Osborne 5/1 to be next Chancellor
December 22nd, 2005-
Brown succession worries cause Balls price to ease
One market we have not looked at for some time is “who will succeed Gordon Brown as Chancellor?” In one of those quirks that sometimes happen on betting markets the close Tory colleague of David Cameron, George Osborne
is now 5/1.
-
For Osborne to be Brown’s successor Tony Blair has to continue right up to the General Election, the Tories have to win, and David Cameron has to decide to leave Osborne with the Treasury brief. You would also be locking up your money for, perhaps, four years. Just 5/1 for all of that seems ungenerous to say the least.
This seems to have been caused by a very light market and a change in sentiment about Ed Balls - former close adviser to Gordon Brown who became an MP in May. A month ago Balls had tightened to evens but he’s now moved out to 2.75/1 - probably because his future is very much linked to Brown securing the leadership and this is not quite as certain as it looked.
Balls is always popping up to give interviews when Gordon is not available which would normally seem odd for a rookie back-bencher. But Balls is no normal MP after being Brown’s closest adviser for a decade. Negatives are his hectoring style which seems stuck in the 1990s and his powers as an orator that make David Davis’s infamous Blackpool speech sound good.
Just after the General Election we suggested that the then 4.2/1 Balls price might be a better way of profiting from Brown succeeding than the odds-on price then being quoted on the Chancellor. The argument being, of course, that Brown would choose Balls to take over at Number 11. Given Gordon’s less than certain position now and Balls’s underwhelming performances anything tighter now should be avoided.
REMEMBER TO BOOK FOR THE PB.C PARTY. Saturday January 14, “Star Tavern” Belgrave Mews West, London SW1 (nearest tube Hyde Park Corner but also 10 minutes walk or an affordable taxi ride from Victoria - for those who attended the last one, it’s the same venue). Time - from 6 o’clock onwards. Please contact Innocent Abroad if you want to attend.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
How the hell does something like that happen. Surely there are better ways of taking a punt than putting your money on a long string of maybes.
Whilst I think that 5-1 is ungenerous to say the least, you seem to have missed the possibility most likely to get Osborne to be the next chancellor - ie Gordon doesn’t succeed Tony, and whoever does keeps him as Chancellor, and then Osborne moves there when the Tories win.
When the Tories win Lennon? When will that be?
3
But in order to collect on Osborne being Chancellor you need the Tories to win… (or for Osborne to follow the Cameroon and join the Libs who will clearly win…)
I don´t always agree with EU Serf but….
2. Fair point.
[2][6] I’m not so sure… I can’t see Brown serving as Chancellor under anyone but Blair - surely if he lost (or didn’t stand in) a Party leadership election it would be in both his and the new leader’s interests for him to go to the Foreign Office?
That looks a ridiculous price for Ed Balls. The man is clearly unsuited to front line politics.
I’ve sent booking emails from the PB.C party a couple of times but got no confirmation back. Should we expect it?
*for not from
[9][10] Peter - please post here again if you don’t get my e-mail.
8. I agree; he manages to come across as incredibly conceited and belligerent.
12. Having met the man I would agree with that, especially the conceited bit. On another subject - is our host possibly behind the new website taking a pot shot at ‘dead’ Kennedy?
What I really can’t understand with regard to the Lib Dems is that they must realise that the longer they keep a dead leader the worse things get for them.
re 13. No it has nothing to do with me. The site seems quite odd.
I regard myself as a spectator of politics nowadays not a player.
14 - OTOH he goes and the press bigs it up as Cameron’s first scalp. Great PR - not.
Talking of which, has anyone else read Michael Brown’s Indy piece on Cameron embracing PR (of the electoral reform rather than substance over form sort)?
That would really put the cat among the pigeons and probably win him a swathe of lib dem converters, especially in Lab/Tory marginals. As well as making sense for him electorally.
[16] No, but it makes sense. And the Lib Dems had better have a very good answer when (I’m sure it will be a when, not an if) he offers them an electoral pact in a number of Labour-held marginals where the presence of both parties could save the incumbent - for Holyrood he’s probably suggested it to Annabel Goldie and left the call to her.
Are you guys suggesting there’s a real possibility of a Lib/Con pact to get rid of Labour? Surely the lefty Liberals and the Tory right will throw a wobbly? Who would have to become Liberal leader for that to happen?
[19] Dave, what I’m saying is that Cameron is in a win-win by making the offer, both against the Lib Dems and his own neanderthals, irrespective of the outcome. Anti-government feeling alone won’t give him an overall majority (although it may well make the Tories the largest party).
Call me a Neanderthal, but there is no way that PR would be acceptable to the Conservative Party and I would be staggered if Cameron is even discussing it!
18. Quite a lot of ordinary voters down here in the West country think such a pact is a good idea…but naively, I’m afraid. I think the Lib Dems are going to be disappointed if they think the Tories will offer them a real lifeline, just as they were by Labour’s overtures in the late 1990s. Some flirting is taking place for sure, aimed at bolstering a ‘moderate’ image for the Conservatives, but no serious Tory wants to be in a coalition at Westminster with the Lib Dems. The aim is, I think, to use and abuse the Lib Dems for our own purposes. Wales and Scotland, conceivably, might be different given the electoral geography there.
George Osborne? Chancellor? He would certainly go down well with the business ladies!
Re: 20 - I had a similar discussion about this with Marcus, Rik, and I’m still not sure where we finished. On the assumption that no party wins an overall majority at the next election, is your (individual, not Conservative Party, please) view that it would be in the best interests of the Tory party to promote potentially catastrophic financial and political instability ?
Now, I’m NOT saying it would get to that thinking it through. Again, on the assumption that no Party wins an overall majority but that either could, with LD support, reach that, we have two intriguing scenarios. Either a defeated (in effect) Labour Government limps on in power or the Conservatives try to govern, as a minority, and dare the LDs and Labour to vote them down ? So, the question is, if Labour are the largest party and form a minority Government, will you join us in the “No” lobby to vote down the Queen’s Speech and force a second election within 6 months ?
For what it’s worth, Rik, I’ve always believed that it would take TWO inconclusive elections before either Labour or yourselves would offer PR.
Stodge, I appreciate that your question was directed to Rik but can I ask why is it axiomatic that the LibDems would vote against a minority Lab Govt? Surely much will depend on the exact circumstances of the election result. After all, what if the Lib Dems had suffered serious losses (I don’t know, say 20 seats)? Would you vote for a potentially catastrophic second election?
But to answer your question, FWIW, I am almost certain that under any circumstances in which the Conservatives had made sufficient gains to produce a hung Parliament, we would vote against a Labour minority government
23. ‘potentially catastrophic financial and political instability’….I think you are overdoing just a tiny bit, don’t you? Financial markets will not go into meltdown because of a hung parliament, they will adjust as they always do - you may note there as been no meltdown in Canada in the last couple of years. Nor in New Zealand. If this is the basis of Lib Dem aspirations then you are getting a little desperate.
A great deal will depend on the arithmetic - if Labour remains the largest party but in a minority I would prefer them to carry on until their final collapse. If the Tories have the most seats then either a minority government or an arrangement with the Unionists would be preferable.
25 - the other wilder possibility is that of a ‘Grand Coaltion’ of Labour and the Conservatives in the same style as the CDU/SPD but I guess that also depends on where on the spectrum the Lib Dems end up and whether Labour is drifting away or towards them.
I don’t think it realistic but conversations with some LibDem activists made it apparent to me that they see a Blairite Labour Party and the Conservatives having more in common with each other than the LibDems might have with a centrist Labour Party.
The LDs will be very wary of any coalition deal and rightly so as I think it could be pretty damaging electorally for them. An alliance with what many would see as a tired and defeated Labour party would put at risk many Southern seats while an alliance with the Tories would put many of their recent gains in university seats back into play. After a first election at least a minority govt is much more likely.
26
You don’t get much wilder than that…
22 Rik W. OK. You are a Neanderthal ….. but in the spirit of the season a very nice one !!
See you all sometime mid January. All have a great time and those at the PB.com party a wonderful booze up !
Comment by a big cheese, of the Swiss variety,
21. “I think the Lib Dems are going to be disappointed if they think the Tories will offer them a real lifeline,”
I imaging a Lib Dem will be disappointed if a Cameroony offers anything at all which is more real than virtual.
There are all sorts of Tories apparently willing to offer all sorts of fine lines - but to the Lib Dems they will surely only offer a noose, a snare or the kiss of death? it’s the Blair/Ashdown ‘project’ bid all over again, duly heading nowhere - only without the Ashdown!
Of course in Feb 1974 the Tories did abstain on the Queen’s Speech of Wilson’s minority Labour government. And that naturally was due entirely to political considerations. Having just lost the election, to have precipated another would have had catastrophic results.
As we know, Wilson himself called the second election in October and was ‘rewarded’ by a narrow overall majority.
My guess is that something not too dissimilar will happen if a hung Parliament happens next time. I do agree with Stodge that electoral reform will not be seriously on the agenda until least two subsequent elections fail to produce a majority govt.
Isn’t there new evidence to suggest that Neanderthals has more intelligence than we give them credit for?
oops..pedantic point: The Queen’s Speech was in March 1974. The election itself was on Feb 28th (being my first participation in the democratic process)
Why not a Labour Tory coalition? Yes I know there are deep seated antipathies, but then the Lib Dems are politically (and personally) detested by the others, and indeed it seems there are barely two politicians, whether in the same or different parties, who do not thoroughly detest each other. The chance of power overrides these detestations, and I see no reason, given electoral arithmetic, to suppose that party allegiance would be a barrier.
32 - Indeed Julian. Also, I believe they were once the most dominant human species, but were gradually elcipsed by a slicker, more savvy homo-sapiens.
There’s been a lot of talk about how the Tories don’t want PR. Which is fair enough. But lets suppose the electoral tombola churns out the following scenario:
- Labour a narrow majority, Tories win the popular vote.
How do the Tories respond to that?
31 - the difference between 1974 and any future hung Parliament is that there were so few Liberal MPs at the time that it was inconceivable that a stable coalition government could be formed - it would be either a minority government or a tiny majority. If the Lib Dems won a similar number of seats at the next election as in the last two, it is perfectly possible that any coalition government would have a majority in excess of that enjoyed by the current government (which is an ample majority for most purposes). The risk for any party calling an election in those circumstances is that they would be accused of pure opportunism because there is no good reason why a very decent working majority government could not be formed - whereas there was in 1974.
35 - Tabman… kind of happened in Feb 74 though Labour didn’t have an overall majority then.
Undooootedly, it’ll be a major ‘debating point’ and used as a weapon to beat the victorious (sic) Labour party. But to most Tories it won’t become a rallying call for electoral reform.
Alright then. Do the Lib Dems really benefit from PR, or do they just find a load of their voters shooting off to minority parties who have a chance of winning seats?
38, Oh no. Sean, you shouldn’t have said that. Wait for the barrage from the STV-groupies out there rhapsodizing about the manifold loveliness of five member seats…
38. That’s an interesting question…I think PR would benefit fringe parties of the left (greens) and right (ukip and unfortunately the bnp - with an MP in west yorks)a good deal. But the losses would come from the main parties as well Sean..the European results point to that I think.
Back to the original thread - neither of the two main parties wants a coalition with the Lib Dems or PR for the excellent reason that once the Lib Dems got into government, it would be very difficult to get them out again. A grim prospect.
I still can’t quite get my head around the idea of a formal Conservative-Lib Dem pact arising in any circumstances at present - there is simply far too much distrust and antipathy on both sides.
The objective of Cameron’s recent overtures to the Lib Dems is not some sort of wide-eyed attempt to forge an alliance with them as party, quite the contrary - he’s trying to snatch centre right votes from them knowing full well this will mean the reveral of the surge they have experienced in areas of the country since 1997 and hopefully end their presence as the ‘blocking minority’ others here have spoken of in terms of preventing the Conservative Party from forming a majority administration.
I agree with my colleagues in that the only circumstance in which I can see the idea of electoral reform or a formal coalition coming under serious consideration is in the aftermath of a second (or possibly a third) inconclusive general election with no evidence of a shift toward one party or another in public opinion.
34. I may not speak for the entire Tory Party (in fact, most definitely do not) but there is no way that I could stomach a coalition with Nu Lab (or even worse, Old Lab). It’s been clear for some time now that there is common ground between nouveau-wet-lefty Tories like myself and “Orange Book” Lib Dems. If Cameron delivers then the “reactionary Right” (as D’Ancona calls them) will pretty much have to put up AND shut up, and if the Lib Dems have a leader who is more Lib than Dem, an agreement makes sense.
37 et al - I would also imagine Turn-out to increase under PR (since your vote is more obviously valuable), but I suspect this would occur non-proportionally, and to the LibDems dis-advantage.
29 - Jack, are you saying that being involved in discussions of Turn-out and PR is like making love to a beautiful women…
42 - I think one of the issues in the way of a Con/Lib pact will be the old problem of activists vs supporters. I think supporters (on both sides) will generally be supportive of it but activitists will be spitting blood.
Personally, if Labour were shorn of its Old Labour contingent, I could stomach some kind of Lab/Con deal but, frankly, I can’t see it happening.
Cameron will win by a landslide anyway, so all this talk of PR is academic
I’m sure those of your who pour over past results will be able to tell me whether the LibDems/Liberals expect to do better or worse when there is a second general election after an inconclusive result.
oops! pore over
I don’t think Cameron wants a coalition with the Lib Dems (why would he?). Equally I doubt he would refuse to sit around a table with Vince Cable and Nick Clegg (say) if there was a choice between a good working majority and the uncertainty of a second election (what if he lost? He go down in history as the man who had the premiership for the taking and fluffed it because he didn’t like the cut of Vince Cable’s jib). Would the threat that the vice-chairman of the Thurrock Tories (or wherever) really give him pause for thought? No - stuff the chairman of Thanet Tories, he is some meaningless nobody (although I am sure a splendid chap if you get to know him). The vast majority of Tory activists would grin and bear it to be back in power, and the vast majority of Lib Dems would too. So what if a handful of uppity morons tear up their party cards because they would rather be impotent but pure than actually make a difference and run the country? Who really cares?
46 - I think the record’s mixed, not least as James has correctly pointed out, the Libs have had negligle Parliamentary representation. In the 1924 election, barely 12 months after the previous one, the Libs were massacred. In 1951 [1950] they held all their meagre 6? seats. In 1966 [1964], I believe they gained a couple and in October 74 [Feb 74], they may have lost one or two. But I haven’t checked the figures.
But in effect as far as the LibDems are concerned with their now appreciably larger Parliamentary contingent, we would be entering uncharterd waters.
I’m slightly surprised no one has raised the “English question” in this (very good) discussion. Nor - what I feel must surely be practical politics - the possibility of an “unwhipped” (from the Tories at least) referendum on PR, following Wilson’s example in the Common Market referendum in 1975.
What I orginally had in mind was a situation in which - bearing in mind that local Conservative Associations are being encouraged in some circumstances to cover more than one seat - Central Office takes a neutral view as to the wisdom of spending resources on notional campaigns in say, Islington, while the Lib Dems just happened to come to the same conclusion in, say, Lewisham. (I only pick London boroughs because I’m in London - there are probably equally good examples in, say, Yorkshire or the West Midlands.)
Of course the new boundaries confuse things rather…
48, But James, why shouldn’t he simply form a minority Tory govt, having ‘won’ the election and leave the odium of precipating an immediate second election to Lab and LibDems? Sure he would have to tread carefully in the Commons for a while, but with on-and-a-half eyes firmly glued to YouGov and ICM (er, probably not MORI) before seeking a dissolution from Her Maj.
Sure if defeated at the polls, he’d probably be ‘toast’…but isn’t that the thrill of democratic politics?
43. You say; “if the Lib Dems have a leader who is more Lib than Dem,”
With such a ‘down’ on democracy, are you SURE you don’t speak for the entire Tory party?
51 - There are two reasons why he might not. First, he might have too few seats for that to be credible - it may be perfectly legitimate for other parties to say, “this is a pointless charade - you couldn’t win a single vote so why even bother with a Queen’s Speech”. Secondly, you seem to be taking the approach that the minority government has control over election timings. It is more accurate to say that the other parties can leave you swinging in the wind (toasting over hot coals or whatever) until the right moment arrives to bring you down on some vital “point of principle”.
Re. 31, although he wasn’t rewarded as well as he thought (and the Tories feared) he would be, which has always made me sceptical as to the received wisdom that Callaghan would have won any Autumn 78 election.
Re. 42, indeed, there’s probably room for a re-alignment of British parties, in which the Orange Book Liberals join up with the Cameroons/Portillistas, Cornerstone Tories join up with UKIP, and the likes of Phil Willis join up with the Campaign Group.
Further to 54, Labour was expected to have an overall majority of at least 20, but ended up with one of just 3. Re. the 78 counterfactual, I’ve also often thought that the recovery which almost prompted Callaghan to fire the starting pistol in Autumn of that year was as shallow (or almost as shallow) as the recovery which prompted Wilson to call the 1970 General Election.
“And the Lib Dems had better have a very good answer when (I’m sure it will be a when, not an if) he offers them an electoral pact in a number of Labour-held marginals where the presence of both parties could save the incumbent ”
The LD should refuse any official pact with the tories before the election….it will certainly cost them voters somewhere, especially because they usually try to appeal to voters coming from both parties.
Re Electoral reforms. Here’s the signatures to the EDM asking for a refereundum about the electoral system:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29370&SESSION=875
re 41. Con/Lib pacts run many cities in this country including mine, Birmingham, so it shouldn’t seem so far-fetched. After all the CSU and SDP can get on in Germany for pragmatism’s sake.
P.S. Nick P looked nothing like I imagined (today’s Indy), perhaps we should all have photos on here.
I can’t see Cameron et al adopting PR UNLESS it was part of a deal to resolve the West Lothian question. Given that the current situation of Scots MP’s voting on English questions is a pure gift to Labour, I am sure that even a minority (or low majority) Conservative government will seek to eliminate it ASAP - quite possibly requiring LibDem support, for which the price will be……..another commission? Prediction for next year - Cameron to tap into English Nationalism. A way of drawing support from UKIP and even the BNP without repeating the excesses of their ‘nasty’ immigration policies plus using the West Lothian question to tarnish Labour programmes.
It’s amazing how often this debate pops up. As far as I can see, there’s still no way around the fact that whereas Tory/LD MPs may be fairly amenable to a drink and a chat, the chaps lower down would eat their membership cards in disgust.
There’s also no way around the fact that the Tories’ support is not exactly best-suited to First-Past-the-Post. So we can rule out a decent (if any?) majority for Cameron unless he convinces half the country to vote for him.
It will all get rather fun if he does somehow translate these recent poll leads into a 5 per cent lead in four years’ time, resulting (most likely) in a hung parliament…
(pointless wish-it-wasn’t-necessary-but-it-seems-to-be caveat: being a bit flippant, know that anything involving UNS is open to interpretation etc, but point still stands that the Tories have a crappy vote distribution and fannying around with the boundaries isn’t going to help, yadda yadda yadda…)
57. At local level there’re some Lab/Con/Lib pacts too.
Don’t tell him you haven’t looked at a Nick’s pics before? It’s the first thing (ok, maybe not the first) I did after reading for the first time one of his posts.
23 & 24 Stodge & John O
‘ I had a similar discussion about this with Marcus, Rik, and I’m still not sure where we finished. On the assumption that no party wins an overall majority at the next election, is your (individual, not Conservative Party, please) view that it would be in the best interests of the Tory party to promote potentially catastrophic financial and political instability ?’
If you go back to the elctions in 1974,in the spring election Labour had more seats than the Tories but no overall majority,the Tories invited the Liberals to join them in a coalition (with a seat in cabinet for Thorpe) which they refused.(same arguments were used as in Stodge’s post of financial & political instability)
Labour continued as a minority government for 6 months,held an election and got a tiny overall majority,when they lost this majority they formed the LIB / Lab pact,this suited the Liberals at that time as they did not have the finances to fight another election and propped up the Labour government for another couple of years.
Two key factors:
-If this situation should arise again,financial factors will play a major part in the Liberal descision making process with the appropriate spin being put on it.
-It will depend on who is leader at that time,if its an Orangebooker,then I believe it would be a formality with few if any strings attached,if Simon Hughes is leader then it may be slightly more complicated.
It is really diificult to imagine that after 80 years of opposition that the Liberals will allow another opportunity to pass them by.
Interesting thread… a few things to pick up from this:
55/ 1974 and 1978: Labour’s small overall majority in Oct 1974 was in large part because of a Conservative over-performance in marginal seats, particularly in the south. There is some evidence that a good old fashioned election bribe offered by one M. Thatcher, in the form of mortgage rate cuts, helped in suburban London. While Labour’s overall majority was only 3, they had a lead over the Conservatives of 42 I think, which was virtually the same as Heath had in 1970. But issues that united all the odds and sods in parliament were few, so it was more workable than, say, 1950, when the overall majority was larger but the gap between the Labour government and a well disciplined Tory opposition was smaller. Given the fall of the Liberal vote after 1974 (say what you like about Charles Kennedy, he hasn’t caused the death of any dogs to my knowledge) Labour probably had to increase their share of the vote to hold on in 1978 and it was always a tough call. But still, the fall in Labour’s share in 1979 was relatively small, reversing only the Oct 1974 gains in effect - the Conservatives won mostly by squeezing Liberal votes. The parallel of 1970 influenced Callaghan against calling an election in autumn 1978. It was a wrong decision, but not a stupid one.
38/ The Lib Dems have the highest share of the vote of any centre/ liberal party in Europe, possibly the world, as it is. I doubt they would expand any further, and would probably fall back as Labour picked up in previous electoral deserts under PR. They would also have to shoulder responsibility for government at some stage. I would guess that their share would fall a bit under PR. But there is the Scottish example, where participation in government has helped them grow, pointing in the other direction.
35/37 - Surely some Conservatives would see the light if they were the victims of a ‘wrong winner’ election, as Michael Brown and Jonathan Evans have. But most, I regret, would just use it as an excuse to whinge without planning to change anything.
26/34 I’ve always thought that it reflects well on German political culture that grand coalitions are an option in certain circumstances, and one of the beauties of the German election result was that it forced the political class to look at some new options. I can’t see it happening here, for the same reason that the most policy-logical coalition in Ireland, between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, will never happen - tribalism. There is also the fact that under FPTP such a coalition will be grossly oversized and there will be too many disappointed ministerial aspirants to make it stable.
40/ PR and fringe parties. PR systems (read the ICPR report) do tend to increase the number of effective parties in a system, but not by all that much - we’re talking about 5-6 rather than 3-4 I seem to recall. And the UK parliament as it is has rather more odds and ends than most. However, I think the mood of the electorate is fringe-friendly at the moment and we would get some - if the system used were highly proportional. 3-5 member STV probably has too high an effective threshold to let more than one or two fringe candidates through, even if the electorate are freed up to vote for them. The BNP would do worse than Greens at getting represented, because they would attract so few transfers.
49/ There have only been two parliaments when the Liberals have been in a position to choose which of the other two governs - 1923 and 1929. The former cost the party its position as a serious contender for government in 1924; the latter cost the party its independence in 1931 and relegated it to the fringes until 1974. It does depend a bit on what the electorate who voted Liberal thought they were doing, and what the party the Liberals installed did, so one can’t necessarily read through from historical examples. But sticking to a defined principle from the start rather than playing tactics seems a better idea, tempting though parliamentary tactics can be.
59 - I only know one or two Lib Dems who would claim they would tear up their party card if there was a coalition with Cameron. And I am not sure if it isn’t mere bluster on their part. I have a fairly low opinion of Tory activists but would be amazed if a meaningful proportion would look at a Cameron lead coalition and say, “No, it is totally unacceptable that David Laws has been made Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It would be much better to have Brown as PM - I’m moving to Gibraltar.” I simply don’t believe it is how activists think - the large majority see the difference between forming a government and fighting a local council by-election and will be reassured that it will remain hostility as usual on the ground whatever happens at Westminster.
[62] I’m just wondering, Lewis, how many “independents” (as opposed to minor parties) mighn’t get elected in a 3-5 member seat STV system, particularly on health and/or pensions platforms. Wasn’t there a community worker in Dublin some years ago who got elected as an independent, found himself in a “hung” Dáil, and got oodles of boodle into his (no doubt very deserving :)) constituency…
I know LD activists who would renounce their membership if Oaten took over… Some things may not be more important than actual governmental power, but if they’re that much easier to spot, and are surrounded by the wily ways of immediacy, import is of lesser, well, import.
And that’s why Baldwin deliberately refused to resign until Parliament met, so as to leave Liberal fingerprints all over the formation of the first Labour government. Baldwin knew that this would so alienate many middle-class Liberal voters that they would turn to the Conservatives.
64/ You probably would get sporadic independents elected as a result of local health issues, and also STV offers a way for deselected or disaffected ex-party people to keep elected office by going independent. You refer to the ‘Gregory deal’ of 1982 when a left wing Dublin TD put Fianna Fail in office for material benefits to his constituency; also in the 1997 Dail there were understandings between the coalition and several independents. The same crops up in closely balanced FPTP parliaments, like 1974-79 - right at the end Labour increased support for slate workers suffering from an industrial disease (get Plaid Cymru on board) and could have had the UUP in exchange for an Ulster gas pipeline except that Callaghan had got sick of doing deals. It crops up in local councils sometimes where a parochial ward residents’ association can hold the balance of power and has no interest other than material benefit for its ward. This is one reason why I’m quite pro party politics - it provides a structure in which competing claims and priorities can be assessed against each other and a set of underlying values. But sometimes such deals can be done by parties - the root of some Lab-Con understandings is that a minority Conservative district council can give its one Labour-voting town some improved services in exchange for tacit and active support from the Labour councillors.
66/ The Liberal vote in 1923 was in many ways a ‘no change’ vote, against Conservative tariff reform as well as Labour. It was therefore more prone to red scare tactics than the Liberal vote in 1929. The Liberals also suffered in 1923-24 from the unremitting hostility of Labour at Westminster and in the constituencies - both MacDonald and Baldwin understood that they had an interest in colluding to render the Liberals political roadkill.
What strikes me, reading about 1920s politics, is the sheer naivety of the Liberal leaders in their dealings with the Conservative and Labour Parties. And that’s really surprising when you consider how many experienced politians they had in their ranks.
Not to mention that Asquith seemed to view his main role as wreaking revenge on Lloyd George.
63 - After seeing what happened to Major, Cameron might prefer to lead a Con-Lib government, rather than a Conservative one with a majority of 15 or less which would be at the beck and call of the more rebellious (”flapping of white coats” as Major put it) aspects of the parliamentary party…..
I don’t think many Tory members would have a problem with a coalition with the Lib Dems but I think lots of Lib Dem members would, many of whom are left-of-centre. I would suspect only a promise of PR would tempt them.
[66] Many thanks, Lewis.
[69] Asquith seemed to view his main role as wreaking revenge on Lloyd George. This is probably the main reason why the 1920s are of limited use as precedents - the Lib Dems don’t have ex-PMs plotting and dreaming…
69: I agree with Sean’s observation. It’s particularly striking given that both LlG and Asquith were wily performers in the 1908-1914 period. The sophistication of Baldwin is also striking - note his ability to lead such a successful regrouping in 1923-24 in the Conservative party, and a political realignment in 1931. There were bits of the Conservative Party that were peeling off in the early 1920s - coalitionists, die-hards etc - but he created a united party which incorporated ex-Liberals like Churchill. A contrast to Austen Chamberlain, who ‘always played the game, and always lost it.’
70: I’m sure that the emphasis the Conservative Party has placed on getting candidate selection right means that there will be far fewer oddballs and rebels than in the past (though there will always be a few). Also, Labour minority governments have more potential support from minor parties than the Conservatives, making a minority government more sustainable. A Conservative minority would be best off courting a quick defeat on a popular issue, or reaching agreement for a long haul with the Lib Dems.
Is there a recent poll out there about what electoral system UK people would prefer?
erratum In my previous post, [66] should’ve read [67]
72 - Well Blair has said he wont sit on the Labour backbenches… A potential liberal convert…
73.”70: I’m sure that the emphasis the Conservative Party has placed on getting candidate selection right means that there will be far fewer oddballs and rebels than in the past (though there will always be a few). ”
that’s the most worrying (for me) aspect of the A list/Gold list of candidates: the fact that potential rebels could be overlooked just because of it.
76.”Well Blair has said he wont sit on the Labour backbenches”
I thought he said it because he was afraid to find himself between Clare Short and Glenda Jackson and with Bob Marshall Andrews in the bench behind him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/22/ntory22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/22/ixhome.html
So Cameron wants Ashcroft back now? So take away the empty rhetoric on PR and focus on his actions: leaving the EPP and getting the dubious “Lord” back. Still sounds like a right wing nutter to me.
“He may be compassionate, but at least he is ruthlessly compassionate”
Thought-provoking debate- pretty good for 3 days before Christmas! But I can’t help (sort of) agreeing with John Gale at 45. I think one of two results is pretty inevitable next time. EITHER Cameron continues to gain strength, look impressive and carry the country with him, leaving a bloodstained Brown looking tired and unpreposessing, and ends up winning comfortably at the next election, OR he turns out to be a flash in the pan, his past catches up with him, Brown is shown to be a plausible, trustworthy and impressive PM, and Labour win again. It’s a zeitgeist thing, and our electoral system just doesn’t favour hung parliaments. I can’t see any way in which the Lib Dems won’t do worse next time, either (maybe unless Cameron collapses or something).
71 - Kieran, I think you’re confusing members with activists. In my experience our members (most of whom aren’t active) tend to be pragmatic or fairly apolitical.
Andrea, Labour has demonstrated that people can be elected as conformists and turn into rebels. I’d defy anybody to come up with a system of candidate selection that could eliminate future rebels (and as Andrea implies) it would be a pretty horrible system that did so.
re 77. I’m not so sure particularly if Michael Ashcroft has a prominent role in drawing up the A-team list. He was funding the Tory candidate in my constituency, Bedford which was Labour 117th most marginal seat - at the last election and the man he backed was real out of his depth politically. He was making such strong “clear the town of crime” speeches that the Labour incumbent, who is not known for his sense of humour, suggested that the Tory appeared to be “campaigning for Sheriff”.
Mike, I honestly don’t think the whole A List system has been clearly thought through. There’s an interesting interview about this with Bernard Jenkin on the Conservative Home Gold List Blog.
Last week we were advised that safe and marginal constituencies could only choose candidates who weren’t on the A List in “Exceptional Circumstances”; but in the interview, Bernard Jenkin said the constituencies would be “encouraged” to interview good local candidates who weren’t on the A List.
80/ 45: I’d assumed JG at 45 was joking. Actually, the system does increasingly favour hung parliaments. The band of outcomes between a Labour overall majority and a Conservative overall majority has been steadily growing - there was a 2-point spread in the 1950s but a 10-point spread in the last couple of elections. It might narrow a bit (as I’m sure Sean would remind me) but it’s still very likely that an election will end up in hung parliament territory soon. The bar is set very high for even a thin Conservative majority - they would need a big, realigning swing, bigger than 1979, to win outright.
85. I was partly joking - I think its possible DC could win an outright majority, but I was joking about the landslide bit.
Sean is right. The most common thing that turns MP’s into ‘rebels’ is being sacked from government/front-bench office or having their ambitions overlooked completely and left to fester on the back-benches for many years. Older MPs who are clsoe to retiring / standing down are also moften more rebellious as they feel they have nothing to lose. This has always been the case and always will be - there is no selection system that could prevent it.
In fact, I think the whole PR argument of “Party X got y% of the vote but Z% of the seats” seems to me to be a result of a misunderstanding of the House of Commons. The idea is to have a representative in the House from each local area, not to re-create the partisan views of the nation in minature.
The national percentage of the “Save Kidderminster Hospital” vote is irrelevant, but that was the strongest view in Kidderminster, the strongest view in Wealden was Conservative, and the strongest view in Sunderland North was Labour. Who cares whether the national picture was 36% LAB, 33% CON, 0.01% Kidderminster Hospital?
We’ve just got to decide whether we want a system of local representaion, or national representation. Not jabber about how unfair the system is to one party or another.
88 - good point.
Labour’s vote share was only so low because so many of its natural supporters in safe seats stayed at home.
79: What’s so dubious about Lord Ashcroft? Hope you’re not referring to the Stothard/Baldwin smears of 1999.
88 - Jon, you can have both. Its called multi-member STV.
87 - You can’t prevent it but I suspect you could pretty easily use a form of psychometric testing to pick out those who would be more inclined to rebel if frustrated in their career ambitions. It would be dodgy to say the least but I am certain it will be used by one party or another before long (if it isn’t already).
On my estimates, a 6% swing would give the Tories 116 seats, taking their total to 314. Nine short of a majority…but with 10 unionists to provide informal support there is another option which for me is far preferable to dealing with the Lib Dems. And that is based on UNS, which the Tories notably outperformed in the GE of 2005.
It is interesting that in the 1970s many Tories were supporters of PR, as a means of preventing the possible election of a hard left government. If it became clear that it was in their tactical interest to support PR, they would do so again I’m sure.
92 - I’m not sure about that. I guess that most MPs enter parliament secretly and irrationally believing that one day they will be Prime Minister (see Matthew Parris’s autobiography for an excellent discussion of this personality flaw in politicians). As it gradually becomes obvious even to them that this is never going to happen, their “psycometric profile” changes and becomes less subservient.
93 - There is no possibility of Cameron agreeing with you there. “Propped up by Paisley” would be the accusation and would do you untold damage. “Propped up by Colin Breed” doesn’t have the same ring does it? If Trimble was still the voice of Ulster Unionism you could get away with it but it really would be suicidal now the DUP are dominant.
96 - I agree. Historically the DUP have been fairly hostile to the Tory party and would not be easy coalition partners. The Tories could probably forge an understanding with the UUP much more easily but they now only have 1 MP.
95 - As I understand it, the whole point of psychometric testing is to see how you would respond to occupational hazards and it is used differently in different jobs (so you can see how a person may react to mind numbing tedium, physical danger, psychological stress and so on). Why not test for probable response to failure? After all people genuinely do react with weary resignation or with bitterness and it is surely possible to predict that on a probabalistic basis.
There’s a photo of me in the Independent today? In what connection? Slow news week, eh? (I read it online, skipping the irritating opinion columns, so don’t see any photos).
98 - agreed, but I would imagine that the personality profile of most MPs is much more self-obsessed, self-important and ambitious than the average person and therefore more likely to become bitter if their ambitions are frustrated. I wouldn’t imagine that many current MPs would pass the psychometric test you are suggesting.
101 - Nick, its in the Pandora column, about you objecting to Austin Mitchell’s holiday snaps having the gallery in preference to your exhibition on seal culling.
Kevin at 102: Have you met many MPs, Kevin? This is about as accurate as saying that Welshmen sing a lot. MPs, in my experience, range very much in the same pattern as the general public that they are drawn from. I can think of half a dozen of the 650 who fit your stereotype, but it’s difficult to survive the job if you’re too self-important - too many people think you’re rubbish!
[84] I should’ve thought that it would - if the desire were there - be fairly easy to map out what an “exceptional” local candidate would look like - in any Party. I think what DC is saying is that he recognises that overwhelmingly people vote for the Party and so expect parties to run their best people, taking the election as a whole. I also suspect that many in the Labour Party would agree with him - they had a fetish about “local candidates” in the period from 1987 to 1997 and it is hard to think that it improved the quality of MPs.
102 - Don’t know. Quite a lot of MPs actually are loyal party men or women who don’t rebel to any serious extent when it becomes clear that they are never going to get a senior role. MPs do often have the attributes you describe but not necessarily to a vastly greater degree than ambitious young academics, lawyers, businessmen or whatever. I would maintain that there are plenty who would fall into the “weary resignation” camp. There are worse things than to wander around Anyshire North West on a decent salary as a bit of a local celebrity who never really made an impact on a national stage - and I think quite a few MPs take that approach (or delude themselves a bit - “In a way, I can do more for the public by sitting on the influential arts and media select committee than I ever would have as a minister, hamstrung by the Whitehall machine” etc)
96. It’s not as outlandish as you think to see a Tory minority government with informal DUP support. First, Paisley is not going to be on the scene very much longer anyway, and the leadership of the DUP is likely to pass to less controversial figures like Nigel Dodds. Second, the DUP itself is edging away from its hardline past as it absorbs more and more of the virtually moribund UUP. Third, it would only be an informal arrangement, not a coalition. Fourth, keeping the Unionists happy would be much easier than keeping the Lib Dems happy - a few regional bribes and a sterner line on IRA/Sinn Fein (not difficult compared to the current situation) rather than PR, eurofederalism and anti-reform policies in health and education.
106 - fred, you forget that most people in Britain view the Unionists as odd - all that bowler hats / religious intollerance / marching business doesn’t really go down well. Its all a bit alien, really - which makes them natural bedfellow I suppose
104. It’s not just Labour who have a fetish about local candidates - increasingly it’s the public too. I’ve long believed in choosing the best candidates wherever they are from but there’s no doubt that people like to vote for someone local; the political parties are simply supplying what the people want.
106. I’m certain that if the DUP vote was enough to prop up a Conservative Government then DC would go for that; it’s just that that is only the case in a small range of results.
103. Couldn’t agree more - particularly the rubbish part - the public seem to believe that there is no requirement to maintain even normal standards of politeness when dealing with politicians. You’ve got to be thick skinned but humble….
107. Largely because most people on the mainland know little about Northern Ireland. If they were able to hold the balance of power they’d soon be forgotten because the things that they would want from it are on such a narrow spectrum that they wouldn’t be noticeable to the vast majority. It would just seem like a Conservative Government.
94. FPTP has dealt the Tories a significant disadvantage for some time now, yet there is no support in the Party for PR. This is largely because it would lead to eternal coalition and Conservatives have a tendency to believe in strong government; the consensual European model is anathema to us.
107 - I have to disagree Tabman. I think amongst many British people, particularly those who are Conservative inclined there is a great deal of sympathy with the Unionist community who despite being subjected to the worst excesses of the Republican movement are still painted as the ‘bad guys’ by the left.
And it’s maybe those who have a problem with the marching and the bowler hats that display a degree of religious intolerance.
88. My view (FWIW) is that the reform of the House of Lords offers a great opportunity to address the iniquities of the current sytem but retain clear results for the principle (lower) chamber:
Move to fixed terms of government of five years. The lower house is elected by FPTP in exactly the same way as now. One third of the upper chamber is appointed on a party list system based on the national proportion of the vote - each person be appointed for a 15 year term with no possibilty of reappointment.
111. Hear, hear.
108 - I tend to agree on local candidates. I completely understand why constituency parties make it a feature of their campaigns when they have a local candidate. But I fail to see why a local half-wit is better placed to represent constituents than a capable person who is not local but is willing to learn quickly about particular issues and to get involved (not to imply that it is always the local who is the half-wit rather than vice versa). It reminds me of a tale of a helper in North Norfolk who was giving an ear-bashing by a Labour canvasser because Norman Lamb had the audacity to live in Norwich. Asked how far away Norwich was from where they then were, the Labour man said “about 12 miles” to which the response was “oooo, double figures!”
109 - I would love to run a campaign against a Tory PM being “propped up by Paisley”. It strikes me as being incredibly easy to draw significant amounts of blood - how many Catholics are there in Britain for a start and how many outlandish Paisley quotes on whatever circle of hell they are headed for could you dig out? It would be a huge blunder to touch him with a bargepole.
114. I’m prepared to concede it would be a risk, but it would depend on the popularity of the Conservative programme. People are normally only “propped up” when they’re in trouble.
111 - Spot on, Max.
109/114 - Can’t see a deal ever happening with the DUP. Paisley would frighten off a lot of voters as James says. Were there a strong UUP again the case may be different. I suppose the ideal situation is for us to successfully contest elections in Northern Ireland but thats a long, long way off.
Max I think the belief that your view is common reflects your Scottish roots more than prevailing opinion in the UK as a whole.
111 - “painted as the ‘bad guys’ by the left” - or as Livingstone called Unionists “worse than the nazis”…
118 - I’m not saying its the prevailing view in the country but I would contend it prevails amongst many people who are Conservative. I don’t think there is a particular view one way or the other amongst the population at large.
114: OMOV selections probably increase the advantage of being an established local leader. So does being in opposition a long time - note the number of local authority leaders elected for Labour in 1992 and 1997. They were well known by members and voters, and had in most cases demonstrated a measure of executive competence and political skills. Many of them probably had more power when they ran city councils than they do now as backbench MPs.
110: Why is consensus anathema to a Conservative? Perhaps that’s why people have been so keen to use their votes tactically against you. Just a thought. In any case, the idea of ’strong government’ really needs unpicking. Is it strong to impose a minority view on a country? Or are governments that represent a broader spread of opinion more capable of making changes that stick - perhaps this is why coalition often seems necessary at times of deep crisis or war. Single party government is perfectly possible under many PR systems - you just need to get broad support. Under STV in Ireland it’s possible with around 40% if you attract enough lower preference votes as well.
105.”There are worse things than to wander around Anyshire North West on a decent salary as a bit of a local celebrity who never really made an impact on a national stage ”
Are you referring to Katy Clark from Ayrshire North?
As I said, Trimble would have been no problem but seriously gang - Paisley?!?! It would be like shooting fish in a barrel for Labour and Lib Dems.
115 - a government trying to implement a programme without a majority is inevitably in trouble and being propped up by somebody.
118. I’m entertained by the Lib Dem posters’ outbursts of horror at my suggestion that the Tories might prefer a deal with the Unionists to one with them…what a worthy lot you apparently think you are. Perhaps a quick look in the mirror might be in order - plenty of people perhaps see Lib Dems like Simon Hughes as a rather alien figure too.
Has David Trimble been given a peerage - somehow I think he has? Pity in a way, as I had hoped he might become a candidate on the mainland. My goodness, how he was betrayed and left out to dry by New Labour….just as Brian Faulkner was by Wilson 30 years ago!
As for Paisley et al, if they wish to support a Tory govt, that’s up to them. But no deals or even ‘understandings’.
122 - No, it was a made up generic constituency name. Isn’t Clark actually in the much less common “rebellious but not in fact because she has been festering on the backbenches” camp?
125 - Yes, he was ennobled earlier this year. I had entertained similar hopes that he might agree to stand for us in a mainland seat at some point.
124 - As I have said more than once, it is not preferring to deal with the Unionists it is Paisley’s unionists presuming the remain the majority group. Fred, I am sorry but you are living in a bizarre parallel universe if you think Paisley and Hughes are comparable in terms of public perception - and I do not speak as a fan of Hughes.
I doubt if Paisley will be standing again in North Antrim though. I doubt if having an informal arrangement with a party lead by Nigel Dodds, or Peter Robinson, or Jeffrey Donaldson would be particularly controversial.
[121] Lewis, if anyone, will know if there’s been any research done on Russell’s interesting adverb “increasingly” in [108] - sounds like such an obvious dissertation subject I can’t believe no one’s done it :). James’s point in [114] is very apposite: constituencies are arbitrary areas which may or may not correspond to voters’ sense of “local.”
There is plenty I admire about Ian Paisley. But even I - unusually tolerant though I am of large angry ultra-Protestant - find him a bit wierd, and would probably struggle to work with him. Simon Hughes I disagree with, but at least I understand his frame of reference, and he’s unlikely to say anything I’d be particularly embarassed by. (Bored by, perhaps.)
121 - “Single party government is perfectly possible under many PR systems - you just need to get broad support. Under STV in Ireland it’s possible with around 40% if you attract enough lower preference votes as well”
Just to satisfy my curiousity but which other PR system has produced single party govt without 50%+ electoral support?
Yes, STV has occasionally had that effect in Ireland and Malta (though on at least two occasions there the Nationalists obtained more votes than Labour but won fewer seats!!). Wasn’t the last majority govt in the Irish Republic that formed by Fianna Fail in the late 1970s, or have there been more recent cases?
125/126.AHM/John O. He was in the new working peers list leaked to The Times in September.
132 - Thanks to you and Alastair
. But surely PROPER peers don’t “work” 
129: I’m not aware of any research on this, no. It’s difficult to disentangle how local it has to be to matter (people can usually drum up some claim to locality if need be). But prima facie the increasing caseload of constituency work suggests that local knowledge, at least, is more important than it used to be. And when I stood for election (in a highly cosmopolitan London ward in 2002), on seeing the votes counted there were a noticeable fraction who voted for candidates across party lines who had home addresses in the ward. I completely agree about constituencies often being arbitrary and not corresponding to communities. I don’t want to get tedious about the merits of PR and the demerits of single member districts, but it is a factor. If you want even more equal sized seats, it will become even more so.
133. why the sad face, John?
He was in the good company of Rev Paisley’s wife, some party donours, some former MPs and Maggie Jones.
127. I’m sorry but the person living in a bizarre parallel universe is you if you think the Conservatives, if they are able to, won’t avoid having to make a post-election deal with the Lib Dems. We are talking practical politics - the price of a deal with the Lib Dems would be far too high. Policy would be impossibly hemmed in in areas like Europe, public service reform, and crime. And with PR inevitably part of the deal too, it would mean saying farewell to the chance of a majority Conservative government and hello to the permanent presence of the Lib Dems in government. No way. I know Lib Dems like to interpret every political development, even increased Conservative poll ratings, as another step on the road to a yellow future - but it ain’t necessarily so!
135 - Oh, because Trimble is no longer eligible for election.
137. John, you’ve still time to make him change his mind. You know well the art of lobbying IIRC!
Ten days in Dubai and already I’m hallucinating. Cameron’s going to become PM, Osborne the Chancellor, Ming’s going to replace charlie (after a series of bad hair days) and Rik is to be the new Tory MP for Sutton and Cheam…………
I think I’ll re-mount my camel and hope I wake up soon