear, woody and Matlock ….. no Andrea … not that !!
82 - Agreed, Rik. I have already written to Richard Ashworth on the matter. I will do likewise with Nirj Deva. James Elles and Daniel Hannan, who are the other Conservative MEPs for the South East of England, are already on side.
55 - “It’s not the Libdems agree with every other parties of their group on every issue.”
True. But the differences between the Tories and the EPP seem pretty wide. Ah well, it’s up to them.
I agree with you on open lists too, Andrea, and I think that would do something about the situation Alex mentions where MEPs vote with the whip of a supranational group which may not have much relevance to what their supporters voted for.
83 - Absolutely! Can’t believe I left him off!
86.”I agree with you on open lists too, Andrea, and I think that would do something about the situation Alex mentions where MEPs vote with the whip of a supranational group which may not have much relevance to what their supporters voted for. ”
and it’ll solve woody’s concerns of little accountablity.
In practice i think open lists would lead to lower turnouts. How many people (even of those who vote in Euro elections) will bother to research their candidates before they enter the polling booth? They will just vote the top names on the list (or the non-foreign sounding ones).
89. They’re not forced to write down a name. In this case, their vote will go just to the party.
The experience here is that the majority of voters doesn’t write down any names.
So I don’t see how they could low the turnout.
Has anyone done any research into whether certain names perform better than others? Some people might try to maximise their chances by changing their names
91. Alex, don’t forget the typos. All those Clarke/Clark….
It’s always best to have a name that’s either at the top of the ballot paper, or in the middle (not at the bottom, or near the bottom).
Thus, one of our County Council candidates, recently married (and who took her husband’s surname, which starts with a w) used her maiden name, which starts with a p, on the ballot paper.
She didn’t win, but that was for other reasons (e.g the continuing influx of Tory-voting Macclesfield commuters into Leek, and the outgoing Labour county councillor very courageously endorsed the LDs on the eve of the election, without bothering to stand for them himself).
I’ve just read a vintage piece of Toynbee, ‘Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion’. Sometimes Craig Brown’s parodies are out-parodied by (unintentional) self-parody by the likes of Toynbee. I half expected to read ‘Narnia is no good because it isn’t a social democratic paradise like Sweden’.
93. Richard, it depends on how long the list is. With long lists, it’s better the last place than a place in the middle.
Btw, just out of curiosity, here’s the Italian results for the North West at the last EU elections. Click on the party names and the candidates appear in the order they were on the list with the number of votes got next to their name:
http://www.repubblica.it/speciale/2004/elezioni/europee/no.html
Kennedy can be very good and did very well for we Lib Dems in 2001, but the only time he gets media coverage now is when he is denying that he’s going to resign.
Apparently some Lib Dem MPs are going to write to him asking him to “raise his game” or quit. What game is that then? Are we sure he is actually still alive?
The ironic thing is that most Lib Dems I know are very happy with Kennedy’s politics, whereas Cable, Laws & Oaten (and Clegg?) would annoy the left, and Hughes would be impossible for the right.
94 - that was an incredible piece. A classic “got out of bed the wrong side” bit of writing
He was on Wednesday at PMQs. If, however, he has an underproductive thryoid, and it’s not treated, he might not be for much longer (in fact, he’d turn into a cretin and stand a very good chance of dying from heart failure in the next couple of years).
She’s obviously never been to a Church either if she thinks the idea of Christ suffering for our sins, and being resurrected is a unique part of the American evangelical church.
Poor Polly, you’re too hard with her…..she’s still trying to find some Labour supporters in Liverpool!
100 - Too hard on her? The woman clearly has mad cow disease.
95 - I’m going a bit off-topic, Andrea, but what made the Lista Bonino fall from 3rd place in 1999 to near-oblivion in 2004?
102. BV, if you email me (anpa82@inwind.it), I could go on details without annoying everyone.
Re. 97, yes, it put Craig Brown’s ‘Polly Toybnee’s Summer picnic’ piece in the shade. My favourite columnar parody by Brown is probably his ‘It makes you want to weep’ parody of Melanie Philips (a humourless leftie turned into a humourless right-winger) and his parody of Hari (a piece during the last days of IDS about the awful practice of middle-aged men in suits being ‘roasted’ in hotel bedrooms in northern seaside resorts).
Then again, Peter Hitchens, Simon Heffer, and Amanda Platell always write as if they’ve got out of the wrong side of the bed, so columnar scolds obviously aren’t confined to the left (though how on earth Peregrine Worsthorne can say that Toynbee is the exception to the rule at the Guardian, given the humourless self-righteousness of her fellow Guardian columnists Bunting and Milne, I’ve no idea).
I saw Hari (talking some good sense about Harold Pinter) on C4 News during the week. Unfortunately, his well-informed spiel about Pinter’s support for the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic was spoilt slightly by Hari wearing a suit which made him look all of 13.
104 - how can you wear a suit that makes you look 13?
103 - thanks, I’ve sent you a mail.
Hari can (and did) - it must be the way it hung off him (it’s not as if he’s particularly svelte either).
When, by contrast, he wears casual clothes (as on QT a few months ago) he looks like any other overweight 20-something.
106. Replied
107. Hari looks like an intelectual version of Little Britain’s the only gay in the village.
104. the awful practice of middle-aged men in suits being ‘roasted’ in hotel bedrooms in northern seaside resorts).
If this was between Melanie Philips and Polly Toynbee, it would be closer to ‘rendition’ than ‘roasting’ and would cause even the hardest politician to cry off!
1. 2. Surely Roger/Gary the real threat is a move to NO-PARTY politics rather than toupee party politics (those awful slurs on Mr Davies). Blair has already got his own model of the Menendez manhandle when it comes to removing variant voices from his Conference - and now Cameron wants to go one step beyond and make sure that the Euroseptics never voice concerns about his lack of chins once he replaces the weight he lost during the leadership contest. There are possibly Lib Dems who would like to do the same with their own awkward squad.
Thank heaven for Dr Paisley and Alec Salmon - the voices of reason in our tumult of politic.
Re. 107, now that will wind him up (if he reads it!) Hari hates Little Britain, says it’s cruel and pokes fun at the vulnerable. Alongside Vicky Pollard (which apparently pokes fun at all single parents), he loathes the Dafyd character, when the ‘only gay in the village’ implies that there’s no homophobic persecution in Britain. Never mind that the two WI ladies, who projectile vomit at any ethnic surnames, represent a fine satire on genteel racism (and right-wing prejudice). Never mind that schoolkids going round shouting or chanting ‘I’m the only gay in the village!’ and ‘I’m a laydee!’ may just help to diminish prejudice against gays and transvestites.
Coming from a columnist who this year indulged in an ill-informed sneer at one of the top three new universities (after having argued vociferously for the government’s 50% target, which will mean more students at not just the new university he sneered at, De Montfort, but new universities which are ranked way below De Montfort) such self-righteous pontification on Hari’s part against knee-jerk prejudice is a bit rich.
Cameron propels Tories to poll lead
David Cameron has propelled the Tories into a lead over Labour, according to two opinion polls.
In an ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph 37% of people said they would vote Conservative if there was a general election tomorrow. Labour was on 35% with the Liberal Democrats on 21%.
When asked how they would vote if the election was between Mr Cameron’s Conservatives and a Labour Party led by Gordon Brown, the Tory figure rises to 40%, with Labour on 37% and the Lib Dems, 18%.
Another poll by the Sunday Times has produced similar findings. The YouGov poll for the paper puts the Tories now at 37%, two points up on last month, with Labour down one on 36%. The Lib Dems are on 18%.
Furthermore in that poll 34% of people said they expected Mr Cameron to do well. The man he is expected to face at the next election, Gordon Brown, has seen his approval rating slump. He was at 41% before the May election and is now on just 4%.
Responding to the Sunday Telegraph poll Tory chairman Francis Maude said: “We seem to be at the dawn of a new era. There is much work still to be done, but this is a great start.”
:: ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,003 people by telephone between December 7 and 8 for the Sunday Telegraph poll.
:: YouGov surveyed 2,089 people online between December 6 and 8 for the Sunday Times poll.
2 new polls show Tories in the lead.
ICM poll (Sunday Telegraph):
Con 37, Lab 35, LD 21
Same poll with Brown as Labour leader:
Con 40, Lab 37, LD 18
YouGov poll (Sunday Times):
Con 37, Lab 36, LD 18
Same poll:
Brown approval rating now 4% (compared to 41% in May). I’m not sure but assume this is a net approval rating (ie number approving less number disapproving). Whatever it is it is a big turnaround!
110. I know he hates “Little Britain”.
Talking about LB and politics, Mandelson is the inspiration of Sebastian character.
Sorry Rik W - you just beat me to it!
111/112. The expected boost for the tories is happening. Will it last? I think the next 4 following years will be interesting.
The magnitude of the fall in Brown’s approval rating really is extraordinary.
It gives strong support to Mike’s suggestion of betting against Brown to become leader.
116. Actually the 41% was a bit too high in first place.
Then it didn’t support the suggestion of betting against Brown to become Lab leader, because it doesn’t test the other potential candidate (the other could fall even further, but we couldn’t know because no-one has asked).
The Baxter result for the average of the 2 polls is
Lab 342
Con 241
LD 32
I think it is quite likely that the poll numbers will revert back somewhat- maybe not totally but the bounce may end when Cameron isn’t in the news for a few weeks.
ICM poll encoraging for the LDs- indeed the YouGov poll isn’t that bad- we usually stay at this sort of figure when we are not in the news.
Kennedy- Ed davey is quite popular with the base in my area. He does lots of dinners etc, and seems like a nice bloke. Opik not popular here, nor Laws or Oaten (particularly Oaten), but I think that if Ming were to stand you could get some sort of coronation. BUT apparently all this isn’t going to happen as the LDs are putting forward a complaint to the BBC against Andrew Neil. The party does seem loyal to Charles- I guess as we have never held power we are not desperate to get it back!
117. ….con….
then it would be a bit pointless to ask approving ratings of other potential Labour contender considering that many people don’t probably even know who they’re.
ICM poll has the others at too low a level, they nomally get much more than 5%, (the with Brown poll). You Gov at 9% probably better.
Labour doing better than their poll ratings in recent local elections where they are challenging or at risk.
ALSO does anyone know the size of the don’t knows.
Sometimes these swings occur as that group goes up and down in % size.
See how things settle, I would have expected the Conservatives to have been higher after all the publicity and image building. One thing a new Cons leader can count on is loads of good publicity from the Conservative press, whereas any new Lib Dem leader, (even if his were Cameron) is all but ignored, when elected probably manages page 3 or 5 if lucky.
Seem to remember IDS was at 37% for a short time and the Lib Dems were as low as 19% just before the Brent East by election.
It’s all good stuff!!!!
Interesting posts. I particularly liked Polly’s belief that C. S. Lewis was a Bush-voting, “semi fascist” Neocon - despite having written 50-60 years ago. I think she draws her opinions from Philip Pullman - who’s really a male version of Polly.
I agree, that we should leave the EPP. We disagree with them on European political integration, and on a great many economic issues (apparently, we vote against them one third of the time). It’s dishonest to run on a eurosceptic, free market ticket in this country, and then team up with a group that is dirigiste and federalist.
Interesting, a moderate Tory boost but nothing spectacular. These figures still give Labour a working majority.
Baxter is a useful indicator but we know it can’t take account of targeting and underestimates LibDems by someway. Indeed looking at the gains that are predicted for the Tories there are some fairly unlikey one from Bath, to Cornwall N or Winchester.
Politics is certainly getting interesting again.
119 - “I think it is quite likely that the poll numbers will revert back somewhat- maybe not totally but the bounce may end when Cameron isn’t in the news for a few weeks.”
Why should that be the case? Lets see but somehow I doubt it.
“ICM poll encoraging for the LDs- indeed the YouGov poll isn’t that bad”
You are joking I hope? This is bad news for the Lib Dems as it shows them gradually slipping under 20% again. Not surprising since Kennedy went into hibernation on 6th May.
121 - “I would have expected the Conservatives to have been higher”
I dont see why. Polls rarely shift instantly. There is usually a little time lag. People are getting used to DC and generally they like what they see. I would not have expected much movement until Jan/Feb 06. I think these polls are great news and much better than I expected.
They are also what I would call “reputable” polls ie not from NOP, Populus or MORI! lol
123. “Baxter is a useful indicator but we know it can’t take account of targeting and underestimates LibDems by someway. Indeed looking at the gains that are predicted for the Tories there are some fairly unlikey one from Bath, to Cornwall N or Winchester.-”
With the DC/GB/CK poll you would be pushed in third place in Leeds North West and I would bet my house it won’t happen!
124. well, I didn’t expect the tories to be higher, but I expected them to have a lead just after the leadership contest.
As I’ve wrote in the past, I also expected DC having a lead over GB in the runner up of the contest.
Don’t get excited too soon, because anything has been decided.
118. Sorry but I get a different result.
Average is Con 37, Lab 35.5, LD 19.5. This gives:
Lab 333, Con 249, LD 33
Baxter is still on old boundaries. The approx adjustment for new boundaries is Con +11, Lab -7 so the prediction becomes:
Lab 326, Con 260, LD 33 (Lab majority of 2).
I’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating - if you had put the actual result of the 2005 GE into Baxter before the GE you got a Labour majority of approx 100. The actual majority was 66. So though it is a good guide it is not a perfect prediction of seats given vote shares.
118 - Bullseye - I think you are being a little optimistic with your assumptions. Baxter gives the following for C40, L37, LD18:
Cons - 272
Lab - 333
LD - 11 (That’s ELEVEN folks)
If we adjust for boundary changes:
Cons - 283 (11 added)
Lab - 326 (7 down)
LD - 11 (yes ELEVEN again)
Labour do not have a working majority.
Now of course, this is just a bit of fun - as Peter Snow might say!
LOL
128 -correction - Labour would not have a viable majority is what I meant to say. They of course would have a tiny actual majority.
[122] Sean, Philip Pullman’s idea of the “Republic of Heaven” is taken seriously by theologians of both conservative and liberal stripes - although obviously they have opposing views about it. I doubt Polly Toynbee crosses the radar in those circles…
127 - this time you beat me Mike L!
The Lib Dems would never go down to 11 seats though, even with a vote share of 10% or so. 30 has to be regarded as the absolute minimum for the Lib Dems
132 - why??? I dont think anyone can take anything for granted.
In 1997 seats like Reading East and West fell that previously had 13,000 majorities. Even Labour didnt expect to win them.
If the Lib Dems dont sort themselves out they could collapse back to the level of seats they had as recently as the 1979 election. Unlikely I agree but not impossible.
127.” (Lab majority of 2). ”
so no Labour majority considering those 2 would be Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell!
[132] Quite. If we’re going to play with Mr Baxter’s amusing toy, we might at least fill in all the boxes
- the problem is that opinion poll data doesn’t give us a clue as to how tactical voting might work.
133.Rik, you’re over-excited tonight! You seem not different from the posters who talked about the tory meltdown months ago!
A really nice double would be to bet on both Brown and Kennedy NOT being leaders of their respective parties at the next election - can you get odds on this, does anyone know?
136 - Andrea - I am enjoying a run of three good polls for us and of course LOVING seeing the Lib Dems falling below 20%! It bodes well for the locals next year but there is a long way to go!
131. No problem!
I think people need to be very careful about Baxter predictions especially if Brown becomes leader.
Brown is likely to pile up Labour votes in Scotland and the North whilst losing Labour votes in the South. So he may well lose Labour a lot of seats even if, for example, Labour vote share remained the same.
139 - Agree wholeheartedly! He will also shore up some of the old Labour vote that has flirted Lib Dem recently.
Re. 119, I wonder if the LDs are doing the right thing. Neil’s tip was given just before, or after midnight, on a programme watched by political obsessives like ourselves. By making a complaint in this way, the LDs may just have given the original rumour wider publicity than it would have enjoyed otherwise.
I love your spelling mistake, Andrea, an intelectual is a TV personality who thinks he is an intellectual.
Personally, I think people rarely change their mind about their favoured party. It’s just a question of whether they decide to turn up and vote for them. Having said that, if they do change their mind, there is usually a period where they would tell pollsters they are undecided.
It’s difficult to accommodate the LibDems in polling models because one would naively expect a FPTP system to give a national party getting 20% precisely zero seats. Their result depends almost entirely on focussing their campaigning in a few places. They just don’t have the resources to be winning here and winning there. Quite frankly, I am disgusted with their methods and a few of their policies, and I look forward to Moonbat Ming explaining clearly to the country why, when we are fighting a war, we should give up and let the other side win.
I think that the Mail on Sunday has a new BPIX poll as well. Annoyingly they do not make this available online and you have to buy the paper.