Is Ming now a near certainty?
February 1st, 2006
-
Best price tightens to 0.49/1
There’s been a further swing to Menzies Campbell in the Lib Dem leadership betting
overnight and the best you can now get is 0.49/1. With just a month until the result is known how good a bet is this? Do any of the other candidates stand a chance?
The last full leadership poll of party members took place while Charles Kennedy was still leader and was published only a few hours before the resignation was announced. Since then gamblers have had no hard information to steer them. We have all been flying blind.
For what it’s worth I have been trying to carry out my own soundings of people I know who are, like me, Lib Dem members. Given what I say about proper polls I should emphasise that this was totally unscientific - the main selection criteria was simply whether I knew them and they were happy to talk to me about their own voting intention and those of any others where they were certain what the member was going to do
On Sunday afternoon and Monday evening I got the opinions of 28 different members - all of whom it should be pointed out were over 40 living in southern England. At least two are regular contributors to PBC.
These were the numbers: Solid for Campbell 9: Solid for Hughes 6: Solid for Huhne 6: “Cannot decide between Huhne and Campbell” 7. Of the last category all but two had been Campbell supporters but were now contemplating a move in the younger man’s direction.
Second preferences could be important and not all had decided yet. The “Solid Campbell” group split 5-2 for Huhne; the “Solid Hughes” had 4 putting Huhne second and one had Campbell; all but one of the “Solid Huhne” voter would put Campbell second.
I did not ask but I assumed the “Cannot decide between Huhne and Campbell” would put whichever was the other as their second choice.
The members who had been most upset by the ousting of Charles Kennedy were, in the main, hostile to Campbell and to a lesser degree Huhne. Almost all the Huhne supporters conceded that their man still had work to do on his presentation skills.
Make of this what you will. From what I heard this is between Campbell and Huhne and the race is not over yet. I am glad that I am in a positive betting position on both of them.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Mike. I am backing Ming. Your soundings seem to indicate that if Huhne can nock out Simon he has a very good chance. I am running a STV leadership poll. Currently it stands at 359 votes - Huhne 44.3% Campbell 33.4% Hughes 22.3% with 2/3 of Simons prefering Huhne. At no point so far has Campbell been in front so far. Its not scientific but it does tell me that things will be close & that maximising the second prefs will be critical. I have read on another blog that Huhne has more bloggers backing him so that would explain his high rating in online polls. It probably muddies the waters but it will be interesting to see the direction of travel over the next month.
Regards,
Dave
Sorry to immediately veer O/T.
Day’s deliveries ahead….
Have just sold Blair’s longevity. His (personally) administration now has that same whiff of incompetence and decay as the dying days of John Major’s.
Everything, including small anecdotal comments like Blunkett’s points increasingly (to me) of an early hand over.
Brown now headlining mainstream, non Treasury issues further points me in this direction.
Could the quid pro quo be that if GB helps TB get the education bill through an early exit follows immediately after ??
Have fun……….
My sense is that David Walker is about right. there is an element of bandwagon about Huhne’s campaign. Politics is about momentum. It is never good to go into a huge lead then peter off. Ming has a month to hold on - but if Huhne plays a couple more set pieces well he could be the one going in with force behind him.
of course the Hughes factor comes into play as well. If Simon comes back to knock Huhne into third… It’s a three horse race! (bet none of you thought you’d hear a LD use that line
)
Mike: I’ve been carrying out a similar unscientific poll amongst members here in sunny Lothian (actually its very cold). These Scottish members want to be impressed and are splitting between Campbell and Huhne with Campbell ahead. Simon Hughes has annoyed them. Oddly even the non activists seem keen to find out more about Huhne and the Edinburgh hustings on the 13th may well be very important. Chris Huhne does need to impress, but the members I am speaking to seem intrigued and about a fresh face. Just for context I have yet to make up my mind.
Mike When do the ballot papers go out? Tory members tend to vote quite quickly; ‘they even pay their bills on time’ as someone once said. Are LDs similarly inclined or can a late swing greatly influence the outcome? I can’t believe that MC will fail to come top of first preferences but he looks like coming second best on SH’s second preferences by quite a bit. So MC presumably neeeds a good lead in the first preferences to win. I’d still back him to do that but without great confidence. Huhne is certainly tacking to the Left to try to win over Hughes’s votes ( eg Iraq) and attempting to impose a classic LD squeeze on a third placed candidate at the same time: ‘Hughes can’t win!’
What are the odds on Blair going earlier than expected following his defeats yesterday?
Mike,
1.Huhne
2. Hughes
More used to betting on form in formula one but put some pennies on Huhne when at 9/1. Working on my members.
Beth
LD Cllr
For what it’s worth, you can add me to your ‘can’t decide between Campbell and Huhne’ list, but I’m tending toward Huhne. I was previously completely behind Ming, but have been turned off by two things: 1) I found Huhne sounder in policy terms on their Any Questions appearance; 2) my (even less scientific) soundings among non-Lib Dems finds zero enthusiasm for Ming - they favour either Huhne or Hughes. So I probably won’t be voting early…
I have to say I am wavering between Ming and Huhne now. I was a full Ming backer, but now beginning to wonder if Huhne will have more popular appeal. I still think he is a gamble for the party, but perhaps we need to take a gamble…
I also won’t be too quick to vote.
8. Although yesterday’s MORI poll found 19% of the public wanted Ming to become Lib Dem leader and 2% wanted Huhne.
10- Valerie, same type of poll before DC won found the same thing, the public had no clue who he was. Now look, apparently they all love him, policy free or not.
2. Tory Boy, you are right.
The arrogance and lack of understanding of Charles Clarke after losing those two votes last night shows that the reality-check merchants have been selling shoddy goods in Whitehall. The Thatcher/Major stench is abroad.
Whether this will enable the success of those who describe the French as ‘garlick eating surrender monkeys’ to prosper is another question.
Test 1 agreed with Mike - everyone else ignore! This has new email address and no website.
And this one is old address, no website.
11. Yes, but we’re not going to get the same sort of media coverage for Huhne that Cameron got as a new guy. It’s going to take a long, long time to build Huhne up with the public, and time is what we haven’t got.
I can see the ‘new and fresh’ appeal of Huhne, but it would be more understandable if he had more charisma. I also find him not warm enough to replace a leader who was highly rated for his warmth.
I’m backing Chris Huhne as are a lot of the people I know - being in the SE may skew opinions somewhat, but as expected Chris is doing v well here.
Chris’ media profile is what will win or lose this. He’s certainly got a lot of momentum (and John Leech’s backing will help a lot with the North West and the urban vote which I suspect will largely split between Chris and Simon Hughes). The question is what will happen in some of the suburban and rural areas with large memberships which went overwhelmingly for Kennedy last time.
Meanwhile we can all laugh at Tony Blair and continue to exercise our freedom of speech.
15-Valeriw, agree totaly that the press will never give the Lid Dems as much coverage as the other 2, which frankly is outragous. Especially the BBC who should be impartial and give all the parties the same amount of coverage.
However diagree that there is no time, 3 years until next GE is plenty of time and I think the charisma will start to come through. The problem with CK is he was liked by voters but never respected or seen as a viable PM, never! Nice guys only get so far, DC will soon find out, he has to piss some people off, thats the way of it.
Huhne has the athourity and polocies that could make him a winner, Ming is too old and Hughes too odd for most voters taste(nothing to do with sex, just his political views)
15. Thats true, but i don’t think that Campbell will come across to well on the warmth stakes either.
We can’t rely on our leader being liked for electoral success next time. We need a leader with vision, who will be respected and who is coherant in laying out what he believes in (all of which Campbell is). But we could also do with a bit of freshness.
Campbell may not be able to provide that feshness (although those supporting him; Clegg, Davey, Laws etc, may do so, but i don’t think they will get enough air time).
We could also do with showing that we are ready to take risks and think agressively. Campbell MAY come across as a safe “we are too scared to make a proper decision” choice. Huhne certainly won’t.
Unlike Mike I am heavily into Ming - I thought he was a certainty but the few comments on here (as unrepresentative sample as Mike’s) seem not so sure.
Shall I hold on for the big pay day or get out with a moderate profit now?
I do believe that Ming will be the best in the circumstances we find ourselves and, probably like most of the paid up members, am not hearing much about anyone to make me change my mind. I think there was an East Midlands husting but was away, and have had no details from anyone of other hustings - will total attendance at all candidates meetings be more than 2,000 (less than 10% of the votes likely to be cast).
Yet again unscientific but my feeling has been that Campbell started very strongly and that Huhne’s launch hit him badly in the first few days. However, since then there has been a slight drift away from Huhne with people who swung behind him on a combination of him being the underdog and admiring the bold move of him standing drifting back to Ming. Huhne has gone very strongly for the strongly environmentalist wing, high fuel taxes and so on which has worried some of his natural base as a bit of a hostage to fortune. There is also the nagging doubt of his majority and a slight John Major element. Ming meanwhile is allaying doubts about his grasp on domestic issues as the contest goes on, plus he has the overwhelming support of colleagues.
I have to say if Hughes does come second on the first count, I cannot possibly see him winning. As Mike indicated (Beth’s comment notwithstanding) there are many more Campbell/Huhne one-twos in either order than there are Hughes second choices. Hughes needs to come first on the first count, and I just cannot see it.
19. Icarus, the official hustings list is here.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/party/lib-dem-leadership-election.html
Mike, one web site, a Campbell supporter is saying that names are on the Hughes list that he knows are Campbell supporters and others who have not given permission. Very strange.
Also saying Huhne camp claiming most council leaders in support but this is said to be incorrect.
Hey, Hey, things are hotting up!!
Looks to me, at the moment that it is Campbell v Huhne and that second preference Hughes votes are leaning more Huhne than Campbell. Not sure the betting sites take the second preferences fully into account. But it is early days. Good time for soundings probably in a weeks time.
Think this is very, very open.
17. Yes, there’s a lot of time until the GE, but we need to get back on our feet as soon as possible.
Polls also suggest the great majority of people don’t consider Ming too old. His policies are easily as interesting as Huhne’s, and in many cases more nuanced. And he makes better and more inspiring speeches.
I do think Huhne has plenty of good qualities - I just worry about him becoming leader. Ming would do the job far better, and not just in a ’safe’ way.
18 - I do think that doing things largely on the basis that they are bold moves and with limited deeper reasoning is a mistake, and it is a mistake a fair few Huhne supporters are making. I have nothing against Huhne but don’t have all that much for him either. I am not simply going to vote for him on the basis that I admire the audacity of him standing.
Campbell is a proven performer, an instinctive liberal, and has the overwhelming support of his colleagues. If that makes him the safe choice then I am delighted to be going for the safe choice.
for what its worth i’m
1, hughes
2, ming
at the moment but ming is coming on a visit to my uni this afternoon so will make up mind then. cant believe the number of hughes/huhne combinations, but then i suppose that shows that left/right splits in the party are not as clear as some make out.
19 Icarus “I am heavily into Ming”. Is that your betting position, your political position, or something you have just sold to the News of the World?
18. Tistoph - I can see your point, but where I differ is that where you think we’ll look like risk-takers, I think the public will see it as lack of confidence. It would be reminiscent of Hague’s election in 1997 rather than Cameron’s last year.
24. you said it better than me, James!
24. I agree with you on Campbell, i am just aware that the media and the other parties are likely to portray him as “safe” choice. Suggesting that the party does not want to make gains or advance itself, but instead bunker down.
I stress, that is not my impression ot Campbell! But what matters at a GE is what gets into the media, and how that is portrayed, not what the party members think! We need to think how each of the candidates will be perceived by the wider public, and what message choosing that candidate would send out.
Thanks for info on hustings - There is one near me at Henry VIII school in Coventry - I know it well, my daughter went there.
BUT - it is on Feb 18th at 3pm - I have a season ticket to watch another former pupil of the school, Andy Goode, play for Leicester Tigers at the same time.
I am afraid that the rugby might just win!!!
I’m leaning towards Huhne over Campbell with no preference towards Hughes. I will make up my mind after the hustings.
As all the LDs seem to be declaring themselves, I’m 1)Campbell 2)Huhne , but may well change my mind. All the info I have so far suggests Ming is going down far better with the general public than Huhne. I recognise Simon also goes down moderatly well with the public, but I feel he would be ‘weighed down’ by recent events, and I’m currently unimpressed by his organisational/media skills. (Unlike most LDs I consider policy to be of little relevance to this decision. Given I’m something of a ranting leftie I should probably be going for Simon…)
I was initially tempted by the prospect of Huhne. I wavered in my Mingness. But I have been put off by Huhne’s policy platform, and by the “Major” issue as James puts it. The poll you commented on here a week or so ago shows that Huhne does not project his personality to ordinary voters - even when they have seen him on the television. And then there are the background issues: the decapitation issue in Eastleigh, the limited support among MPs and MEPs for Huhne, etc.
So I am now very firmly in the Ming camp, as I explained here here
For all the problems with Huhne (and he could be coached as a speaker), I much prefer him to Hughes. But I can’t agree that Hughes is out of the race.
30. I am dreading the arrival of the 6 nations! Its highly unhelpful when I have essays to write!
Especially bad this year because the French are probably going to win it!
33 - Just feel sorry for Andrea!
29. Yes, that’s probably how the media would present it after he was elected, but only for a brief time before they move on. It’s not an image that would subsequently hamper him in pushing for advancement.
29 - “Safe” shouldn’t be read in the same way as “cautious”. Campbell is “safe” because he makes it safe to vote Lib Dem. We missed out on winning over soft Tory votes (in Tory held seats but also in some of our own seats and Tory votes in Labour seats) because Tories perceived us as unsafe. Potential Labour converts also sometimes see us as unsafe. Events over the past few weeks are hardly likely to make voting Lib Dem appear safer to floating voters.
Actually, as I think you recognise, Campbell has other important qualities too. He can lead a strong parliamentary team rather than getting sealed off from them as both Kennedy and Ashdown did in many ways. I was also impressed to hear him the other day saying we need a leaner policy programme - one of our weaknesses has been a tendency to try to have a policy on everything rather than having a few key messages which convey what we are about.
FWIW the feedback I’m getting from all 3 camps is that Ming is still clearly ahead. The differ on the margin. Ming’s supporters are coy about saying they’ll win on the first ballot whilst at the same time not wanting to provide a band wagon for Huhne by saying it’s too close to call. Hughes and Huhne camps locked in a battle for second place - that really is too close to call. Presently I would call this a first ballot win for Ming.
One other factor to bear in mind is the difference between Lib Dem activists and members. Whilst those on this site and those who attend the hustings may pore over every nuance of the race and policy areas, those armchair members are much more likely to go for the safe pair of hands after recent troubles and thus go for Ming.
Am I stuck in moderation above (33) or can other people see my post?
34. Fair enough. I do recognise Campbell’s qualities, he is an impressive statesman.
However, before i vote I am going to wait and see how the two of them are portrayed in the media over the next few weeks; who comes across better, more coherant, and more likely to attract voters. If I think that is Huhne I will place him as my first preference, likewise for Campbell.
33/34 Tistoph/Lennon. Whisper it quietly but I think England will win the Six Nations …… and I’ve had a few quid on it
SHOCK HEADLINE : Scot tips England ….. no Lib Dems sex scandal involved !!
Italy will be the whipping boys ….. Tory sex scandal assured.
34. And Jack for that matter!
38. Bit silly I know, but I couldn’t help smiling at the thought of a LibDem being “stuck in moderation”.
Peter, you are! Been there, done that…and sadly the world will never see your learned contribution
Another activist/member to add to your wholly unscientific poll! I think I’ve settled on a Huhne/Campbell/Hughes vote…… Just waiting for the polling papers now….
38. Peter - I can’t see it…
I was initially tempted by the prospect of Huhne. I wavered in my Mingness. But I have been put off by Huhne’s policy platform, and by the “Major” issue as James puts it. The poll you commented on here a week or so ago shows that Huhne does not project his personality to ordinary voters - even when they have seen him on the television. And then there are the background issues: the decapitation issue in Eastleigh, the limited support among MPs and MEPs for Huhne, etc.
So I am now very firmly in the Ming camp, as I explained here.
For all the problems with Huhne (and he could be coached as a speaker), I much prefer him to Hughes. But I can’t agree that Hughes is out of the race.
41 Tistoph. Thanks !! …… I was hugely relieved when Italy joined the Six Nations ……. Scotland could have opened a culinary school with the numder of wooden spoons we were collecting.
Links: policy platform
http://liberalism2010.blogspot.com/2006/02/who-are-liberal-democrats.html
Ming’s merits
http://liberalism2010.blogspot.com/2006/01/for-lib-dem-breakthrough-updated.html
OK - what was once hidden has been revealed.
Jack W - If England win the 6 nations I will be very surprised. The team may have some of the passion left but seem to be mixture of over the hill and out of form. In the modern game, like it or not, you must have a reliable kicker and Hodgson is just not good enough. I understand he was out kicked by Goode last saturday earning Tigers a draw after being 9 -24 down at half time.
And dont write Italy off completely (Do write Scotland off though!)
47. However it is difficult to eat pasta or pizza with a wooden spoon!
Much more useful for comsuming porridge!
The Italians must be at a loss what to do with them!
Except for the links. On Huhne’s policy platform I was linking to an article on the apollo project “Who are the Lib Dems?” published today.
And on Ming’s merits I was linking to an article on the apollo project “For a Lib Dem Breakthrough” (click on my name and scroll down a bit).
Heard there is a Question Time with the three on, is that right? That would be good for the ordinary members to watch or video, because the hustings seem to be the activists.
52. Strange, Jack was at 47 when i posted that comment. Most confusing.
It’s awfully quiet on the Tory front on this site today (with the exception of Tory Boy at no 2 of course). Have I missed something or has DC abolished the party as the next logical and progressive step in regaining power?
I think France start as favourites. Wales won’t reproduce last year, Scotland start from well back, England and Ireland have elements of a winning team but don’t convince. Italy will do very well to win two games. France could cruise it - but usually make life difficult for themselves.
Sadly Bath will probably beat Gloucester at Kingsholm - great excitment for Tabman, deep gloom for me!
Sorry for repetition above folks!
52 - two of my posts were in moderation but have now been accepted - screwing up the numbering.
Having now heard Huhne speak a few times I’d be surprised if the Lib Dems don’t go for Campbell. It would certainly be a better choice under the circumstances they find themselves in. Huhne doesn’t compete with Cameron for articulacy and passion and even personality. Campbell doesn’t need to. He has several qualities that Cameron doesn’t and will certainly compete as an equal. Without overstating it the Lib Dems could be in danger of regressing back to a small party for sandal wearers. Ming would ensure this doesn’t happen. I also remember the early days of Paddy. Huhne isn’t in the same league but neither is he sufficienly ‘non politician’like Charlie to get away with it. The Libs NEED a charismatic leader and in my memory they’ve always had one. Huhne isn’t and it’s hard to imagine a makeover doing the trick. Hughes unfortunately is history. He would have been interesting so it’s a pity
I think that Huhne/Cameron parallels are slightly astray - the LDs are not in the same position that the Tories were at last year. As someone pointed out, Huhne/Hague might be a little closer.
An analogy (slightly unfortunate, given the circumstances of CKs departure - this isn’t a partisan dig) could be that of an alcoholic or someone with another destructive streak. Often they have to really hit rock bottom before they are ready and willing to hear a message that all must change, and change now.
For the Tories this “rock bottom” was the third election defeat - the membership were really in a mood to hear the hard words of “you must change” from Cameron, and he really did hit the mood of the party spot on with his message and delivery. The others that urged the party to stop beating itself up missed that mood entirely because at that point the membership wanted to hear it, and also wanted to hear that they could change.
The LDs aren’t really in the same position. The last election was a very good one for them, they must have been doing something right. What is happening now is the prospect of disarray and disunity and to my mind that calls for a caretaker leader who can consolidate and take a hand on discipline before it gets out of hand - a Howard figure.
Were I a LD then I’d be looking to Ming for this, with the expectation that Huhne, Clegg or a similar future figure would be given a lot of prominence and responsibility in the meantime to take over after Ming.
Ming would have to go eventually - his age would preclude him from being leader for the next 10 years or so - so he would then have the luxury of planning and staging the next election contest much in the same way that Howard did.
The one downside to this would be that Cameron’s “he was the future once” soundbite is still echoing in the halls of Westminster, and most evidently Ming is NOT the future. He is the present. But party unity and discipline is the one thing that you cannot afford to lose as it has a direct effect upon electability.
Question is, though, do LDs go for broke and take a huge gamble on a young, fresh face when they perhaps ought to be limiting any damage first and foremost?
Place your bets, folks…
58 - But what on earth would there be left to spend our winnings on!
As LD member I am sticking with initial assesment of Huhne 1, Ming 2, no 3rd preference - re open nominations/blank.
Huhne appears to me to be picking up momentum and support in my area of the SE - very little support for Hughes although I put £5 on him at 4-1 before the yes/no debacle.
58 Mike. Sorry Mrs Jack W insists my occasional natural pen*s enlargem*nts continue.
My Six Nations bet is determined partly by the fact that Wales and Ireland go to Twickenham this year. The away match in Paris is the tricky one …. but worth the bet. I think Scotland will perform somewhat better this year but will probably be 4th at best.
BTW I understand that Italys collection of wooden spoons headed to Milan for political stirring use by the odd student !!
56 - Nah, we just don’t want to intrude into private grief
Nick P: Why did you accuse the posters here of “faux outrage” over the Religious Hatred Bill on last night’s thread? A serious insult to the posters here, in fact. Are you suffering from the same delusion as Charles Clarke who thinks that so many people oppose the Bill because they dont like Blair? It is this bunker mentality that we will be undoing of Labour in this parliament. I note that you voted with the government on both votes…
“A serious insult to the posters here”
I think they’ll survive!
65 John O. Hasn’t stopped you in the past !
61. yes, it’s a question of damage limitation rather than any need for fundamental change - our fundamentals are fine. Which isn’t of course reason for complacency, but as James said, ’safe’ shouldn’t be confused with ‘cautious.’
FWIW I am drifting to the order Huhne , Hughes then Campbell with Ming firmly last for the sole reason of age .
63 - Chris, no point with a third preference when there are three candidates anyway as it would never be redistributed.
61 - It’s far too early to talk of the Lib Dems now in the same way as the Tories in 1997. It has been a very, very tough month but let’s not get it out of perspective. That isn’t complacency because I am under no illusions as to the fact that real damage has been done - just that we need to reflect soberly in a broader context.
I like Ming because he has broad based support and understands the fact that we need to get together over the next year or two and develop a leaner, more focussed policy programme. In the meantime he will come across well in the media and build a strong team many of whom - let’s be honest and say it’s no bad thing - will have an eye on the crown in 2010 and will be fully committed to ensuring that the inheritence is a valuable one. Huhne and Hughes are both, in different ways, panic choices.
One other point implicit in your comment is the assumption that the Tories have hit the winning formula. Cameron has made a very sound start but there are rumblings of discontent from the left in Europe and the right in Britain, and we are yet to see the effect that new leaders of the other two parties will have. Just a little thought to give the more thoughtful Tories among you nightmares - what if Cameron fails?
Ming has the political weight and experience for all the LD talent to rally around. Huhne will be given a major role, I’m sure, in any Campbell front bench team but the LD’s at the minute need the stability and ’seriousness’ that Ming will provide in spades. My predictions:
1/ Ming wins, Huhne second
2/ Tories up a bit at local elections, LD’s down a bit. As the press totally underestimate LD strength locally, the Tories failure to win big and LD’s holding up will mean the media will portray local elections as “LD’s hold the line with Ming”
3/ By September we’ll be back to regularly 20% in the polls
4/ By Sept Norman Tebbit et al will be screaming blue murder that DC is turing the tories into wussy liberals. UKIP begin to gain support from right wing tories.
5/ GE - LD’s 24% in the polls, hung parliament and we’re in government.
6/ I win my seat which I only just lost in May 2005 from Tory right winger
Ming is the best person to achieve all the above. Of that I am convinced. Listen to the man. He may be getting on a bit but my God he’s hungry for the job. And we need that hunger and ambition from a leader….
67. I don’t know about that; I’ve taken it pretty badly.
68: Moi?!!!
If it’s any consolation for the Lib Dems I went out for lunch on Sunday with five recently ex-students most who seemed to remember voting Lib Dem at the last election. Three didn’t know who Mark Oaten was. The other two thought he was a politician one of whom thought he was Conservative. None knew of his indiscretion. Two knew Hughes to be a politician. One thought he was a Lib Dem. None knew of any story about him. All knew George Galloway. One liked him.
4/ By Sept Norman Tebbit et al will be screaming blue murder that DC is turing the tories into wussy liberals. UKIP begin to gain support from right wing tories.
So what? Who cares? Tony Benn, Scargill et al did the same when Blair took over and everyone, including the electorate, ignored them. Tebbit is a dinosaur and what he says influences about 0.5% of the voting, being generous. You can’t be serious about UKIP as an electoral force, surely? They’re weirdo headbangers who died a miserable electoral death at the last election.
p.s. i am not a tory.
74. Qui?!!!
BTW and apologies if already noted but Betfair have the D & FW by-election market up :
Labour 0.15/1
SNP 11.5/1
Lib Dem 12/1
Con or any other party !! 150/1
Julian H.
You jest….?
76 - Well said, that man
PS I am a Tory
72 - 5/ GE - LD’s 24% in the polls, hung parliament and we’re in government.
Oh joy - how the people of England and Wales must be looking forward to a government that will unleash the kind of dynamic growth and success seen in Scotland under a similar arrangement
James@71
Ah, if there was an implicit “Tories have hit a winning formula” in my post then apologies - that wasn’t meant to be a concealed subtext.
My point was rather that they had hit that rock bottom moment, and were willing and ready to hear the apocalyptic change or wither message, and Cameron said “I’m the man to help you change”. And they grasped it with willing hands. Perhaps somewhat uncertain and slightly nervous about what the change would be.
Cameron could indeed falter. The party could indeed react against the change. The smoker can certainly relapse (I’m really going off my previous use of the alcoholic analogy, seems distasteful at the moment). I just don’t know at this point but it currently feels good.
The LDs are not in the same position as the Tories in ‘97, but they certainly aren’t in the same position as the Tories in ‘05 either.
Still, just an observation as to why the Huhne/Cameron comparisons might not be quite valid.
80 - don’t get too smug. i’ve heard notting hill tories saying they’d be happy with pm cameron of tory/lib coalition.
79 John O. “…. PS I am a Tory”
Our Norm says “Call yourself a Tory …… on yer bike you pinko commie lilly livered liberal …..”
PS Our Norm is a real Tory …… he eats Cameroons for breakfast
Our Norm is from Chingford and is 105 !
76/ “So what? Who cares? Tony Benn, Scargill et al did the same when Blair took over and everyone, including the electorate, ignored them. Tebbit is a dinosaur and what he says influences about 0.5% of the voting, being generous. You can’t be serious about UKIP as an electoral force, surely? They’re weirdo headbangers who died a miserable electoral death at the last election”.
Tebbit et al speaks for a large number of core reactionary tory voters. I know that for a fact because I’ve canvassed around 4,000 of them the last four years.
Course UKIP are barking but then - so are a lot of the old guard tories!
56-Stephen B. We are still here. Maybe it’s quiet on the Tory front as who becomes leader of a fading third party is of little interest? Maybe we need another scandal to inject some excitement. After Kennedy, Oaten and Hughes, any public interest is limited to the comedy element.
SAC: would you like to drop me a line? liberalism2010@yahoo.co.uk
For a minor party, UKIP actually did quite well last May. They saved 35 deposits, and won more than 3,000 votes in a number of seats.
Lord Tebbit certainly speaks for a considerable number of Conservative voters.
78. My posts on here of late have been almost entirely jest (although I really have purchased two of SeanT’s novels). I should try to return to serious policy / betting talk at some point.
P.S. I am a Tory
87. Yuh, why be part of a future government when you can join a party forever associated with ex-Labour man Robert Kilroy-Silk?
To be fair, refusing to let Kilroy be the leader was probably UKIP’s finest hour.
The interesting question Julian is why so many people should have voted for parties that have no chance of being in government on May 5th (620,000 for UKIP, 190,000 for BNP, 260,000 for the Greens, 68,000 for Respect, 40,000 for Veritas, and a few millions for the Lib Dems).
‘I am a Tory’ (formally outraged of Tumbridge Wells)
Tell me you’re joking about buying two of sean T’s novels….Please!!
After his ‘We will fight for free speech till our last breath’ stuff from last night I just know what they’ll be like!
82 -Egads! A Whig/Tory coalition! A don’t think that historically they’ve lasted very long but if it holds up the subversive forces of organised labour then I’m all for it.
It should be said, that the amount matched on the Lib Dem leadership Betfair market, £509,000, is well in excess of the similar total in the Tory race last year at this stage before the declaration of the result.
There appears to be more betting interest in this than the Tories.
I’m not sure why Nick Palmer qualified our outrage as faux, though.
95. Probably cos this is easier money. How far wrong can you go on a two horse race?
92. Have a butcher’s on Amazon - they’re going very cheap in paperback.
91. Interesting stats. I’m not criticising voting for small parties (I’ve done it myself), I’m criticising a move AWAY from a centrist party whose chances of winning a GE have coincided with Cameron’s election. Mindless reactionist tendencies from the reactionary-Right.
“I’m not sure why Nick Palmer qualified our outrage as faux, though”
Perhaps because you all sounded pompous and self righteous. Would you all slip into ‘Churchillian speak’ if you were really outraged?
98. I certainly do! You can’t beat a couple of “never”s to get your point across best!
I don’t think we sounded self-rightous, we were just right! (as demonstrated by the vote, I might add with a slight Churchillian twang)
I’m a little dissapointed that odds aren’t being offered on Stewart Lewis’s chances of winning. I’m forced to conclude that he’s yesterday’s man.
94/96 - Or is it that the total is the same, but Betfair has a greater share of the market. (For whatever reason, maybe that the bookies are much more uncertain and so have poor value odds in comparison?)
98 - So what do you want people to do when they are outraged? Go red in the face and swear a lot? People were simply trying to articulate why they thought the bill was massively flawed - hardly Churchillian but a genuine attempt to convey reasons.
94 - Interesting. I suppose the Tory race was always “predictable” in the wierd sense that everyone thought Davis would win and then suddenly everyone thought Cameron would win. There is more genuine uncertainty even among members here - it is terribly difficult to say who is ahead or even who is behind.
61-RichardS
‘The last election was a very good one for them, they must have been doing something right.’
Believe it was more a case of the other two parties doing something wrong,i.e Iraq for Labour and a weak Tory opposition.
Are they going to rely on those two factors again?
What will be their strategy if Labour & the Tories continue to run neck & neck in the high 30’s in the opinion polls?
103 - “Can’t decide between Labour and the Torys… why not vote Lib Dem and let us decide for you
“
The UKIP activists (fellow head-bangers, apparently) I talk to are as undecided about DC as you mainstream experts.
If 620,000 UKIP votes at the last GE pursuades DC to take the tories out of a federalist grouping, its a start. It may suggest that a vote for UKIP was not a ‘wasted’ vote. And we are not hearing any ‘we need to be at the heart of Europe’ bollocks from DC.
How he deals with the introduction of the euro-constitution by stealth remains to be seen.
Will UKIP attract tory voters unhappy with DC? Possibly, but if DC grows in confidence to face-down the euro-fanatics, I doubt that many will join us.
205 - David, What would it take for you to join him? There is a difference between losing votes to UKIP, and actually taking them back.
Looking at past Liberal/Lib dem performance Campbell should win. the party always chooses the safest option. In 1975 Steel vrs Pardoe Steel won. In 1988 Beith vrs Ashdown Ashdown won and in 1999 Kennedy eventually beat Hughes. each winner was the establishment safe candidate. This time some of the more established, ex SDP types are Huhne backers which might make a difference.
The Hughes camp still claim they are ahead in their phone canvassing of members.
UKIP are now part of the landscape and if I were a Tory I would find them annoying but appreciate that little can be done. A UKIP voter doesn’t really give a damn who sits with whom in Strasbourg, or about sunset clauses or renegotiations. They see Europe as the key question of our times and want out, and that is something the Tories are not realistically going to offer - nor should they. There is therefore a core UKIP constituency and Cameron would be sensible to ignore it from a “high strategy” viewpoint and leave it to constituencies with a strong UKIP presence to firefight on the ground.
107 - Was Ashdown really considered the ’safe’ option in 1988 Mark? The main thing he was known for was for opposing the leadership at the Eastbourne Conference.
What I think is the case is that the Lib Dem membership has consistently elected the candidate most likely to come across well to the voters. In this respect they have been quite canny. It is also one reason why this contest is more opne, because none of the candidates is a runaway winner in that respect.
If I were running the Conservative Party, I’d offer UKIP a limited electoral pact. They stand down in a specified number of marginal seats, in return for us giving them a clear run in, say, a Lib Dem constituency in Cornwall, and Plymouth Devonport.
102. The point is that the arguments are more subtle than what we heard last night. Is it right that protection is afforded to Jews that isn’t to Muslims on the grounds that one can choose ones religion but not ones race? I can attest to the fact that in many cases that the choice of being Jewish is at least as easily made as the choice of being Muslim.
electoral pacts with UKIP? a party that wants to pull out of the EU and has a whole range of hard right policies - bring it on!
107 - God bless the armchair Liberal - they pay their subs on direct debit and never once go to a soul-destroying Exec meeting, or waste their Saturday at an “Action Day”, or attend some dreary cheese and wine evening to discuss the relative merits of the cabinet and mayoral systems. By and large they have more common sense than the activists to be frank. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Stewart Lewis winning on that basis - he has been virtually invisible with the activists so must be out cultivating the armchair crowd.
Not sure about your characterisation of the safe choice winning - that is partly hindsight. Kennedy was out of favour with Ashdown (out as agriculture spokesman) so in some ways Hughes was more “establishment”. Beith was hardly the wild and wacky fringe man of the party either.
Re last night’s Government defeats in the Commons - its supporters argued (reasonably enough) that the law as it stood practised a form of religious discrimination - where they were less than wholly honest was in implying that their proposed law would place all religions on an equal footing. It didn’t - it placed the discrimination on a different footing, by giving preference to the “big battalions” - the whole point of entrenched human rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority: they are essentially (in the Platonic sense) hostile to the interests of the State and its agent, the government of the day. If the Government thought that last night’s vote was a threat to public order or community relations, be assured their apologists would have said so by now.
111. Thats not the point. The racial hatred laws protected Jews and Sikhs according to their race, not their religion! You could be just as offensive about a Jew or Sikh’s religion as you could about a Muslim’s or a Christians religion. This was said repeatidly in the plmty debate!
110 - You have spoken a lot of sense recently, Sean, but I have to say that is an off-the-wall suggestion in my view. Would cause furore among pro-European Tories (I hate to return to the issue of defections, but…). Would cause anger in the consituencies involved (”how dare the Tories think they can gift my vote to another party” says Mr Treharne of Looe). Would require the Tory in Devonport to advocate EU withdrawal against Tory policy. Would gift the Cornish seat to the Lib Dem for life. Would give UKIP credibility. Just disasterous in every respect.
66, et al. I too am outraged at being accused of ‘faux outrage’ during my outrage last night. Outrageous.
In all seriousness, I think Nick P should withdraw those clumsy, juvenile and insulting remarks. A lot of people on here evidently felt and feel very strongly on the issues of free speech, especially as they pertained to last night’s Bill. You may disgree with us, but that doesn’t make us necessarily insincere, believe it or not.
Nick P’s remarks were worsened of course, by Charles Clarke’s accusation, in a fit of juvenile pique after the loss, that we are all ‘playing party politics’. Come on guys, stop this stuff. It makes you look snide, arrogant and out-of-touch. Again.
And why the hell shouldn’t people adopt a Churchillian tone when talking about free speech? It’s the natural tenor to adopt, the serious voice for a serious issue, the voice of the politician who defended us from the Last great assault on our liberties!
So why is NuLabour acting like this? I reckon they now so sunk in their world of spin, cynicism, and short-term political gain, they do not actually understand when they are confronted by people with genuine, firm, longheld principles. It’s not on their radar, so they just their opponents are playing some kind of ‘game’, or putting it on.
Free speech is not a game, lads.
111, the existing law on incitement to racial hatred is (more or less) a paper tiger. The proposed law on incitement to religious hatread would have been even more of a paper tiger (and in its current form is completely unenforceable).
Any law of this type either has to be extremely oppressive or entirely tokenistic. Either way, it’s bad law.
117. Well said.
110/116 Sean/James. These electoral pacts are tricky …… the Tories in the D &FW by-election asked for my Jacobite endorsement in return for a clear run for my party in Bethnal Green and Bow ….. I ask you do you really want to see me in a tartan leotard liking the hands of “Pussy Gallore-away” …….You do …. sicko’s !!
111. The arguments in favour of the Bill are so feeble they are really not worth engaging. As I suspect Labour knows. Which is why several Labour activists have already told me in private they are ‘pleased’ the Bill got neutered.
But Roger… I know you and I normally disagree on anything anyway - ! - but, doesn’t the fact that, as far as I can tell, you are in a minority of 1 on this site, on this issue of religious hatred make you think.. mmm.. maybe I am wrong here? Similarly, doesn’t the government ever stop and think - hold on, everyone from Polly Toynbee to Max Hastings, from the Muslim Parliament to the Sally Army, from the Guardian to the Economist, from atheists to the Wee Free Church, thinks we’re wrong. Maybe we’re wrong?
Where are the alarm bells in the government? This was a bit like your poll tax. Maybe governments, in the end, just become so convinced of their rightness they don’t listen to criticism. Or maybe the nervous system furs up over time, so they can’t sense the public mood.
Weird, tho. You guys used to be so deft.
Not at all, James. Conservatives and Liberals sometimes formed local electoral pacts at Parliamentary level, up till the sixties, and electoral pacts in some wards are hardly unknown in local elections today.
I think it would make sense for the Tories to let UKIP run in a couple of no-hope seats (but where UKIP does have a big potential vote) in return for them standing down in some marginals.
121 - Of course the problem would be solved if you had proportional voting… but for some reason the Torys seem less keen on that idea.
20 - seanT - then you go and spoil everything by comparing the stupid religious hatred bill to the poll tax…deary me.
121 - Well, you go for it then Sean and have fun!
BTW … PMQ’s deadly dull, especially in light of last nights defeats ………… mind you Hilary Armstrong looked like she wanted the chamber to open up.
No score draws all round !!
121 Also, as well as being the cause of a number of lost Parliamentary seats last time out, UKIP are a bloody nuisance in the GLA where they (and the Greens) interfere with any potential the Con / LD ‘arrangement’ has to effectively rein in our profligate Mayor.
If buying them off with a few ‘no hope’ seats of our own is what it takes it could be a price well worth considering.
Sean Fear - But having such a pact with UKIP would have far wider political implications beyond the couple of constituencies involved. It would be seen, and with some justification, as representing an ‘alliance’ that would inevitably bring into scrutiny all UKIP’s other policies, some (most?) of which would be anathema to current loyal Conservatives, and those we are seeking to attract. And the Tory polciy on the EU is explicitly not withdrawal.
Such an arrangement would be utter madness.
124. What did they ask?
SeanT @ 17 & 20 above. Spot on old son (as usual)- keep it up
122 Lennon, flip side is UKIP & Greens only have seats in the GLA due to non FPTP arrangment and it allows a dictatorial major to play all sides off against the middle and effectively rule by diktat.
Sam and James.
Yes ashdown was the establishment man. he was backed by all the leading figures outside the parliamentary party. beith was backed by people who left to set up the “Liberal Party”. Kennedy was certainly the “safe” candidate and stood on a “kiss Blairs butt” programme whcih he quickly abandoned. The “butt kissing” being the favoured strategy of the party leadership in its broadest sense. Campbell was of course key to that.
In terms of who I would like to win I am torn between a candidate who will cause division and chaos in the Welsh Lib dems (could be any of them) and the need for a radical centre left party to develop in England. If I were still a lib dem I would go for Hughes this time even though he was my third preference in 99 behind Ballard and Bruce.
126 Hi John O
Agree its not without risks.
Guess to some extent it depends on ones euroleanings.
Tend to believe as a sceptic that it would bolster our core vote for good measure as well, but hey ho…
It’s not as if it’s likely to happen so no point writting an essay.
Kind regards
The bill did look as though it was there to keep inner city muslim votes on side at the last election when Nu lab had to face what was sown in iraq.( remember Salma Yaqub nearly won a seat for respect in Birmingham and the odd seat in rochdale etc may have gone lib dem).
I imagine some in Nu lab were able to go with it as a way of reducing inequality - ” why do Jews,Christians and Sikhs have more rights than muslims, hindu’s etc ?”
For me personally though this makes about as much sense as increasing faith schools, two wrongs dont make a right.
But I guess its a brave politician that argues the obvious ( but sensitive) point that jews and sikhs are not a race and should not be treated as such. thereby giving people with those ‘beliefs’ the same protection as muslims and the rest of us
131 - TB, Yep, I think we can safely assume that this isn’t likely to be one of the new policies to emerge from the various strategy groups…
128 Valerie. Cameroon went for last night defeats and link it to the Tories support for the Education Bill and second set of 3 was on the enviroment. Blair countered with with Cameroon inconsistency.
Ming went with Iraq ….. Blair appeared a little uncomfortable initially but recovered.
Not vintage stuff ….. and I wouldn’t bother repeating it via the BBC website.
130 Tory Boy. A touch OTT there with Red Ken … he was elected after all and plenty of pinko Tories like him, especially those who despise Shagger Norris.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/index.php/blog/how_voters_see_politicians/
124-JackW
I must have been watching another version of PMQ’s then,deadly dull!?
I think Sean is wrong on this one. Any formal deal with UKIP would be bad PR, because while they are by and large not a far right group, there is an element within them which is. This would inevitably be highlighted by our opponents and left wing elements in the media.
Much better is to try to persuade UKIP members and voters that their only hope of getting any change in the UK’s position in the EU is by getting a Conservative government in. We have a few Tory members here in Dorset who have already recognised this and come over.
136.
I think he’s referring to the 2 Ming questions - he is duller than ditchwater.
O/T but fun - a retired central banker gets rewarded by for saying nice things about the heir apparent - good to see that backscratching’s alive and well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4669778.stm
35. lennon, what have I done now?
138/ Be fair Jamie. How can any leader of the third party, under the arcane rules of the HofC where he/she is only allowed two questions shine. Its just not possible as the leader is totally exposed to any barnstorming repartee from the PM (along with the baying hordes of Labour and Tories joining in their favourite game of baiting the LD’s of course. I’ve always wandered why the public have never twigged the reason that the other two parties hate us so much!) and simply has to sit there and take it. Ming asked good, straightforward questions that Blair obfuscated on. If it was a genuine debate Ming would tear into him with pleasure, and win.
140 - Nothing at all, you’re just Italian and we were talking about the Rugby…
Fred @ 37. Whenever he met them face to face, Tim Collins was superb at persuading UKIP supporters back to the Conservatives. However, many other Westmorland & Lonsdale electors remained entrenched in their support for UKIP and were quite happy to vote for the party, depite knowing that this would invariably lead to the election of a pro-European Lib Dem MP. Quite irrational IMHO.
SAC Frankly the MC ‘killer’ question was an absolute dud. When Jack Straw referred to the ‘last chance’ for the Iranians he was obviously referring to the UN Security Council reference not military action as MC seemed to think. Also he reads from a bit of paper and doesn’t want to stray from Foreign Affairs. It is possible to do a lot better than that.
142. Ah, uhm, your post was referring to number33 which was the LD. So I didn’t catch the reference to rugby!