Punters bet on an early change-over
December 29th, 2005
-
But are things really so bleak for “Teflon Tony” ?
The chances of Tony Blair surviving until New Year’s Day 2008, as rated by gamblers on the “When will Blair go” markets, have again plummeted to the low 20s. They are not quite at the low they reached after November’s Commons defeat on the terror bill but they are getting quite near.
But have gamblers got this one right? Given Blair’s stated intention of serving a full third term the 100/30 that’s available on him going within the next two years looks a reasonable bet.
Sure the arrival of Cameron and the prospect of a series of Labour back-bench rebellions in the New Year do not make 2006 look promising. But Blair always seems to be at his best when his back is to the wall. He does not appear to have any self-doubt about the positions he is taking. And who is going to cast the first stone?
The real problem for those opposed to Blair is that the polls are consistently rating the Prime Minister at a higher level than Gordon Brown when set against David Cameron. How can you press for a change-over when the evidence suggests that the party’s chances would be reduced?
-
Tony Blair has weathered several years of polls showing that Labour would perform better if Brown was in charge. Now the numbers have turned round the anti-Blairites have got an even harder case to make.
Whatever 2006 is going to be an interesting year.
REMEMBER to enter our prize 2006 Prediction Competition.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Is it me or some comments have disappeared?
Maybe I’ve just dreamed to have read other things this afternoon!
Andrea at 94,
I think that there may have been a server incident. It’s possible that the data was loaded back from a backup snapshot of data from a couple of hours ago.
94 - It’s not you; 30 or 40 odd posts have disappeared.
95/96. ok, I’m a bit relieved for my mental sanity!
AHM, I think you’re somewhat responsible….there were some critical comment toward your Dave boy.
97 - Yes, Andrea I’d read them. Same old stuff from the same old people.
98 - Mike: The clock seems to be out as well.
re 99. See Guardian story this afternoon on another call that CK should quit.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,9061,1674825,00.html?gusrc=rss
re the clock. Sadly I think we are going to have to put up with it for a while. This is the least of our problems at the moment.
Sean @ 68 writes “…Suppose by the time of the next election, the Lib Dems are talking the language of deregulation, tax reductions, controlling public spending, while the Conservatives are taking the opposite tack”
At this time of seasonal goodwill, the last thing I would want is to disappoint Sean in his apotheosis as the new darling of the anti Tory (and Jacobite) tendencies on this illustrious site. But the notion that Conservative party will be contesting the next election on a programme of anti business regulation, increased taxation, and uncontrolled public expenditure, is, with the utmost respect, completely bonkers.
Go on, Sean, your personal challenge for 2006 is to post something, anything, that your many Conservative friends here might discern as even a wink of acknowledgement towards our new leader. Methinks the wait will likely be protracted, and probably in vain.
103 - Hear, Hear John.
Hi guys,
Sorry, we got hacked. I’m taking the server off-line later this evening, and will put it back up first thing in the morning when everything is sorted.
Thanks for your patience!
Cheers,
Robert
103&104 - I think Sean has legitimate concerns although I don’t personally share them. The tone at the moment is very different to what we have been used to but for me this isn’t a bad thing. At the last election the party was less popular than our policies and something had to be done to change this. We do have to look and sound ‘nicer’.
The mistake the anti-Tories on this site make is the hope that this is widespread and representative of a splitting away of the right of the party.
101. Mike S, to be fair with poor Charlie, there’s backing for him too in that article.
107. More to the point. when I first read that article, teh first thing I noticed was that the backer was not afraid to speak openly, while the critic was just an “anonymous frontbench”. I thought it speaks volume. Then I thought that critics couldn’t speak too loudly, because otherwise they’ll demage the party.
but then again those stories/comments are leaked to newspapers anyway, so there’s not even the excuse to protect the party from bad press.
So in the end, I think those CK’s opponents should say it openly not just behind the scenes.
I think the bet is good value for someone unconcerned about tying their money up for a couple of years. I think Blair is determined to be Prime Minister for at least the majority of this parliament, and inability to get through the sort of groundbreaking, historical changes in the public sector that he wants will not provoke a resignation. It’s realising how mediocre his historical legacy is increasingly looking that above all makes him so keen on these reforms, so is he likely to entrench this view by resigning admitting defeat? As for direct challenges to his leadership within the Labour Party, I’ll have to re-read their rules, but they’ve always seemed to me to be designed to entrench a Labour leader once elected, let alone a sitting Labour Prime Minister.
Ironically or not, if the Conservatives go on doing better under Cameron, Blair will probably be strengthened. His appeal to left of centre voters and activists has always been about stressing electoral considerations above idealism, and that will be an increasingly real choice the more realistic the Conservative threat becomes.
Even the Labour left has largely come to terms, since 1983, with the idea that it really has no realistic alternative to modern world that it can hope to get Britons to vote for, so it defines its views in terms of the centre ground and the status quo and pushing it leftwards, not in terms of its own ideals and moving the country towards them. This weary realism isn’t immune to electoral concerns.
1. But Blair is now caught between fighting for genuine reform of the public services, which generates great opposition within his own party and continuing this weak legacy by not doing so. (Actually, his legacy is sculpted in Iraqi sand and nothing he does domestically in the rest of this parliament will change that, but it won’t stop him trying). I’m sure you’re right and that he will fight to win, but as with 90 Days, this increases the chances of losing. A PM who can’t get his legislation through isn’t worth having. All the rules in the book can’t prevent a sense of momentum building up that he’s reached the end of the road. Blair isn’t the only one who wants a legacy.
I think that is to present the Blairite programme as all or nothing, yes or no only. Blair is good at compromising his reforms to just the point at which he can just slip them through the Commons, as with top-up fees and foundation hospitals. Even that limited legacy from his second term seems to mean a lot to him, as the start of a journey in the right direction.
O/t but amazing (to me at least!) to visit my family and find them talking favourably about the possibility of voting Conservative. Mum - retired charity chief exec and active in the Make Poverty History campaign; Dad TV producer/director; brother tv editor/director; siter social worker; and me - environmental consultant. None of us have voted or even considered the Tories before but all, independantly, have reached the conclusion that DC is different and, if the policies match the presentation, potentially interesting. The tone of the conversation was cautious without anyone actually ready to say that they’d switch their allegiance and actually vote for the old enemy. Clearly there’s not much that can be concluded from the changing opinions of just one family, but I do feel that we may be representative of a larger change than has yet been captured by any opinion polls.
He won’t go. It’s not even in Brown’s interests to see him go so early. It’s not in the anti-Gordon brigade to see him go (mostly Blairites).
So Glenda the stalking horse will have to wait…..probably depriving us of one of the most entertaining election race ever.
I’m nt sure what could be remotely entertaining about a contest between Blair and Glenda? Gordon would come out in support for Blair and Glenda would get Claire Short and thirty other votes. It would be nothing like Tory the contest that removed the Wicked Witch in 1990 which had real drama not least that the awful lady was removed!.
It’s OK James F, I too went back home to London for Christmas to find my whole familt abducted by Tory clones. My mother (Mummy!), the West London architect of arm-chair New Labourism (i.e. she loves Blair but won’t do anything about it) is now in love with Cameron - officially. My father, a Labour man of old, voting Cameron.
However, be warned. My brother, a self made businessman, says DC isn’t right wing enough and is voting UKIP or A.N.Other looney party and my other brother - a warehouse man - is now definitely not Tory after Cameron’s immigration switch.
Me? I’m well behind DC, to the point that I actually donated to the Conservative Party last week. How things change, but for every centrist vote DC might win, he is losing ground on his right flank.
7. Roger, you’ve completely missed the point :roll:…I haven’t talked about “real drama” or how many votes she would get….I said entertaining, Glenda is always entertaining when she is in her anti-Blair mood….
But then I’m not surprised if you won’t find it entertaining.
I can honestly say that not one aquaintance, friend, family member or stranger overheard in a shop mentioned “Cameron” once throughout the whole Christmas period.
What a strange crowd I mix with.
8. Tone - it’s odd isn’t it?! I suspect though that if he’s tempting not just to the Lib Dems to whom he’s making his most overt appeal, but also to long-time Labour voters, then he’ll be picking up more votes in the middle than he’s losing to the right. Particularly if he’s shoring up his anti-Euro credentials at the same time.
10 Roger. Birds of a feather…
10. but have you ever met someone during during the Christmas period? Because if you spent the whole period alone closed in your house watching “New Labour Revised”, it would have been easy not to hear any mention of DC
8/11. Usually we’re able to wait until the afternoon before starting to predict DC will win all Labour voters present in the UK, Roger included.
Can`t believe all the tory posters who want a clone of Blair, with all new Labour Policies.
Seem to remember in the summer, Geldof got a right hammering from The Mail and other right wing press.
Eventualy someone will see through this, and start to realise that conservatives realy don`t believe all this New Labour Policy and in fact Cameron and the Eton mafia are right wing.
13 But that wasn’t what I was predicting. Only that people I’ve never known to vote Conservative are starting to talk about them favourably. It’s early days for DC and all we have so far are the commissions and him leaving the EPP. But he’s still getting people talking. Apart from Roger, his friends, family and people who pass near him in shops.
Actually I lie……Giggs had the ball and passed to Rooney who dummied two players before and inch perfect pass out to Smith on the right who crossed with critical precision before Van Nistelroy soared like an Eagle….when the girl sitting next to me said “I’ve been thinking about Cameron. He really is a special person and he’s going to get my vote and my sister’s and her cousin thinks he’s great too.
And their aunt who has always been a Lib Dem from the West country is giving Charlie a miss….”
15. well, you seem to suggest something more with the temping long time Lab voters part. Then my comment was ver tongue in check.
15 - James I think what he’s done is to dissapate a lot of the hatred and contempt that some people still feel towards us. The fact he’s new and isn’t associated with the Thatcher/Major years helps in this respect. People wont be converted over night but at least they now seem prepared to listen. Now we just have to wait and see what the message will be.
As for Blair I think he will stay for as long as he is still an asset to Labour (which at present he still seems to be) so could be around for 2-3 years yet. The danger for GB is that his polling figures fall in the meantime (which I personally don’t think will happen) which could embolden a non-Gordon candidate.
18. Always wise, Max!
By the time of the next election, will any of the three main parties be championing economic liberalism?
I’m with Mike on this one, and have a few quid on Tony making it to 2008.
Tone @ 8: Remember that Cameron can afford to lose more right wing votes than the left wing votes he gains and *still* come out on top. Most Labour/Lib Dem switchers are worth two votes (Labour lose one, the Conservatives gain one, decreasing Labour’s majority in that seat by 2), since there are no seats where UKIP are in contention, a lost vote to the fringe right is just one vote.
A very interesting question Sean and one that shows up the tribalism that politics has become. You seem to be one of the only posters on here who seems to realize that what Cameron is offering (in so far as we can tell) has nothing to do with Tory values. Of the five Michael Howard platitudes at the last election. He’s ditched the lot. But rather like a football team if he wears a blue shirt then the barmy army will follow…..
22. but considering he’s starting with a such low base of seats, he have to win votes from Lab and don’t lose anything he already have.
To get an overall majority, he would probably have to overtune 12% majorities (I haven’t seen the figures after boundary changes, you clearly know more than me here), so I wouldn’t be so pleased to lose voters to the right even if they count just one.
Then having said that, I doubt he’ll lose many of them at election time. Many could threaten it, but in the end they’ll put a nice cross over the blue torch.
22 - Anthony been meaning to ask for a while - do you know when the boundary review will be complete and whats its likely impact will be?
20 - Sean, my own feeling is that Cameron talks about issues we haven’t talked about in the past. I still believe that the solutions to these problems will be grounded in traditional Tory philosophy (in as much as that can be defined!). FWIW I think a lot of Camerons own beliefs can be found in the writings of some of his key allies - Gove, Vaisey etc.
19 - Andrea your too kind! Hope you had a good Christmas in sunny Italy - do you get a nice long holiday from University?
2. Peter is right. Unless Labour have some sort of mental breakdown, a middle ground Conservative Party shores up TB. As Tony said (to paraphrase) “when the Tories arrive in the center ground they’ll find our flags have alreday claimed it” - if Labour abandon that ground the moment the Conservative Party arrives there then it really is all over for them. Blair is the Labour Party’s only hope!
26. But Vaizey and Gove are commentators not political philosophers. I had a conversation with Ed Vaizey a couple of years ago and I wasn’t impressed by his thoughtfulness - a very likeable guy, but no Keith Joseph…
27. Max, sunny? It was snowing yesterday. Now it has stopped and there’s a bit of sun too.
University’s lessons will start Jan 12th again. Tomorrow I’ll leave for Venice to spent the New Year Eve there…..at my return I’ll update you on pigeons’ health conditions
7. Roger, you’ve mis-spelled Short’s name. Go and write it 100 times
Max - I should be a couple of months. I think all the inquiries have been completed and we are waiting for are final recommendations for South Yorkshire, and revised recommendations for Greater Manchester, Tyne & Wear and West Yorkshire.
I’ll be doing some revised projections in the new year, until then my draft projections from last year were that the notional seat totals for the new boundaries are LAB 345, CON 212, LD 63, OTH 30, so a notional Labour majority of 40.
28.”if Labour abandon that ground the moment the Conservative Party arrives there then it really is all over for them. Blair is the Labour Party’s only hope! ”
Russell, yes, the rest of the Cabinet are all dangerous loony leftists with a secret plot to nationalize Buckingham Palace.
And Andrew Rosindell is a member of Stonewall and Widdy is running a brothel
31 - Many thanks Anthony. Sounds like a lot of hard work!
31. I think it would be interested to discover how many seats will become more marginals or safer. This will have a great impact of the outcome of the next election as much as how many seats are abolished or created.
29 - Thats a fair point Russel. Although I can’t think of anyone in the parliamentary party who would be comparable to Keith Joseph.
26. Having said that I agree with your point of view on the Cameron “plan”. Conservative positions are often non-ideological and common sense (apologies for the irony of the phrase!). We don’t want revolutionary change; so the task for a Conservative politician is just to seem reasonable, likeable, sensible. Iain Dale quoted Madsen Pirie on his blog recently where Pirie makes this point rather better than I can. We’ll never win the votes of Green Party supporters or the welfare reliant, but people want to vote for a Party that seems like it cares for the environment and the less well off. They want to feel good about their vote.
Now I am ideologically driven - on the libertarian right on social issues and economic ones; but I accept my personal manifesto won’t happen - so give me Cameron’s Conservatives over either of the other Parties any day.
Andrea - yep. Some of those seats changing hands are just ultra-marginals switching columns because of small changes - changes that are pretty much meaningless. The important thing is how it effects target seats - for that you’ll have to wait a bit longer (though I’ll tell you now that it’s not going to make a massive difference, on a uniform swing the Tories will still need a very substantial lead to get an overall majority).
35. Willets I guess, though he’s lost a lot of credibility in the leadership contest. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Redwood becoming quietly influential; no really!
32. I’ve always wondered about Rosindell; I thought the whole bulldog thing was terribly camp darling.
Max, what seems to be coming through in the speeches and interviews of Cameron and Letwin is a belief in equality as being an end in itself. I agree that very few Conservatives have talked this in the past because very few Conservatives have believed in equality as being desirable in itself. Conservatives tend to prefer Churchill’s view that “the great vice of capitalism is its unequal distribution of blessings; the great virtue of socialism is its equal distribution of misery.”
This is a complete contrast to the Thatcher/Joseph approach in opposition, which was all about championing the virtues of capitalism, and coming up with a coherent ideological justification for private enterprise.
Trying to criticise Labour from the Left (in economic terms) seems a very risky strategy to me. Firstly, people who own and run their businesses are actually quite a numerous section of the electorate, and are particularly numerous among the AB social group that Cameron wants to see voting Conservative again; secondly, they have plenty of money. It’s hard to see how the Conservatives can expect such people to finance their election campaigns if they’re going to give them a harder time than Labour have. Thirdly, alienating this group is hardly going to assist in regaining a reputation for economic competence.
Without wishing to be too ad hominem, it could well be that the highly privileged upbringing of senior Conservatives has actually insulated them from economic reality.
28,
Russell very true.
However its a real possiblitity, that Labour will abandon the centrist position,and make sure Blair goes.
Once Brown is in position, he will not be able to hold this New Labour position, due to the hard lefts hatred of the project.
Then a centrist sounding Cameron once in power,
reverts to his,and his followers true position, which in reality will be very right of centre.
Normal politics will resume, and a new nearly conservative century begins.
With the centre left, split as always.
38. Russell, do you think the bulldog’s dresses were very fashion?
37. Thanks Anthony.
37. Do you have any idea what wards the new Mid Derbyshire seat will take in? Would save me a phone call if you could help.
40.”Once Brown is in position, he will not be able to hold this New Labour position, due to the hard lefts hatred of the project.”
There are very few hard leftists in the PLP. They’ll continue to hate the project, but I’m not convinced they’ll have any chance to win their argument.
More important could be what the “soft left” will do.
Woody -
MID DERBYSHIRE COUNTY CONSTITUENCY (64,939). Five wards of the Borough of Amber Valley:- Belper Central, Belper East, Belper North, Belper South, Duffield; three wards of the City of Derby:- Allestree, Oakwood, Spondon; four wards of the Borough of Erewash:- Little Eaton and Breadsall, Ockbrook and Borrowash, Stanley, West Hallam and Dale Abbey.
42. Woody. The wards of Mid Derbyshire will be:
Belper Central, Belper East, Belper North, Belper South, Duffield (from the Borough of Amber Valley)
Allestree, Oakwood, Spondon (from the City of Derby)
Little Eaton and Breadsall, Ockbrook and Borrowash, Stanley, West Hallam and Dale Abbey (from the Borough of Erewash)
44,45 Thanks each. There is massive competition for that seat. Looking at a notional 7000 majority I should think.
26. I agree that Cameron’s hopes lie in tackling problems that we haven’t talked about, but on our own term as I mentioned earlier (postings / threads passim). We cannot pretend to be something which we are not fundamentally, but that does not mean we can’t approach subjects just because they have historically been linked to an oppositional agenda.
Take poverty as an example. Very few people will ever be persuaded that we have changed our spots to become supporters of “big government” solutions to this problem; but if we have a raft of ideas which involve mainly voluntary, charitable and even private sector involvement, people will be more inclined towards believing that we have “something to say”. Ditto the environment, immigration, the family, etc. It is not about being “liberal”, it is about being “liberal enough”.
46. woody, an incentive to try to get on the A list from a young Tory from South Derbyshire looking to become the next Edwina (ok, maybe this part could be avoided!)
Woody - I’m predicting a notional Tory majority of 3,000 or so (though as in every case, that’s based purely on doing the maths with the local election figures. It can’t take into account local knowledge about ward X being Labour just because of a popular local cllr, or ward Y actually voting Con at general elections because I don’t have any.)
I don’t agree Anatole. Once you start talking the language of equality and redistribution, you are led inevitably towards big-government outcomes.
43,
Andrea,
I certainly agree in the long run it is more important what the “soft left” will do.
However if 30 “hard left” vote against Brown regularly when he is PM, and combine with a opposition scenting blood, not only will Blair be finished but New Labour too.
The hard left then can be ideolically clean, and free to be in their favoured position of permanent oppostion.
Much easier than government.
The soft left will be split between New Labour and Lib dem eventually.
I’m not convinced that Cameron wants to win in 2009. He seems to be trying a 2-election strategy - first return to 2-party politics by squeezing the LDs, and then harry a Brown government to defeat after that. I don’t think he would welcome a hung parliament.
(Incidentally, are there bets available yet on Labour/Tory/no overall majority ?)
39 - Sean, a very interesting point.
Essentially what I think you are saying is that Cameron is trying to pitch for the comfortably welathy at the expense of the aspirationally wealthy, which has been the Tories’ natural base for the last 25 years or so.
Furthermore, insisting on equality of outcome is antithetical to real Conservatives. Its not very liberal either.
48. Too soon for me I’m afraid Andrea. I suspect it may be pretty much sewn up. I’ll leave you to guess how the PPC will be.
This man’s growing on me. Can it really be Michael Howards ex-bag carrier……?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1674697,00.html
52 - Alan J, its worth re-reading this thread from last February on three-party volatility, especially the comments from Sean Fear. THis is dangerous ground for all three parties. Labour still ahve the electoral advantage, though.
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/02/18/mori-study-of-marginals-lib-dems-to-get-39-seats/
56 - and if you read comments 1 and 2 it goes to show that Ben was a far better predictor thatn Rik was!
54. Woody, I would say female….but hopefully not going to Westminster following your former MP’s route and trying to bed DC!
re 55. How long will it be before Cameron comes out with something like this:-
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
56 - also http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/01/16/more-bas-news-for-michael-howard/
especially post 74.
53 - I don’t think there is any indication that that is the plan. Whether his detractors care to admit it or not Cameron is smart. I’m sure he is aware that people who are comfortably well off have to feel good about voting Tory but there is no need for this to disadvantage the aspirationally well off at the same time. We need a coalition of both - as we have had in the past - if we are to form another government.
59 - Mike, perhaps he should be nicknamed David Commie-ron
39. “people who own and run their businesses are actually quite a numerous section of the electorate”
I find it odd that this isn’t more widely recognised. The percentage of self-employed people in Lambeth, for example, rose from 2.9% of working age population in 1991 to 8.6% in 2001.
Mike at 59 - I’ll even have a stab at that (with an ideological argument):
One of John Redwood’s strategies on privatising BT was to award shares to the employees of that company - the “workers by hand or brain”.
It is one of the best incentives to work - if the company does well, the share value rises, the employee is richer.
“Common ownership”, rather than referring to state administration of a monopoly (nationalisation) could be argued to be best identified with employees owning a significant proportion of shares…
…And a “share-owning democracy” has long been an aim of the Conservative Party
That hits quite a few of the Clause 4 targets (albeit not all). It can also be argued that competitive markets provide “the most equitable distribution thereof” and even the ” best obtainable system of popular administration and control” - in which case it hits all targets.
Thus ensuring that employees have significant shares in the companies in which they work in a framework of a free competitive market meets Clause 4.
How did I do?
64. Andy, email them to Alan Simpson and see what he has to say
Max, I think that once one accepts social democratic terms of reference, (eg inequality is a bad thing, redistribution is a good thing, big business damages the environment etc.) one is almost compelled to advocate social democratic outcomes in order to deal with these issues.
We start with TB and then it is about DC, is this significant. My problem is that the only policies I can detect are going further right wing, Europe and Education. Everything else is window dressing, froth and image craetion. Problem with image creation is if you do not get anywhere meeting the image you create, things can crash around you unless your opponents are so disliked that the feeling is get rid of them at any cost. TB seems in that situation with a good percentage of people but not on the scale the Cons were in 1997, yet anyway.
The luck of the first by election may propel everyone in various directions, if a labour vacancy occurs will it be where the Con, Lib Dem or another are the main challengers.
Suspect another problem for DC will be, did he not write the last manifesto!.
One big thing going for him is the uncertainty over the Labour and Lib Dem leaderships, suspect the latter will resolve completely by March, either a resignation or everyone falling prostrate to the ground in obedience, TB I equally suspect will drift on till 2007, the longer it goes on the less likely GB will inherit. He might not even want it if he thinks Labour will be defeated whatever happens at the next election.
Am putting a bet on Con and Lib Dem overall gains next time.
Canada, Dec 23rd tracking poll a real tightening with Harper almost as popular as Martin - big change, but he has been putting himself about the last week, with effect it seems. Cons worth a bet to be largest party, but the co-alition, difficult to identify, might be Cons and Liberal!! Would that be an omen. Happy new year everyone
There’s another issue. Suppose the orange book liberals win out. Suppose by the time of the next election, the Lib Dems are talking the language of deregulation, tax reductions, controlling public spending, while the Conservatives are taking the opposite tack.
Aspirational Tory voters in the South East may start to find the Lib Dems an attractive alternative.
67.”We start with TB and then it is about DC, is this significant. ”
well, with all the Tory posters we’ve here, it’s impossible not to mention DC in a thread.
Re Canada. The tracking poll showed good figures for Harper, but the voting intetions in the same poll weren’t very good for the tories.
Some very interesting comments from Sean Fear today (as is often the case). It tends to highlight the danger for Cameron that his repositioning doesn’t only unsettle the socially conservative right but also those who are economically liberal. I suppose Cameron would reason that there is nowhere for them to go unless that Orange Book gang take the wheel at the Lib Dems - which is perhaps unlikely and in itself risky in terms of the Lib Dem base. Interesting that Cameron directly appealed to them when defections never looked terribly likely (touch wood) - maybe in part an effort to increase the suspicion with which they are viewed by their own party and thus blunt the threat.
68/70 - spookily I wrote my post before reading Sean’s latest. You are, to coin a phrase, thinking what we’re thinking.
68 - Judging by CK’s comments, and the comments of the leader of the Welsh Lib Dems, I think thats one thing we don’t have to worry about!
69 - The polls are starting to tighten a bit although Harper remains the problem. Regional polls show the Tories doing well in Southern Ontario which has lots of seats but they may lose seats to the NDP in British Columbia. BC is very interesting in that a number of seats that were very strong for the right wing Reform/Canadian Alliance could go to the very left-wing NDP. But Ontario is where the election will be won or lost.
I think Max summarises the position well about the Tory situation and TB’s prospects at 18 - probably the first time we’ve fully agreed. Christmas spirit…
I still expect the pull of Tory gravity to prevent Cameron from turning the party into the natural home of, say, John Bercow, so I doubt if he’ll get many new ‘Guardian’ voters in the end. But it’s interesting to speculate what would happen if he really did change the party that much. I saw a piece in yesterday’s FT saying the Tories were now preparing to attack the government for excessive attention to big business. Cor. And Zac Goldsmith is going to be…interesting… as their environmental policy champion.
Tory MPs are divided between those who mainly want to win, and those who have a strong political agenda. The former are bolstered by the prospect of Ministerial office (and the sheer boredom of prolonged opposition), but few people become MPs without some fairly strong political views. I think they’ll go along with a lot in the pursuit of power, but if that seems not to be in prospect (i.e. a prolonged sizable poll lead) then expect rumblings.
72. Max, how many Liberal seats are under “pressure” in Quebec?
73 - the Zac Goldsmith thing is interesting because it’s so hard to imagine whatever he comes out with being acceptable to the rest of the party (even in the Lib Dems it might raise some eyebrows). It may be that he is there as short-term window dressing and somehow will be buried deep into a commission which reports in several years’ time when there’s no one listening. But either DC does this (with the risk of a high-profile spat with ZG down the line) or antagonises a lot of his party and his business support by taking ZG seriously.
Does he take his late father’s hard line on the EU, does anyone know?
68. Sean, we’d invite you to join us
On the subject of the R-word etc., Letwin - and Cameron’s - choice of words is important, because in the battle for the centre ground, verbal style is becoming of increasing importance. By that I don’t mean style over substance, but style as an indicator of attitude to, and ultimately success of a policy.
Here, for example, is Labour trying to steal others’ clothes on localism - but all phrased in that inimitable New Labour committee-speak:
‘Mr Miliband said: “We want to empower people through a national neighbourhoods framework, local neighbourhood charters, a rules of the road for local behaviour and a range of options for neighbourhood action. We will not be proposing a single model for neighbourhoods, but a range of options.”‘
I say inimitable, but a couple of the things Cameron has come out with have made me wonder - although I still think nothing could top NuLab on the guff front.
76 - Forward together in unity to the Single National Neighbourhoods Framework! Diversity is not just an option - it is compulsory and will be measured against targets!
re 49, 46: Woody or Anthony, do you know what effect the boundary changes will have on Derbyshire West, or Derbyshire Dales, as it will be known? Will it loose its safe tory status? Thanks.
74 - About half of their 20 odd seats in Quebec are winnable for the Bloc. Another one (Pontiac) is one of the 2-3 Tory targets in Quebec.
Although support for the Bloc is still greater than the support for independence.
Valerie, I can’t imagine ever joining the Lib Dems, but I’d certainly vote for whichever party has views which most closely match my own.
I think this strategy is a mistake on Cameron’s part. He can live with criticism from people like Peter Hitchens and Simon Heffer, but criticism from the likes of Anatole Kaletsky, Patience Wheatcroft, Sam Brittan, Neil Collins etc will be damaging, because it is simply so important that the Conservatives recover a reputation for economic competence.
79 - how much do you think tactical voting will come into play in Quebec? Are Tory voters sufficiently antipathetic to the Bloc that they would hold their noses and vote to retain a Liberal incumbent who looked like he/she needed their votes?
Yet another fascinating thread… I see Cameron as perhaps most ideologically attuned to Arthur Balfour of all previous Conservative Party leaders. He strikes me as a thoroughgoing Tory Democrat, by which I mean someone who rejects the notion that liberty and equality (of opportunity) are competing ideological goods - which, as Sean Fear suggested a few days ago, is also what Tony Blair believes (and Sidney Webb believed too). It’s a good pitch, because to win (by which I mean heading up the largest party after the next election) it gets across the “time for a change” message very neatly. If he doesn’t burn out on the way and he sticks to this idea, he may even prefer to lead a minority government than one with a three-figure majority. He could go back to the country after two years in office knowing which of his colleagues were and were not “up to it” and expect a reward. But, boy, there’s a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and then.
76. Labour and localism will never go together. Doesn’t fit in with the control freak agenda.
78. Derbyshire West will remain as it is I believe. The main effects are Derby North, Amber Valley and Erewash become tougher to win. Here in South Derbyshire, we lose the Derby city part of the seat which makes it easier for us to win. Although it’s good we have the new safe seat, the 3 marginals will be tougher so I’m not sure how much it’s helped us.
“76. Labour and localism will never go together. Doesn’t fit in with the control freak agenda.”
To be fair, the same criticism could be levelled at the Tories in the 1980s and 90s. You can sort of see why when a party gets hold of power nationally, devolving power away from it starts to look a bit less attractive.
81 - The Tory and NDP votes are so small now that there isn’t much to squeeze. But it could make a difference in the ultra-marginals. It may also be the case that the Libs got a shock in 2004 and there will be a stronger GOTV campaign. It has been suggested that the Federalist vote just didn’t come out whereas after adscam the Soverignists were really motivated.
85 - right, thanks for that.
By the way, I said a few weeks ago that I thought the Bloc was ideologically quite similar to the SNP. You’re probably quite well placed to comment - do you think that’s a fair analogy?
84. Perfectly true. I believe that was a mistake in the 80s. It’s the same in the Home Office where everyone whos been Home Secretary goes native and wants ID cards.
I really can’t see Labour based on past and current form being the champions of localism. As with every policy of theirs that makes some sense, be watered down to a degree that makes the policy impotent.
83. Woody, do you know how the 2 Derby wards included in the old South Derbyshire usually vote in GE?
They both have a strong UKIP presence at local election level ( the UKIP councillor in first place in Boulton)
61. Roger, funny you say that, because when I was in a pub the other week watching ManUSA crash out of Europe, I overheard a barman say: “Well, how times are changing. It seems like yesterday that Tony Blair was the darling of the nation and Man Utd were winning back-to-back titles - now they’re both desperate has-beens and Dave Cameron is here to save us”. At which point the entire congregation of the pub stood up, raised its glasses and chanted in unison “Here’s to Dave Cameron, our next PM”. Incredible, really, I’d never seen anything like it.
50. Yes we do disagree. I am not hot on the redistribution agenda, but I also don’t see why some measure of equality, which is an ends, must be linked to big government, which is a means. For instance, although a Conservative I am very much a Democrat in US terms, and was keen on Kerry’s tax cuts for the “forgotten middle classes” at the expense of repealing Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. This is redistributive and is not “big government”, and is something I support. Plenty of scope for fiscal remodelling for any future Tory administration, particularly in relieving the millions who have started to pay income tax for the first time ever under this government.
75. I don’t think Zac Goldsmith’s (and other’s) focus on pandering to big corporations is entirely alien to the Tories - indeed plenty of Tories I know of the old school (not me, I hasten to add) rather approve of that. Big businesses are sometimes “bad” in Tory terms, because the one thing we tend to support above big business is small business. Let’s be honest, if it came down to a choice between your local organic pork-butchers and Tesco, you know what side of the fence most Tories sit! For the wrong reasons, perhaps, but still.
90. (Re: Tescos and the local butcher) Why the wrong reasons? The smaller the businesses, the greater the likelihood of perfect competition and a thriving free market.
80 Sean. I’m with you on this one. The Tories tacking to the centre is sensible electorally, but the question is how far will the Tories move to the left ?? And in doing so are they any longer a recognizable conservative party ??
Indeed we may end up with 3 centre parties dancing on a pin head over policy, with little to choose from save whether the next PM is a charming boozer, a charming smoozer or a charmless loser !!
Valerie. Exactly so. Meanwhile, the Conocracy generously support the German automotive industry and the chavocracy do similar with the baseball cap and sportswear industries.
This is a quick test.
Another quick test…