Mori poll gives boost to Tories and Lib Dems
January 31st, 2006
-
Cameron gets approval rating of nearly 2-1
The results are out of a massive poll involving face to face interviews with more than 2,000 people by MORI. The main party shares based on those “certain to vote” are CON 40% (+1): LAB 38%(-1): LD 17%(+2). The comparisons are with the Sun Mori poll eleven days ago.
Asked how they saw David Cameron’s performance as Tory leader 31% were positive and 17% against. In an excellent commentary on the MORI site the pollster compares Cameron’s position at this stage with the last three Tory leaders and Tony Blair in September 1994.
The commentary notes: “David Cameron is currently perceived more favourably than any of his three immediate predecessors two months or so after each had been elected leader. However, the key figure to watch over the next few months is the “don’t knows” — will more of the public become satisfied with David Cameron’s performance as they begin to make up their minds, or will they be turned off — as has happened with every Conservative leader since 1997 as shown below?” Noting that Cameron’s 14% plus rating is the same as Blair’s at the same stage of his leadership MORI goes on: ” Here we see almost identical satisfaction ratings from the public. And in contrast to Conservative leaders post-1997, Tony Blair’s approval ratings rose as the public got to know him and he regularly recorded satisfaction ratings in the high 40s and low 50s in the three years running up to the 1997 General Election.”
On the main poll findings the Tories will be pleased to be back at 40% and the Lib Dems will feel much more comfortable at 17%. But the interviews took place from 19-23 January so would not have included the Simon Hughes news and only a part of the survey covered the period after Mark Oaten’s departure from the Lib Dem race.
Mori do not weight by past vote recall and their top-line figures are restricted to “those certain to vote”. If MORI had included the “less certains” then Labour would have had a 7 point lead. Unlike some previous MORI surveys this was not a phone poll. I am much happier with MORI’s approach with face-to-face surveys than with phone polls.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I guess if the phone poll had shown the Tory lead and a solid Lib Dem performance and the face to face the Labour lead and a crappy Lib Dem performance you would have been happy with the phone poll.
Secondly, the polls are still too choppy to draw any conclusions. By this stage Labour (in 94) Labour were around 15-20 points ahead. I still forsee a Labour majority of about 40-50.
1. Matthew. NO - look through the archives. My position on Mori has been consistent since the site was started. I do not like phone polls without past vote recall irrespective of the numbers. I said just as much when Mori was showing the huge Labour deficit in December.
I bet and win thousands of pounds on my reading of opinion polls and you cannot do that unless you are detached.
1. I’m not sure how you get to that conclusion. The Conservative share over the last 2 months has been pretty constantly in the high 30s producing a very small Conservative lead (1-2%). At no point in either of the last two parliaments has this been the case (Labour has been ahead usually by amounts well into double figure) yet you’re predicting basically no change?
Of course, it’s quite possible that there will be that sort of result - any number of things could happen between now and 2009/10. It’s just not clear from your post why you think although it’s different in between elections, the result will be the same.
I’ve said for some time that I expect Gordon Brown to end up with fewer seats than David Cameron at the next election, and though this particular poll wouldn’t (quite) produce that on an even swing, I still see that as far more likely than another Labour majority.
I wonder why this poll has taken so long to come out? It looks a little out of date.
Anyway, this is fairly reassuring for LibDems but frankly we should be looking at the average of polls, which Baxter gives as 38% Lab, 39% Con & 15% LD - not including this one. John Curtice’s poll of polls also had a very similar position.
Basically Lab & the Tories are neck & neck in the high 30’s & the LibDems have taken a battering and are in the mid teens. As I’ve posted before I think electing the Leader in a month will draw a line under much of our troubles & we will be in the high teens by the May locals and probably bouncing along around 20% by the end of the year. Not great but not the return to 2 party politics either.
For the LibDems these polls point to half our seats being vulnerable at our very lowest ebb, but I would frankly be astonished if we were not rebounding from here in the very near future.
Answer to earlier question, a bit morbid, but here goes.
Tory by-election possiblities owing to death or retirement…
S West: Bournemouth W, Folkestone, Totnes
S East: Devizes, Esher, E Hampshire, Gosport, North Thanet, NW Hampshire, Orpington, Tonbridge, Salisbury, Spelthorne, Worthing W
W Midlands: Aldridge Brownhills, Louth, S Staffordshire, Stone, Stratford, W Worcestershire
North: Fylde, Hexham, Macclesfield, Ryedale, Skipton
London: Kensington & Chelsea
E Anglia: Brentwood, C Suffolk, Grantham, Hitchin, NE Cambridgeshire, Saffron Waldon, Suffolk W
I think so Bullseye, especially if the feeling of some Tories is widespread.
Apparently there are mutterings in the ranks - disappointments over the abandonment of long-standing principles, of course; we have often discussed that here.
But why is this being done, it is asked. Simply so that the Notting Hill Boys can get their snouts into the troughs of power…
I don´t think it is possible for Cameron and his little band to keep going as they are, without explainign TO HIS FOLLOWERS (caps for Rik) what he is aiming to do with it. Without explaining to them what the Holy Land is gong to look like, it will be very hard to keep them shelling out the millions.
As this was a bigger poll is there a regional breakdown? Any info for Wales and Scotland…
Although Cameron has clearly been more successful thus far than the last three Tory leaders not only is it early days but the remarkable thing about this poll and others is that Labour is still doing very well. For a governing party in its third term to still be on nearly 40% isn’t bad at all. This is very different from when Tony Blair took over. Then Labour already had a comanding lead in the polls and he expanded it. Cameron remains untested and thus far has not had to put any meat on the bones.
Philip
I am so glad to see Folkestone has just moved to Cornwall from Kent
I must drive super fast when I go there from my meetings in North Thanet!!
In response to the seats I know about (Tonbridge, Folkestone, Thanet North), it would only be death that induced a by-election - none of those MPs are going to retire before the next GE, and there are no hints of them retiring then either (yet)
In Thanet North in particular, unless they selected a local known candidate, a by-election could hurt the Conservatives - Roger has a huge personal vote, from Labour and Lib Dems in the area (even allowing for his arch-right wing views) because he is such a damn good local MP. An outsider would face off against a local Labour candidate, and would be v vulnerable imho (especially whilst Than South remains Labour)
8. Exactly what I was saying (though from a Labour supporting perspective). Obviously the Tories have closed much of the gap with Labour (it would be suprising if they hadn’t) but reports that the Tories will get the necessary popular vote to seriously dent Labour’s majority (or even a plurality) are premature. I still predict a Labour majority.
9.”I am so glad to see Folkestone has just moved to Cornwall from Kent ”
or Cornwall has moved in Kent
DC is busy rebranding. He is acutely aware of the tory’s recent problem. Interviewees were told of policy they liked. When they were told they were tory ideas, the approval rating of that policy halved.
There is much discussion as to whether DC’s ‘conversion’ to ‘liberalism’ is genuine or opportunistic. DC’s friends claim that he has abandoned no ideas or principles, while it suits his opponents to exaggerate the shift.
Assume the change is substantial and irreversible (I don’t believe that but…). Why vote tory, when its more or less the same as Nulab offers? He could very reasonably ask for a vote for a change because the current govt has grown tired and weary.
But it might be that in health and education, he is more interested in raising overall (or average) standards than maximising equality. There is a trade-off there, which is distinctive. And different to LD policy.
What will it be? I agree with Valerie, who claimed it was impossible to tell, as DC himself has yet to decide.
I find all this talk from lefties, claiming (pretending, I should say) that a Tory lead is “natural”, and that they would be “surprised” is there wasn’t one, a lot of nonsense. Where will this end? Presumably if somehow Cameron goes on to win the next election these same people will be saying it was “inevitable” and only what they “expected”.
Surely if the last few years has taught us anything, it is that *anything* can happen in politics? There is no “natural” reason for the Tories to rise in the polls, even in opposition to a fairly unpopular government. At the risk of slighting our own past, we have *proved* that a party rent apart, with useless leadership, will continue not polling well even in such a circumstance. It takes something special to actually counteract this, and when it is being done so, as now, it is rightly considered an achievement. It is pointless to attempt to impose irrelevant historical paradigms about how previous oppositions have done this or that, achieved this or that, as though it should be read that the cycle will necessarily repeat itself.
[11] Cornwall and Kent are both in Lear.
I’ll get me coat…
The government lost on amendment number 2 of the Religious Hatred Bill
I see the Government has just lost the vote on Lords amendments to the Racial Hatred Bill by 10 votes.
15 - how did that amend the bill Andrea? Thanks.
Sorry Andrea- I’ll have to write quicker!
Apparently they weren’t even supposed to lose that one!
1 - What would make someone want to put predictions of a majority in so many of their posts?
Four years to go…….
19. there was a delay in the “ayes” lobby. While waiting the 2 tellers in the ayes lobby, Lorely Burt was floating toward the right of the speaker, so I didn’t expect the “no” to win.
15 Does anyone know where we can see who voted for the amendments?
113 - It is quite funny, Anatole. For years we have heard about how whenever the Tories seemed like they might be on the up, the basic reality of them not emerging from their 30-33 ‘box’ and never having a chance until they recognised the need to fight on the centre ground, and to talk about issues that mattered to people rather than their own obsessions.
Now they seem to have broken out of their box and have a leadership who are following the textbook laid down by their critics over the last few years we have a whole new raft of reasons why they won’t succeed.
Astonishingly Roger appears to be the only one talking any sense in maintaining his consistency with what he said in the past.
re Philip at 6:
If Nick goes in Macc, will Ann stay in Congleton?
21 - the 24 hr news channels were all caught totally unawares - they were waiting for the big vote later in the evening and were left scrambling around trying to work out what had just happened!
Defeated again!
According to the BBC, well known opponents included ‘comedian Rowan Atkins’. One of my favourites!
Govt just lost again!
This is the Lords’ work, and it is wonderful in our sight…
28 Amen bookvalue. Praise the Lord!
Excellent news on the vote ……. clearly the MPs took great account of the ramblings on the previous thread …… news channels keep up please !!
BTW Hague say the Tories are intent on severing their ties with the EPP and setting up their own multinational party caled GRUEL - Groupe de Right Uber Euroseptic Loonies :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4663986.stm
The first vote was lost 278 votes to 288.
29 - well, who said the bill wasn’t good for social harmony, as it seems to have brought atheists and evangelicals together so well.
Second vote lost by one vote apparently. Who wasn’t there?
33 If that’s true… Anyone know how Nick Palmer voted?
33. We should wait for the division list, but it could be that both votes were lost due to abstantions more than rebellions.
Can somebody just clarify which bits of the bill the government have lost on?
This is my last post for a while as I’m off on my hols. The MORI poll isn’t far off my own reading but I think Tory support is pretty soft with the “curious Cameroons” in evidence. These are people who broadly like what Cameron has said but await the detail.
As for the LD leadership - I’m voting for Chris Huhne. My reasoning from last week hasn’t changed. I think with Ming as leader we could go back in time to where we were with CK but no further. With Huhne there is of course a risk but I believe that unless we can carve out a series of distinctive policies, we will be swamped by Browneronism and will be squeezed mercilessly.
I believe strongly that the LDs need at least three distinctive, clearly-defined policies that separate us from the Browneronites in the other parties.
Reading the Times and Independent this week, I do think the environment is starting to move back up the agenda. The scientific report featured in the Times makes disturbing reading as it appears that not only has the pace and intensity of global warming been understimated but that we have a generation at most before we will have inflicted severe irreversible damage on our ecosystem.
The other salient information featured in the Times shows how Britain is suffering from runaway congestion as the number of cars rises out of control. This is no doubt related to the fact that the COST of car travel has barely changed in the past decade while the cost of public transport travel has risen 37%.
As the impact and reality of global warming becomes more apparent, what can we do to reduce emissions and affect some form of reversal of the current situation ? Of course, I’m not suggesting or advocating a total abdication of our current lifestyle but the fact is aviation is a major contributor to environmental damage. Technology and innovation will be a major part of the solution but it may well be that any Government or Party aspiring to Governemnt will have to consider how, pending technological solutions, individuals and communities can change behaviours and can be made to accept what may be regarded as restrictions on travel and the ability to buy strawberries at any time of year ?
Anyway, that’s me done for now as I have to pack - see you in a few weeks
I actually think that the direction the LD’s move in is crucial now. If they tack right slightly a tactic I think sensible given the threat on their right flank from the new ‘lioberal’ tory party then Labour shoudl be comfortable. If however the Lib Dems go left I think Cameron is in pole position to at least deny GB a majority at the next election.
35 - Yes, both the Aye and No figures in the 280’s suggests quite a few MPs abstained. A close vote when most MPs vote is usually in the 310’s for both the Ayes and the Noes.
It would be much quicker for people to work out voting figures if the Commons had a system like the US House of Representatives i.e. you can vote Aye, No, or Present (i.e. abstain). That would also allow you to see who didn’t bother voting at all (i.e. Blair).
Hansard Report :
The Right Honourable and Much Honoured Jack W of Kinkell MP for Sanctimony South and Culloden West … new leader of the Conservative and Jacobite Party (SDP MKIV) ended his remarks to the House thus :
Mr Speaker Sir, it is clear that the governmemt has lost the confidence of this House and the Nation. You have stayed here too long for any good that you do …. Let us have done with you …. in the name of God and Baldrick ….. I say go. (Cheers on all sides on the House).
Presumably there was some pairing.
36 Tone. Effectively the Bill is gutted as indeed are the Labour whips
37 stodge. Have a nice holiday.
Talking to a friend from Hillingdon it seems that this NOC council for eight years is less clear cut than it seems.
Currntly it is Con 30, Lab 27, LibDem 8 - total 65. 33 required for the Tories to gain. So, which three seats? Choose from Uxbridge South (1), West Drayton (2), Cavendish (2), Manor (2) and South Ruislip (1). Plus they’ll need to dig in and hold Harefield (2) and Brunel (3). Not easy … too many ghosts of 02 when the Tories stormed to take South Ruislip and Uxbridge South from Labour and Cavendish from the LibDems whilst letting Manor (LibDem), Yiewsley (Lab) and West Drayton fall the other way from not defending.
43 - Presumably Hilary Armstrong is, at this moment, “shouting like a child” at someone or other.
38 - I fail to see how any lib dems would be happy with the continuation of this government, the most illiberal in living memory. Given that your second option would quite possibly lead to a hung parliament it’s in the lib dem’s best interests to go down that route.
Publicwhip.org.uk doesn’t have the results up yet unfortunately, although it should by tomorrow morning.
Back on the LibDem leadership this is an interesting article, and warning for those Campbell supporters who often fail to credit Kennedy with the LD performance in recent years.
Do you think opposing the iraq invasion, refusing to participate in, and accept the findings of, the Hutton and Butler inquiries etc. etc. was “naive populism”? Campbell thinks too much like a conventional “big two” party politician to make a success out of leading the libdems.
7. With a combined 3-party vote of 95%, I shouldn’t think that leaves much for the Nationalist parties.
BBC saying Labour had a load of MPs campaigning in Scotland.
Prime Minister didn’t vote in the second division
47. well, they’re at 2% at national level in this poll, but that doesn’t say us much.
46. Don’t forget that Ming Campbell now says he would have taken supported the war.
49. but did he write to Hilary Armstrong?
Being Labour chief whip really must be a thankless task. Ok, she’s clearly pretty useless, but if you can’t even rely on the Prime Minister bothering to turn up when needed…
53. They’re probably wondering why they haven’t sent Bob Marshall Andrews to campaign in Scotland too.
Maybe after losing the first vote (unexpectely) she told the Government that they had no chance in the second and they all went home. And they’ve learnt the hard way that her advice is not always accurate.
55. but was he present in the first vote?
Please can someone clarify which 2 Lords amendments are now in the bill. What do they say?
What was the difference as far as the bill is concerned between the 2 votes? Why were the results different? (other than the absence of T Blair).
The second vote result was 283 votes to 282.
56. I answer my own question, yes Blair voted in the first, but not in the second.
58. So total votes cast fell by 1 (PM?). 4 MPs switched sides?
I think everybody should now find out who the 282 are that voted for this appalling bill and shame the lot of them.
57 - This page has the Lords amendments which the Commons accepted by these votes tonight.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/120/06120.1-6.html
60. Sorry - 5 switched sides.
57 Mike L. Scroll down to the end of the link to see the differences :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664398.stm
The difference between the 2 votes is likely to be the odd abstention and a few Labour MPs voting with the government in the second vote.
I thought that all three amendments passed through - unless I have misheard or didn’t quite understand the first vote.
as I heard it the formal votes were:
“this house agrees with the first amendment” - passed without division
“this house disagrees with the second” - lost at division
“this house disagrees with the third” - lost at division
..but was the first a lords amendment, or a govt amendment?
Do the Liberal Democrats have a disproportionate number of Gingers in their ranks?
On the previous thread I was trying to suggest ( but failed to articulate!) that a baseline for working out the DC effect would be implied local election figures from the GE performance compared with what actually happens in May. Although the Tories are bound to do very well in London if they even match the implied GE performance in the London boroughs, I will be personally more interested in whether they have achieved some sort of a breakthrough in the Midlands and the the North which they singularly failed to do at the GE. Can Notting Hill man reach the parts other Tory leaders couldn’t reach.
66 - I do my best. Who in particular are you thinking of (apart from CK of course)?
62, 64. Many thanks Gary and Jack.
65. I think the government accepted the Lords first amendment
Re. 56, according to the BBC, yes. All the same, his decisive absence on the second should be the subject of much joshing at PMQs tomorrow. I expect ‘Rosa Klebb’ Armstrong’s job might be in jeopardy at the reshuffle.
46. While I think Kennedy can take much of the credit for the Lib Dems’ good performace under his leadership I’m not sure about highlighting Hutton and Butler as examples of his judgement. On the former no party was involved or uninvolved. He avoided Howard’s (arguably understandable) mistake of banking on more critical conclusions that Hutton came to but he didn’t do anything right (or wrong) on the issue. On Butler, I’ve always wondered what would have happened if a Lib Dem had participated. The report was actually more critical than initial headlines suggested. The Committe was split, I recall hearing, between the Michael Mates and the militray chap on the one hand, and Anne Taylor and the ex-cicil servant on the other, with Butler naturally steering a middle course. But would that middle course have been different if there had been a critical-minded Lib Dem on the committee? Depends if/who they would have been there instead of, of course. Kennedy did at least avoid Howard’s ridiculous performance in withdrawing his party’s initial support, only to be disowned by his party’s representative.
68 - The Work & Pensions front bench.
73. Laws is blonde, isn’t he?
73 - ginger? Strawberry blonde at the outside, and that’s at a pinch.
66/68 alex/book value. Philip !!!!!!!! Ginger is cockney rhyming slang for queer !! ……. Ginger Beer - Queer.
Another Lib Dem confession ….. you read it hear first … The NOTW is scooped.
lol
I thought it had been an eerily quiet couple of days in the paper…
This is just fanTAStic news. Congratulations everyone on pb.com who got angsty and angry on that previous thread… who knows, perhaps our sincere anger had some effect on just one or two MPs… Nick P even… (!)…. because we now know that’s all it took to defeat this wretched Bill.
And Blair didn’t even vote???
What is this government about? Can someone explain? What are they for?? Ineptitude mixed with deep indecision, as far as I can tell.
But this isn’t a night for partisan point-scoring. Even though i know I sound like a cliched fool - democracy won tonight! Huzzah!
And I speak as a firm religious believer. But a democrat too.
YAY!!!!
33 - Someone who was there was Mark Oaten.
Having been strongly odds-on to win at one stage,should Hughes eventually secure less than 20% of the membership vote as some are now suggesting,are we to reasonably conclude that the so-called “Liberal” Democrats are truly a deeply homophobic party? Answers on a postcard please,although a postage stamp should suffice.
PS Are there currently any betting markets for the share of the votes for each of the 3 candidates?
Fantastic news about the Religious Hatred Bill. I watched the whole debate on BBC Parliament (sad I know!). Some great speeches - kinda restores your faith in Parliament a bit.
81. well, you don’t have to be homophobic not to vote for him. No one would accuse the tories to be homophobic because no one wanted to back hunky Dunky!
Except this time Blair was the one to be sh*t on from a great height.
81 - short answer: no.
Less short answer: the short odds greatly exaggerated his chances even then.
So how many rebels there were?
Bob Marshall Andrews and John McDonnell rebelled.
85. And I think the first poll showed him at less than 20%. Do I recall well?
Both Oaten and Kennedy were there for the votes. Respect to them for taking the embarrasment in the name of fighting for our freedoms, especially Oaten. Maybe the thought that he was the single winning vote will lift his spirits a little!
46 - I agree with you. Something of an own goal by team campbell to accuse huhne of ‘naive populism’ for putting forward a proposition that Campbell had himself supported in an article in The Times last year.
I see that Campbell is also demonstrating his ‘gravitas’ by visiting Brussels to show that he has more MEPs supporting him than Huhne.
It is at least now obvious who Campbell is scared of!
88. Kennedy will be campaigning in Dunfermline on Thursday too. He seems to be back in full force.
82-Barry
‘Fantastic news about the Religious Hatred Bill. I watched the whole debate on BBC Parliament (sad I know!). Some great speeches - kinda restores your faith in Parliament a bit.’
Great news as most of this bill has ended up in the garbage where it belonged,apart from the usual New Labour poodles it was seen for what it was, a crude attempt by TB to suck up to the muslim vote at the expense of everyone’s free speach.
Yes, if Oaten was there - that took guts. Now I’m trying to think of a scatological joke using the concept ‘guts’ but I can’t.
Good for him. Good for us. Good for British democracy. Yay.
On the theme of religious hatred, this is quite amusing. The God Hates Fags website is amusingly deranged.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2017135,00.html
PS Another bad day for Blair. I don’t wish to make political capital out of a tragedy… but…. today saw 100 soldiers dead in Iraq, and another ‘key’ bit of legislation lost (it must be key, as they’ve pursued it for 5 years, against all advice!).
Why doesn’t he just go? Labour needs renewal. A clean slate. And soon.
93. to be honest I find them pretty evil to go to funerals protesting!
27 rebels in the first vote
Hear Hear!!
91 - Yes John, it was amazing that all the good arguments were on one side, and I’m not just saying that because I’m biased. Respect to Mark Oaten for turning up and maximum respect to the new MP for Surrey, Michael Gove who made one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard.
81 - Maybe just that LibDem members think that the British public is homophobic?
Remember, as we learnt from the Conservative contest, party electorates are now highly sophisticated - putting what they think the wider public will think, and therefore avoiding having to do to much thinking for themselves.
Hughes still steadily increasing his declared supporters - now 1,106. Campbell has 901. I haven’t got time to count Huhne’s but I estimate he has approx 700.
I know this is self-selecting but it is a total sample of almost 3,000 members. I’m not saying this means Hughes will win but surely it indicates he must have some chance?
96.
More than 40 Lab MPs weren’t present in the first vote. 15 are Scottish and they are believed to be campaigning for the by-election.
I understand that the Member for Winchester turned up for the three line whip votes this evening.
98 - Yes Michael Gove’s speech was extremely impressive
83 & 85 Andrea, Book Value - However you dress up the figures all the indications,including those in the betting markets, suggest there has been a massive drop in Hughes’ support - in refuting my post # 81 you honestly need to ask yourself why!
The rebels on the first vote:
Joe Benton (Bootle)
Roger Berry (Kingswood)
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)
Colin Challen (Morley & Rothwell)
Frank Cook (Stockton North)
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe & Nantwich)
Bill Etherington (Sunderland North)
Frank Field (Birkenhead)
Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
Paul Flynn (Newport West)
Hywel Francis (Aberavon)
Ian Gibson (Norwich North)
John Grogan (Selby)
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North)
Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton)
John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington)
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway)
Alan Meale (Mansfield)
Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
Geraldine Smith (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
David Taylor (Leicestershire North West)
Rudi Vis (Finchley & Golders Green)
Robert Wareing (Liverpool West Derby)
Tony Wright (Cannock Chase)
81 - no - I think you would be able to conlude that they had rumbled that Simon has not lost his ability to dig a large hole for himself and jump in. I know several gay Lib Dem members who are not voting for Simon because of the way he handled the whole thing so badly.
104. I wouldn’t consider the betting movements as an indication that LD members are homophobic or not.
The someone could think he hasn’t handed the situation well without being homophobic.
03 - I would second (or is that third?) the praise for Michael Gove’s speech. It was thrilling to see the House of Commons being convinced by a brilliant speech almost like being back in the days of Pitt, Disraeli or Lloyd George.
98-Barry
Looks like the warm up act for the Lords revision of the ID bill which I believe is due back in the commons in the next week or so.
How many more defeats before TB is on his bike ?
100 - It must be some reflection on the ‘activist’ vote. Simon has been doing the rounds for many years and does have a dedicated following. It may not reflect the ‘armchair’ members vote though.
106. Sam. that’s what I was trying to say@107 in a more confusing way (and with more spelling mistakes)
Charles Clarke has just been on telly saying that people voted against the Bill ‘just to inflict a defeat on the government’, i.e. it had ‘nothing to do with principle’.
Can someone shut him up before he makes it worse!? The idea that the rest of us just wanted to defeat the government, and had no passionate commitment to the cause of free speech…
Grrrr! They just keep digging, this lot. Something’s gone wrong in the NuLabour machine - they’ve lost their touch, and badly. It’s weird.
Too long in power? What is it?
Anyway. Hooray for everyone else. And serious respect to the ‘disgraced’ Lid Dems for showing up. Nothing so became Mark Oaten in this career, as the manner of his passing.
105-Andrea
What happened to Diane Abbot ,too busy with her other job in the media?
I’m fairly appalled by Charles clarke’s response , who while accepting the result, said that the vote was just a political stunt by Tory, LibDem & Labour rebels.
They really just don’t get it do they?
Surely some mistake? seanT & I posting at the same time AND agreeing with each other?
112. Clarke always makes that speech (he made at the time of the 90 days defeat too) and he usually names BMA and Ian Gibson as examples of “bad” people who just want to defeat the government.
looking at the list I see many not usually suspects there.
112-Sean T
‘Charles Clarke has just been on telly saying that people voted against the Bill ‘just to inflict a defeat on the government’, i.e. it had ‘nothing to do with principle’’
Can’t believe what a pompous tithead Clarke is, after the defeat he graciously announce that ‘the government would allow the bill (or what was left of it) to go for royal assent!
116 - I knew that the Government had lost when Barry Sheerman came out as a rebel.
Charles Clarke’s comments were disgraceful. I’m not particularly party political but I watched the debate on cable because I care passionately about freedom of expression. It’s an issue of principle and for Clarke to smear the bill’s opponents as being motivated by anti-Blairism is simply beneath contempt.
118.Alex, he is not in the rebels list. did he abstain?
Aye Bullseye, Liberty makes strange bedfellows! - but I’m happy to share a pillow with any man (or woman, or transsexual, or Lib Dem) in this cause.
When do we get the list of shame of non-payroll Labour MPs who actually voted FOR this? i.e. the list of official lickspittles?
Shame on them. I hope our own dear Nick P saw the light, but I fear as he voted for ‘90 days’ he may have done his ‘duty’ one more time.
Judging by his feeble arguments, he didn’t believe in it though.
Hooray for Michael Gove and Mark Oaten! And Bullseye!
If it had been a tie, which way would the Speaker have broken it? I know if a vote is tied on an amendment raised by an MP, the amendment falls - but it doesn’t seem quite so straightforward when the amendment comes from the Lords.
122. I believe the vote would have still been lost, so in effect the government lost by 2. This is because the Speaker always votes for the status quo. In this case the Lords had already amended the bill, so that was the status quo.
Roll on the ID cards bill. May well be able to shaft this too. Worth a punt?
123 - thanks.
117. Actually, I think this might be one of the most dangerous things this government has ever said. By saying it will allow the bill to go to Royal assent it is in effect raising the possibility that legislation, passed by both houses of parliament could be vetoed by the government through the use of Royal Assent being denied - something no government has done for 300 years. Of course, it might just have been Charles Clarke in a moment of pique. But then again it might be that they don’t care about parliament.
I see Gorgeous George found his way into the unfamiliar territory of the Commons, and voted in Blair’s lobby.
127. was the lovely Clare with him? If she was there, she voted with the government.
This must be the most illiberal government we have had since we got rid of the dreadful Jacobites in 1688 (sorry Jack W). Could I be prosecuted for inciting hatred against Catholics for saying that? Is New Labour officially a religion yet?
Re 100 - seems they are each building up their lists, ordinary members who quietly pay their subs don’t normally get on these lists, do they?
Considering the time Hughes has been an MP some might think he ough to be far far ahead of the others, particularly Huhne.
Looks as if second choice votes are going to be very critical, where will Hughes go, where will Campbells go and finally where will Huhnes go?.
In this contest he who comes first in the first ballot may well not be the final winner.
126 - I think he just got confused, thinking he could attempt to “reverse” the vote in the Lords. As someone pointed out above (and probably because he wasn’t expecting to lose) he just took the speech he made for the 90 day bill “off the shelf”.
The full lists of the divisions are now on Parliament’s website.
John@113. Abbott didn’t vote.
Short and Jackson were loyal to the government. Not surprised by Short considering her constituency has many Muslims.
129 SBS. Just for historical accuracy the usurpers William and Mary and the Whigs (Lib Dems) instituted a period of religious intolerance !! …. that excluded catholics from government, the court and the throne !!
John Denham on “Newsnight” taking the line that the Bill was necessary to provide Muslims and Christians “equality” with Sikhs and Jews - and more interestingly, that “questions will have to be asked” about why the votes weren’t there, including Blair’s own! Funny old world when our liberties are preserved by the Democratic Unionists… of course, Denham might be implying that the Opposition whips cheated on pairing arrangements…
[133] No, Jack - William III always made sure he had both Whigs and Tories in the great State Offices.
133 - knew you’d rise to the bait. Yes, you have a point. Aha… it all comes back to me…History A level the Diary of Sir John Reresby (Tory MP) and the memoirs of Bishop Gilbert Burnett (Lib Dem)…
Looking fast through the list, I see that Skinner didn’t vote in the first voted, but voted “aye” in the second.
Dunwoody rebelled in the first, but she didn’t vote in the second.
Among the not present there were some rebels like Alan Simpson (but he has missed all votes since the Commons returned in January), Lynne Jones, Linda Riordan and Katy Clark.
Just got in and seen the news-fantastic! An awful bill and my respect to all the MPs who dared to oppose it, as well as those who gathered outside parliament to protest earlier in the day-I hoped to join them but had a busy day at work.
Many of you know that I work for my church-this bill would have totally impeded our right to preach and speak freely, and would have reinforced the idea that all belief sets are valid and uncriticisable. My God is more than able to stand up to analysis and criticism without needing a law preventing anyone from trying, and I welcome the continued opportunity to challenge other faiths.
134 - Probably most of the MPs “campaigning in Scotland” were likely rebels though.
Thank goodness so many Labour MPs are waking up and rebelling against these Big Brother measures.
But what is wrong with the rest of them that they sychophantically do what Blair wants and still defend the mis-selling of the War on Iraq?
It is like something out of the Stepford wives.
139. Scottish MPs (Katy Clark excluded) are usually loyal.
135/136 IA/SBS. Ah yes the token Tories …… there were defectors even then
… although some were in the pay of the true sovereign - James VII of Scotland …… and II of England !!
You don’t have to be Scottish to go “campaigning in Scotland”
Indeed, they must have taken advice from Jack W on his usual excuse “I can’t come to the party, I’m on my Scottish estates”
43.
Just like you dont have to be English to be minister for a policy in England ?????
143. They seem to have forgotten Marshall Andrews, Corbyn and McDonnell in London
Just back from dinner - this is superb!!!!!
The amendments seem pretty far-reaching…
In fact, some of the things surrounding this bill suggest that the Government lost it on purpose - this would especially fit in with the theory that they only introduced it to try and appease the Muslim vote at the election. Bit of an error to let the decisive vote be Blair’s though!
139. Quite so. I think from now on ‘campaigning in Scotland’ should be regarded as a ‘Ugandan discussions’ type euphemism for ‘hates Tony Blair but would rather leave town than risk deselection for active disloyalty’.
Bit confused by the Muslim votes/Clare Short thing. As I understand it, many Muslims (including the Muslim Parliament) actually came out against the Bill, once they realised it might get them in trouble for preaching against other faiths, dissing kafrs and apostates, etc.
Maybe Clare didn’t realise this. Or maybe I’ve got it wrong.
Still, we won! Yo!
149. yes, you’re right. So maybe Clare Short just agreed with the bill and there wasn’t electoral opportunism under it. The same for Gorgeous George!
Even if this defeat was ‘planned’ by Labour, as an attempt to appease Muslim votes while not actually doing anything, it seems a serious miscalculation.
Now they have the contempt of many Muslims AND the contempt of the liberty-loving chattering classes to deal with, plus the general embarrassment of losing in the Commons and looking inept.
Not that great in terms of ‘planning’, if that’s what it was.
According to the Times, Hilary Armstrong told Blair to return Downing Street because there’s no point to stay after the first defeat by a margin of 10!
138 - Amen! This is a good day for freedom and the House of Commons.
152 - hmmm. Removal van for 12 Downing Street please!
144 book value. You expect a Scot to come to a London party in January
154. BV and always according to the Times she didn’t recall the MPs who were in Scotland because she thought the majority was secure.
But does she know something who happens in the Commons?
Sam is still spinning like a top. My own (genuine) feeling is that the odds now understate the support for Hughes and overstate support for Huhne. This is a little sad - I would like to believe Hughes was out of the running because of the poor way he has handled all this (and especially his “apology” for the “errors” of his campaign team in Bermondsey. But I think many people will see him as a victim of the media (which of course he is to some extent). And of course he will be better known than ever.
My view is that the party needs Ming, could probably cope with Huhne (without the policies) and would - let’s say - face a difficult challenge if Hughes were to win. My personal guess at present is that the first preferences will be Ming 45%, Hughes 35%, Huhne 20%.
Very good news from the Commons tonight.
Ahh, one returns from the pub to find the government defeated twice….
Beer and politics, what more could a man need?!
157.”(and especially his “apology” for the “errors” of his campaign team in Bermondsey. ”
the only good thing he has done. He could have worded it better though.
As I said to Book Value, I don’t care if you poor souls had used that slogan in other by-elections, it was inappropriate for that context (and the fact you aren’t able to see it speaks volume). if you had run against me with leaflets saying “the election is a straight choice”, I would put the leaflets up your bt*t!
159,”up your bt*t!!”
just to make it clear, it’s “bu*t”
Hilary Armstrong really is clueless. Has there ever been a more inept chief whip?
161. After her “but Clare Short hasn’t written me” protest after the 90 days defeat, I thought there’s no hope for her to become less clueless!
161: If she really told MPs to go and campaign in Scotland because she thought the vote was safe, and for Blair to go because it was lost, her credibility is plunging and she must be in real trouble.
I’ve also got to echo the criticism of Charles Clarke-his comments tonight were shameful, and if he really believes that tonight was all about inflicting a defeat on his party, then he is too trapped in the Westminster bubble to represent his constituents, let alone hold an office of state.
What a pleasant evening to be a Lib Dem…
Just got in - absolutely excellent news about the bill
Will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the near future, and how the media portray it over the next few days. (ie Blair clueless or rebels being opportunistic)
164. The problem with just spinning about rebels being opportunistic is that half of the rebels aren’t the usual suspects (benton, Berry, Campbell, Challan,… aren’t serial rebels who just want to see the government defeated).
They could try to spin it with BMA, Corbyn, McDonnell, Waering.
163. tpfkar, after the 90 days defeat she wrote Clare Short complaining she hasn’t written her about her intention to rebel
164. The media is no fan of the bill so methinks it will go doen as Blair looking a bit clueless (or more probably uncaring and bloody minded).
Tis a good day for democracy ladies and gents!
I suggest Hilary Armstrong’s constituents are about to see a lot more of their MP. With a majority of 66, that was truly hapless whipping. To err once, is clumsy, to err twice, is foolish and to err thrice is calamitous. As for TB, I am sure there is scope for a nice little dig at PMQ’s about him abstaining on his own Government bill.
Truly though the Government is stuck in a mire, from which it seems unable to remove itself from. In some ways the current Government reminds me of the British Army in North Africa who despite there superiority in all aspects proved leaden footed against Rommel until El Alamein, never setting the tempo of the conflict, making bad decisions and being picked off at will.
Andrea. There is some doubt that the word ’straight’ was in common parlence as a word for ‘heterosexual’ in the early 1980s. For many years the term was reserved for people who were not criminals - as in ‘going straight’, meaning to give up one’s criminal ways on leaving jail. It certainly would not have been a commonly used term amongst many of the middle aged and older electors at that time - nor would ‘gay’ which was beginning to gain a wider circulation at the time amongst younger people, but people over 25 at that time would probably have used terms like ‘nancyboy’ or ‘poofter’.
english is an incredibly fluid language - but if you want it checked out the Oxford English Dictionary has been running an interesting campaign along with the Beeb to nail down the earliest usages of words - or words in context. The earliest use of ‘gay’ that they accept in the sense of ‘homosexual’ is 1981 I believe, although there is evidence that it was around well before that. They did not however mention ’straight’. I will try to find out for you.
There is, however, a good case that this is a retrospective revision of the impact of the use of that term.