YouGov says the “leak” was wrong
February 8th, 2006-
But Times husting survey has Huhne ahead
I have just recieved the following email from Peter Kellner, the head of YouGov.
Mike
In common with other polling organisations, YouGov has a strict policy of not commenting on purported leaks of private surveys.However, on this occasion, I have been authorised by our client to say that all the figures that you, and Guido Fawkes, attributed yesterday to our recent poll of Lib Dem members are wrong.
In order to prevent this descending into a silly game in which people guess other numbers and seek a reaction from YouGov, I should add that this is the only comment I shall make on the survey unless authorised by our client.
Regards
Peter
-
The raises the question of why whoever commissioned the survey is holding onto the figures? For the real data clearly does not help their man.
The Times this morning carries the following which although not a poll is nevertheless interesting.
The Times spoke to 174 Lib Dems and asked how they intended to vote. Three were removed from the sample: two because they were attached to candidates’ campaign teams and a third who was not a party member. Of the remaining 171 members, 52 (30.5 per cent) said that their first preference votes would go to Chris Huhne, 42 (24.5 per cent) to Sir Menzies Campbell and 32 (19 per cent) to Simon Hughes. The remaining 45, or 26 per cent, were undecided
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It will be interesting to see how long the Huhne team keep the figures up on their web site. If they stay there too long, it’ll be their turn to face accusations of desperation.
Best Betfair price on Campbell now 1.85 as against 1.94 a couple of hours ago. Huhne at 2.14.
Incidentally - well done to those who stuck their neck out earlier to venture the view that these figures were fake.
You should mention in the initial post that the survey of 174 members wasn’t a random or geographically representative sample, but was in fact taken of people leaving a hustings meeting at Cardiff University.
what a shower of *hit the liberal democrats are.
Huhne now at 2.2
(Someone else comment? Sorry to hog this space to myself - I’m going to work in a minute anyway. :))
Huhne now at 2.24.
This is a very serious matter. Is Mike going to make an apology?
In the absence of much media coverage, particularly on TV, focusing on the candidates, I wonder how “ordinary” LibDem members are gaining information about the contest on which to base their votes.
Obviously, all have received the manifestos, and a small number will have attended the hustings. But while their Tory counterparts were bombarded by almost saturation commentaries on the merits of DD and DC, the LibDem electorate may, to some extent, be in the dark about making their choice.
This is not intended to be a partisan dig, still less a criticism, but other things being equal, that - and the absence of polls - might indicate that the two with higher name recognition (Campbell and Hughes)have an advantage. And that Thursday’s QT could be decisive?
Lib Dem poll ratings rising, maybe a reasonable to good by election result tomorrow, and they haven’t got a leader!!
Does this say we rate the impact of a leader too much.
Really Cameron should be sailing away, I would have thought the Cons would have been been 5-10% clear by now. Dare one venture that policies are more important to the voters than they appear to be to the media.
5 - still one step up from you then
Huhne back at 2.2
re 8. Fair point. I put this out yesterday with the following caveat which was highlighted There is no way that I can verify the accuracy of this information
Let whoever has the real figures reveal them - or would they put his/her man in an even worse light?
Huhne now back at 2.24 again.
it may have been commmissioned by a big money gambler though, who would have no interest in the figures being published.
10 - Cameron has picked up 4-5pts from the Lib Dems but to win a GE he needs to start taking votes from Labour and so far he hasn’t really done that. If the Lib Dems at least manage to consolidate their position at around 18% then it will be interesting to see what strategy Cameron pursues. His most recent u-turn on Iraq has come in for some fairly embarrassing ridicule. The mood music may be good but he may be reaching the point where he is beginning to stretch people’s credulity with all his position changes. Maybe time for him to take stock?
That’s a bit harsh, Printz. If Mike had presented them as anything but an anonymous leak of whose veracity none of us can take for granted, of course he should apologise. But in fact he was open about the source of the information, and anyone who bet on the basis of it should have done so with their eyes open to the risk the data was fake.
The remoured poll has been reported by the Scotsman too. is it the only newspaper to mention it?
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=198072006
Huhne’s and Ming’s camp denied to have commissioned it
13 - Mike, you did put them up with a caveat. But then later on you posted that the absence of denials should be taken as confirmation.
I thought that Bobby made a convincing critique of the figures (not necessarily identifying their source). so convincing that I reproduced it on the blog.
I´m hearing good reports from Dunfermline btw.
10 - There should be another round of PV verification this morning of votes cast more recently in the byelection. It should give some indication as to whether or not the Lib Dems have been gaining momentum and may be reflected one way or another in the betting markets later on today.
19 - 19 not 10 above!
Mike put them up with a caveat, but Chris Huhne’s site still has a link to them on Guido’s website saying ‘Unofficial results only.’ Unbelievable.
13 - I am sorry Mike, but this is a serious matter.
You crossed the line in publishing those figures. It was unethical, especially on your betting site where money can be made by influencing election results. You are discrediting your own site, which is the best of its kind.
What you did was to publish figures of a private survey that belongs to whoever commissioned it. Not to you. Nor anyone else. And as it turned out those figures were wrong.
Your headline was: “YouGov poll leak: It is very close.” Unless you are doubting Peter Kellner, that was not a “leak” but a set of figures that were not YouGov’s figures. We may as well have had any figures and any polling organisation and called it a leak.
Don’t you think that it is up to the owner of those survey results to choose how, when and if to publish the results? The onus is not on the owner of the survey to publish, which seems to be your defence. It is private property.
Those figures are going to be banded about on the internet, in campaign material, probably in newspaper columns and a set of bogus figures could affect the outcome of this leadership election. If there’s one thing we should all stand up for, that is fair elections.
You should apologise.
This all has a very nasty smell about it. As I said yesterday, and was criticised for doing so - ramp ramp ramp ramp ramp.
Re. where the guilt lies: I also think Mike jumped the gun yesterday in giving these rumours excessive credence, but I also think the pollsters should not allow situations like this to develop. If they want to do private surveys they should remain private until the client authorises publication.
Assume that MS believed it was a leak. GF did too. Good-faith mistake. Caveat bettor, frankly.
Chris Huhne should apologize if he does not immediately remove this from his site, however. He has responsibilities that the owners of blogs do not.
Blogs live and die on rumour. If you don’t want rumour, go to the mainstream media. Nobody forces you to read or to wager.
the worst thing is that huhne’s site is still quoting the figures and has a link to a rubbish gossip site.
10, 16 - Cameron has lifted the tories from the 30-33 bracket to the 37-40 bracket in a little over two months the GE is likely to be almost 4 years away, I’d say he’s started off pretty well in comparison to a party who is taking positive signs out of an 18% poll rating, that would destroy you at a GE! (people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones).
A By Election on the borders of the probable future leaders of Lib Dems and Labour will also have little or no resemblance on how well the tories are doing nationally at present, May however will be a different kettle od fish!
23 - I see Printz is demanding apologies again. Printz, while you are down at B&Q, could you pick up a set of alan keys and a bucket of grout for me? (Older readers will get the reference, others can go back to sleep).
Well well, I have complained for years about Lib dem election tactics; down and dirty rumour-mongering, unattributed leaked information, insinuations, misinformation and snyde personal assasination.
Anything, in fact, apart from the policies.
And it seems from the evidence so far that the Lib Dem leadership campaign is staying true to form.
How much more caution could be put on the numbers:
Quote from my blog
“Safety Warning! Handle with care! You Judge!
An anonymous source which Guido suspects is not a million miles away from Camp Huhne.”
What is all of this rubbish that some people are posting. The Times poll gives Huhne a massive lead, and the YouGov poll is simply confidential. The evidence we have is that Huhne is now the strong favourite, and the market is mis-pricing Menzies as the weak favourite. Its as simple as that. No doubt over the next few days Huhne will move to be the strong favourite.
Maybe the apology is due to Jacky Ashley who rightly said too much political gambling was self-serving and could even affect the results. She was roundly booed from most on here but what we’ve seen these last few days proves her point.
Dishonest polls, dishonest ‘knowledge’ of postal votes and dishonest ‘inside information’ not only makes the the punter money but CAN affect the result. The stuff we’ve seen on these boards the last few days makes the Lib Dem phoney bar charts look kindergaten. The Scotsman for instance has just used this bogus poll in it’s paper. Gamblers getting a rise on other gamblers is one thing but this goes further than that. ‘Will Macauley’ for example just uses one post after another to try to destroy the character of Ming Campbell by Reporting rumours on several threads. Does he work for one of the other candidates or is he from another party or is he trying to make a fast buck?
I don’t include Mike in any of this. He runs an honest site and tells things as as he sees them. Just occasionally he makes a genuine mistake. It’s just unfortunate that some posters aren’t as straight as he is.
Actually if we did get 18% at a GE I rather doubt it would destroy the party I’d guess it would cost about 15 seats.
31. The Times survey is as representative as a poll of all Hemming’s girlfriends and the Yougov poll has been denied.
Clearly this raises the question whether the leakage was meant to benefit Huhne and/or to damage Campbell and Hughes.
Fred. The pollsters didn’t make the surveys public. They just sent them round in the normsal way and people who had been asked to participate made them public. I don’t see how they could have asked their respondents to keep the poll secret.
Jon at 33 - don’t guess, go and do the excercise on Baxter and you lose 44 seats if you poll at 18% (with Lab 36 and Con 38).
Huhne favourite! The Tories must be licking their lips - a Euro fanatic who wants to scrap the pound with a 500 vote majority. Why are the Lib Dems sleepwalking into this nightmare? Nothing less than they deserve though.
Peter Black (who was there, as they say in Wales) has an interesting analysis on the times figures from the point of view of a Hughes supporter.
http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2006/02/opinion-polls.html
37.”don’t guess, go and do the excercise on Baxter and you lose 44 seats if you poll at 18% (with Lab 36 and Con 38). ”
With the LD, uniform swing need to be taken even more carefully than with the other parties.
37 - Marcus - we all know that performing an “excercise” [sic] with Baxter is fairly meaningless due to it using UNS.
Putting something reasonable into Baxter would see us down to 1 seat in Cornwall… obviously this is possible but I would say it is extremely unlikely almost regardless of what the overall share was.
41 Oh yes, Tabman. It is when it shows you being wiped out, yes. It wasn’t if I remember a few months back when it showed you making gains.
Tabman Baxter can indeed only give indicative figures but if the Tories are at or near 40% and you at 18% or less, then you are toast at a GE.
43 - Marcus, no one would be happier than I were you to base your strategy on the Predictions of Baxter, old boy!
Incidentally, did it forecast the results of Torbay correctly?
40/41 - Martin Baxter’s site doesn’t use a uniform swing, which would actually be much nicer to the Lib Dems. It used a modified uniform swing, which reduces the Lib Dem vote *proportionally* according to how much support they currently have in the seat, not at a flat rate across the country. (for example, say the Lib Dems dropped to three quarters of their 2005 support - about 17%. On a uniform swing you would deduct 6 percentage points from the Lib Dem support in each and every seat. On Baxter’s modified calculator you would reduce the Lib Dem support in every seat by a quarter)
44 It does depend a little on the tactical voting unwind as well.
I can’t make up my mind whether this unwind will be greater if the lib dems go clearly to the left of labour - socialism frightens the middle classes - or whether it will be greater if they come closer to the tories - why vote lib dem they’re the same as conservatives. Any thoughts?
44 - If ….
I’ve run those figures through Baxter, and very generously given Labour 32%. Con maj 4.
However, you’re far from reducing Labour to 32% (most polls have you neck and neck) - therefore no Tory majority.
FPTP is a be-atch, isn’t it
Sorry to be right Mike.
On the Times poll, no great surprise there, Huhne’s been doing o.k. at hustings while Hughes has been struggling to get the balance right between grass-roots tub-thumping and gravitas, pulling off neither particularly well. He also tends to get sulky and demotivated when he knows he can’t win. Campbell on the other hand has a cold at the moment which can’t have helped in Cardiff.
43/44 - May I suggest that you approach your friendly neighbourhood spreadbetting firm with a copy of your Baxter prediction under your arm? They will be more than happy to relieve you of your money. Clearly, the Lib Dems are likely to lose seats to the Tories if their vote is down and the Tories’ vote is up in 2009 - but I would suggest the Baxter formula is just a pleasant fantasy for you as you both know really.
46. well, our (well, I’ve understood Tabman) point was that it applied the same formula to all seats.And I think our point still stands.
And it makes sense to use a modified swing: otherwise the LD should give votes back in Blaenau Gwent!
Yes Guido but Mike implied his informant was not you so the information had now come from two different informants and was therefore likely to be true. (
(No offense intended!)
47 - “Lib Dems … Socialism …”
What are you studying, Anna? You’re making me embarressed for the reputation of my Alma Mater
Though Huhne would be toast even if he had been elected leader and scored the winning goal in the World Cup final.
31. Will Macauley, you are sad. The Times ‘poll’ was of 171 people walking out of a hustings at which it has been acknowledged that Ming (with a bad cold by all accounts) didn’t give his best performance. 25% still undecided.
53 It’s the 60% tax rate on high earners that does it… My middle class friends do equate many lib dem policies with socialism no matter what distinction political scientists make!
46 - thanks for the clarification, Anthony. Sorry for the mis-use of the term UNS (and thanks for the understanding, Andrea), but the point is that I would be wary of making any predictions on the basis of the same event happening in any seat.
As James points out, Marcus should put the mortgage on the outcome!
Any Liberal Democrat looks at polls with a huge pinch of salt - ISTR Bob Worcester before the last three general elections predicting we’d be wiped out on some sort of uniform swing.
(Some pollsters never had any credibility anyway).
The Times stats are unrepresentative in that they only reflect a subset of this electorate. What they do represent is a consistent impression that Chris Huhne has gained great momentum in this campaign - something that Peter, Valerie et al your snipes can’t hide.
[37] We discussed Baxter’s shortcomings as a predictor yesterday IIRC. For one thing, at both the last two elections there has been “turn and churn” between Conservatives and Lib Dems (i.e. each has won seats off the other) and I can’t see why that won’t happen again next time, short of a 1997-type landslide for the Cameroonies, in which case the Lib Dems will take seats off Labour too. Particularly since they won’t waste their efforts on a Tory “decapitation” strategy again…
47 - I suspect Cameron’s “we’re all liberals now” tosh (I think Rik and Marcus have formally declared it to be pure cant) plays into the Lib Dems’ hands in held seats and hinders them in Tory held seats. Why vote for some random plonker in Torbay when you can have good ol’ Adrian Sanders, who’s basically all part of Cameron’s mushy middle anyway?
58. Yes, Chris Huhne has gained great momentum in this campaign. That doesn’t make him a great leader.
56 -
60% tax rate?
(i) the policy was 50% on earnings over £100k (ie, earnings below £100k are taxed at the lower marginal rates; every £1 earned ABOVE £100k is taxed at 50%)
(ii) If that isn’t an argument for introducing “life-skills” into schools, I don’t know what is [help - I’m turning into Jack W!!!]
56 - where do you get 60% from?
37 - This is 2006 not 2009 and how often does the principal opposition party go on to poll at the same or a higher level when the GE actually arrives. I’m old fashioned and believe that votes in ballot boxes count for more than snapshot opinion polls. Since the beginning of the year local election results have been pretty mixed for both the Tories and Lib Dems with Labour the main losers if anyone. Whether they win Dunfermline or not the Lib Dems seem on course for a pretty impressive result in light of current circumstances. The May elections will be the real test of how the parties are actually performing and will probably provide the usual mixture of messages.
60 But the big question in seats like Torbay is whether the true labour voters will support the lib dems to keep the tories out, or whether they simply won’t care enough to vote tactically…
59 - Have I sniped? I posted a link to Peter Black, no more!
I find the Huhne has Mo argument boring.
46 - Thanks Anthony for an intelligent explanation of why Baxter forecasts must be taken with a pinch of salt . Marcus should keep on exchanging Emails with Rik W complaining how it was dirty Lib Dem tactics and not the fault of their own campaigns that caused them to lose at the last GE .
Tell your friends not to worry Anna they may not be a high earners and then they’d have everything to gain….. And if they were perhaps they wouldn’t mind helping those less well off?
It’s a win-win situation!
60 - Is Adrian Sanders a top hotelier?
63 - it is typical Tory misrepresentation of Lib Dem policies. Look for more of it from them over the coming years.
Some clue about the client for the YouGov surveys might be drawn from the code they give them. Each survey has a three letter code followed by eight numbers. The three letters are generally quite descriptive of the client ; e.g. TEL = Telegraph, FIN = Financial Times, YGX = YouGov.
The three surveys commissioned during the LD leadership race which I’ve completed all have the code IBE. That’s the first time this has been used in the two years I’ve been a YouGov panelist. I can’t come up with an answer from this… over to you Sherlocks.
62/63 Sorry I never really bothered to read the lib dem manifesto with any care. I gave up on them entirely when they voted in favour of letting 16 year olds smoke dope, but decided that they couldn’t be trusted to buy goldfish at the pet store.
A 50% tax rate is still viewed with horror BTW.
59.”in which case the Lib Dems will take seats off Labour too. ”
ok, it could be likely, but it’s not a 100% assured thing. Big swings aren’t always followed by other big swings (ex Chesterfield, St Helen South, Birmingham Perry Bar)
“A 50% tax rate is still viewed with horror BTW.”
Interesting use of the passive.
Tabman. Lie down dear.
Baxter is not very accurate I agree; but it completely destroys the idea postulated by some of you Lib Dems that a drop in support on the scale that you have had is ‘no problem’.
If we win over 36% of the vote at the next election, whenever it is, I believe your seats in Westminster will be halved, unless your share of the popular vote goes UP.
Do you really believe you will get more than 22% of the vote at the next GE with Huhne, Hughes or Campbell in charge?
71 independant betting expert!
65 - Anna, I discussed the Torbay result with Ken Clarke on election night [:oops: namedrop, namedrop …
], who to my surprise happened to be sitting next to me at the count as that result was announced. We agreed that the reduction in the Lib Dem majority was almost entirely as a result of tactical unwind from Lib Dem to Labour (going against the trend os most other parts of the country, an possibly reflecting local issues re the council). The Tory vote numbers were pretty much unchanged from 2001.
72 - to be fair, I’m not a fan of the 50% rate and (without giving much away from the inside - you can pick up the currents from the newspapers) it’s pretty unlikely to be policy next time round. Combine this with Cameron’s rowing back from pretty much any tax cut and it would be pretty risky to strategise on the assumption that our tax policy is going to look significantly more “socialist” than yours.
65 - Yes (although Torbay is a bad example because many/most went back to Labour principally over the running of the council in 2005). A key law of politics is that true Labour people hate the Tories and true Tories hate Labour - and if you ask them in the right seat and convince them that the numbers stack up they will vote tactically. Policy positioning over PFIs, Asbos and whatever else doesn’t really matter a whole lot to tactical voting (although it matters greatly to overall levels of credibility/support).
68 Most of my friends who earn a *lot* of money already tithe + more to the church, as this is the way they are happy helping those less well off.
I have several friends who find the state playing Robin Hood quite offensive. They don’t need to be told/forced to contribute to society.
58 - You are probably confused. Another Peter posted this morning, not me.
72 - Anna - you’re allowed to stwitch off the direct feed to the CCO propaganda machine automated feed once in a while
If you believed everything that came out of party conferences you’d hanging and flogging asylum seekers whilst singing Rule Britannia in Union Flag boxers.
What an image …
82 Tabman - But I don’t wear boxers!!
79 - James, we’re getting our story straight at least
82 - Not sure the feed is working anyway - isn’t what Anna finds offensive precisely what Oliver Letwin has been proposing and Vince Cable has been retreating from? Anna - shall I pop a membership slip in the post?
82 - Anna, you can’t expect me to mind-read as well as be a shining wit (apologies to Rev. Spooner)!
79 Funny you should say that. I would consider myself to be a true Tory, but I would rather tactically vote Labour against lib dem than visa versa. Fortunately, in Surrey at any rate, I’m never put in that position!
72 And yet you will trust a leader of your own party who will not answer the question as to whether he has taken Class A drugs - a strange mentality !!
85 - James, some of this old software (Conwin ‘79) is a bit difficult to reprogramme
87 - is it only 100 years ago that Surrey was virtually a Tory-free zone … ?
86 Please don’t take offence Tabman… but you do realise I’m female don’t you? No mind reading necessary…
The bar chart has gone from http://www.chris2win.org now.
88 I don’t actually have a problem with the idea of legalising cannabis (I really don’t care I wouldn’t use it anyway), it was the goldfish policy that really upset me!
90 5 X my lifetime in fact
“I have several friends who find the state playing Robin Hood quite offensive. They don’t need to be told/forced to contribute to society”.
The trouble is that the church might decide that the A+E department at Rochdale Royal Infirmary isn’t the best place to put their funds. Sometimes the ’state’ have to make these choices.
Tabman You must have a special ‘winning here’ version of Baxter ‘cos when I put in 40, 32 and 18 for the LibDems it does indeed give a Tory majority of 4 but a LibDem representation of just 22 MPs. So you are right, FPTP is terrible.
On your own scenario, you are toast.
91 - yes I did realise; but given the variety of female undies and the potential effect of mentioning them on some of the male contributors, I played safe!
94 - agree; we do not live in the middle ages now.
94 However, the state does poke it’s nose into matters that have traditionallly been better served through voluntary and charitable endeavours.
93 - you should campaign within the Tory party about this, as an Animal Welfare Bill recently passed with Tory support which put much tighter control on pet ownership. The honourable member for Twickenham tells me it even banned giving goldfish as prizes at funfairs!
Straying somewhat off topic, I was interested in the earlier discussions about the likely outcome of the London borough elections in May - and the impact of current political events.
In the area I know best (South/Southwest London) my assessment would be:
Richmond - I had originally feared that the Liberals might return to power here, after a run of by-election victories. However I think that the recent leadership turmoil may be just sufficient to de-rail them. Local MPs Cable and Kramer are in different camps, which can’t make for a unified campaign on the ground.
Kingston - I think this should be a banker for the Conservatives, not so much because of the Kramer/Davey rift, but because the Libs are likely to set the highest council tax. I’m sure Kevin Davis and his team are well placed to take advantage.
Sutton - the Liberal majority is so large here that I can’t see there being a change of control. I suspect the Conservatives will pick up a couple of wards each side of the borough (the semi-rural Carshalton South + one of the Wallingtons on the one hand; Sutton South + any one of 3 others on the Sutton side). We will have to wait until 2010 for a change of control.
Merton - I think the Conservatives should win here, though it may be tighter than expected. I think Labour are toast in Wimbledon but they are a tougher prospect in Mitcham & Morden. Should turn blue, but fairly narrowly.
Croydon - Well, the Conservatives should win here, but much depends on the distribution of votes - simple plurality won’t be enough. From what I hear, we are at least targeting the right areas this time. I’m pretty optimistic - and this would be the highest profile scalp.
[80] Anna wrote: I have several friends who find the state playing Robin Hood quite offensive - in which case whether its 60%, 50% or 5% is irrelevant, if the objection is to State-based social welfare in principle. Your friends must regard George W Bush as a dangerous godless bolshevik - or perhaps they just take the good old Genevan view that God shows what he thinks of us in our bank accounts…
96.”given the variety of female undies ”
Tabman, are you an expert on the issue?
99 I know! It’s very depressing!
95 - B2W - nope, it did indeed give 22 seats for us when I did it. The point I was making, is that regardless of what happens to us, you are unlikely to make big inroads to the Labour vote and therefore unlikely to win. So whilst Rik, Marcus et al might be getting all in a lather about the prospect of reducing us to 3 seats, wiping us out doesn’t do your prospects of getting into government much good - our vote seems to be going disproportionately to Labour. Some of the smarter Tory posters here have realised that (take a bow Sean Fear).
100 - with respect I think there is some wishful thinking about Richmond and Kingston. The idea that pro-Campbell and pro-Huhne MPs won’t speak to or cooperate with one another is a bit much.
Someone with time on their hands could find a list of councils whose territory is covered by both a pro-Davis and a pro-Cameron Tory. I wouldn’t base our strategy on it though.
Houseman @ 100
Surprised you think Merton will be close - I’m betting (not literally - but would if I could find a market) on a Tory landslide
102 -
these days solely in the form of my knowledge of the contents of Mrs Tabman’s underwear drawer, some of which was purchased by me.
75 - If the figures were 36-22, ie. a drop in Lib Dem support it would represent a swing of just 2% to the Tories. It would help you pick-up 10-15 seats at most on a uniform swing but would be offset to some degree by Lib Dem gains from Labour on those figures. In any event the Lib Dems would not lose half their seats.
I really can’t see what the point of postulating what might happen in three years is at this stage. I used to think that we were bad when our poll ratings shot up after a byelection win but I think that because they are less used to it than we are the years of electoral drought have made some Tories even more excitable.
102 Andrea, I just don’t get it, you post nothing for 20 minutes and then as soon as female undies are mentioned…
100 - Rik Willis won’t be pleased with just 2 wards! Do you think it will be Cllr Willis come May?
110 - is that Sqn Ldr Cllr, or Cllr Sqn Ldr?
[107] Trust a Cambridge man to go through his wife’s kn*c*er collection… thank God some of us had a proper education
Note to Anna: fortunately for the tone of this conversation, I have to go out now - Hyde Park and a properly educated redhead await (ah, the joys of being a Unitarian :lol:)
109. Anna. sometimes I’ve something else to do other than posting here!
The fundamental problem with Baxter is the assumption that the Lib Dem vote will decline by the most where they are strongest and the least where they are weakest.
It makes no rational sense, but may make his number crunching easier.
What Baxter doesn’t tell us is how accurate his ‘predictions’ have been. If I recall he has consistently underestimated the number of Lib Dem seats which is hardly surprising when the logic of his assumptions is so bizarre.
101 Innocent, I think they’re mostly happy to pay something and have the state provide a “safety net.” It just comes down to the principle of why shouldn’t they decide which worthy causes they wish to support with the money they have earned.
I have one friend in particular who reagards abortion as infanticide and therefore really hates the fact that her taxes go towards that. I know that isn’t a reason to criminalise abortion (God forbid), but I can understand her point of view.
There was the story of the Vicar the Priest and the Rabbi after a shipwreck hanging onto a small raft discussing what they each do with their ‘collections’. The Vicar said we first pay the clergy then renovate the churches and what’s left over we send to Africa. The Priest said they pay also first pay the clergy then renovate the churches and what’s left they send to the Vatigan in Rome. The Rabbi said they put it all in a big sack and throw it up to God. What he doesn’t want he sends back and we keep.
And I don’t like my taxes going to faith schools. Funny old world.
104 - The point I was trying to make upthread, Tabman. Even if we were to collapse and the Tories pick-up 40 seats they would still need 100+ gains from Labour to win a majority.
113 Really?
114 - quite. This simply does not happen the way Baxter assumes. Our overall vote went up last time, but in many of these seats we already held (with a high share of the vote) it went down. We did quite well in “derelict” seats. These “derelict” seats are where we are most likely to fall back in.
Womble & Tabman - not sure, which ward is he standing in?
117 Quite, so why should you have to pay for them?
122 - quite, though you probably find yourself in lonely company if you oppose state funding for them…
106 - I think Labour are rather well dug-in, at least in parts of Merton. OTOH they have a pretty poor record on the council. There’s plenty for the Conservatives to campaign on.
Rather the opposite position to the Libs in Sutton, where the council’s record seems pretty good & there’s a lot less to latch on to. Don’t much rate their campaigning but there’s no groundswell of disatisfaction, unlike Merton, and their large existing majority means they should be comfortable.
123 I have no problem funding faith schools and have made donations to the nearest one at home. I think there are a lot of other causes that the state supports that could be ditched less controversially to make savings.
125 - you can’t be very happy with your party leader then.
126 I don’t think he has spelled out what he intends to do about government waste yet… I’ll wait for the policy review thanks!
“And I don’t like my money being spent on Nuclear Weapons / Tanks / Aeroplanes …”
Chris Huhne’s site has, to its credit, now taken down fake You Gov stats and replaced them with the Times survey.
94 - Roger, I favour Lib Dems, but I agree with Anna that if a Tory millionaire doesn’t want his or her money to end up to an A+E department, (s)he shoudn’t be forced to, or (s)he is exposed to coercion not different to that present in socialism. And if (s)he wants to benefit an A+E department, there are other charities than church through which (s)he can contribute. The point is, that in socialism this kind of choices are made by a central planning committee or such, in liberalism they should be made by the individual.
129 - Good judgement (taking down the wrong numbers).
118 - hello Dean, how’s life?
125. “I think there are a lot of other causes that the state supports that could be ditched less controversially to make savings”.
…..Nuclear weapons (unless of course the church are prepared to payfor them)and the armed services…..
So far we’ve ditched abortion clinics, nuclear weapons the armed services and faith schools. This is fun. Before you can say ’socialism’ your friends might be even richer! Maybe they could fund their own private army if they feel the need
Roger 68. Why should higher earners feel obliged to pay even more to help the “less well-off”? I’m not a high earner but I pay taxes, NI and VAT already - and pay corporation tax on profits of my company. 40% is about right and tallies with the likes of US, Ireland and Australia.
130 - And anyway, it is dangerous to think that the state can always make the best and right choices.
125. “I think there are a lot of other causes that the state supports that could be ditched less controversially to make savings.”
Finding these is actually Chris Huhne’s current job in the LD shadow treasury team, and - although the results haven’t been published yet - I suspect he’s doing a very good job. Another reason why I don’t want him to be moved from the shadow front bench to the leadership.
130 - there is a certain intellectual consistency to the “nightwatchman state”, but I don’t think any Lib Dem believes in it - nor anyone who would by modern standards be called “liberal”, much as the evolution of the term may annoy some.
We already go some (but not all) of the way you describe in that charitable contributions are tax deductable. I do think though that the state ought to secure all its citizens basic standards of decency, and that isn’t compatible with the possibility that there is no subsidy of health care for the poor if everyone else should decide they’d rather give their money to the local cats’ home.
132 - Alright thanks with the Tigers going so well. Did you make it to the Stade Francais game? Any odds on the treble? Been away from the site for a while. Just been exchanging emails with Peter who has been informing me about a Lib Dem forum you participate in along with a few of the others from this site.
The state may not always make the right choices (for the common good), but is much more likely to do so.
136 - absolutely; otherwise a lot of the poor will end up back in workhouses as “decent hard-working families” (God, that phrase makes my blood boil!) may choose to sponsor sick donkeys instead.
What i dont understand is why smart people (including senior Mingers but also those outside the Lib Dems) dont seem to appreciate that the campaigning skills that have taken Huhne from no hoper to favourite in a few weeks in the leadership elections would serve him well in a general election campaign too.
He is a very smart politician with sharp electoral antena.
140 - I think a lot of MPs etc jumped to support Ming assuming he would become leader, perhaps without a contest. Bit like David Davis for the Tories. Some hoped for nice front bench jobs; betcha some regret it now.
130 Ellen, that’s not liberalism, that’s anarcho-capitalism. Every single state expenditure, including the military, the police and the courts can be argued against on precisely the same basis. If you are an anarcho-capitalist, then fine, but that doesn’t put you in the mainstream of British Conservatism.
133 The argument for higher rates for higher earners is that a greater proportion of a higher earner’s income is disposable and the intent is to have an equal rate on disposable income. This justifies a modestly progressive income tax, but not a steep curve. If you want steep curve arguments, then you need to ask a socialist, who will tell you that you take from the rich because they have the money and the poor should decide how it’s spent, not the rich. And they’re wrong.
130. Another confused post by a Lib Dem who apparently does not see that her party is actually the most socialist in its proposed tax policies of any of the main three parties. Something the voters noticed in 2005, hence the generally good performance of the Lib Dems in depressed Labour-dominated areas and their poorer performance in the more prosperous parts of the UK.
I cannot get over how many of the (apparently) younger Lib Dem posters on this site seem to support a set of values quite at variance with those actually expressed in their party’s policies. If you seriously hold these values, there is no point in wasting your time in an opportunistic left-wing populist party.
140 I think there is a perception among many others that when four riders start and two fall off their horses, it is not hard to be in second place. But the real point is that Huhne, for all his merits, does not seem to be our best choice for leader. Ming has impresed me throughout the campaign.
137 - Tigers??? Boo, hiss!
Peter is taking me to teh Shed to see my beloved Bath kick some Glaws behind 
He’ll give you the gen on siging up to Apollo.
142, comment to 130. Whoops, obviously meant Liberalism, not Conservatism at end of last sentence.
Dundee Courier this morning. He will split the Conservative party next if he is not careful. Perhaps he is planning to join the Liberal Democrats!!!!
“CONSERVATIVE LEADER David Cameron was accused last night of an astonishing policy U-turn over the war in Iraq in a last ditch attempt to woo Liberal Democrat voters in Dunfermline and West Fife.
In an election leaflet he describes himself as a “liberal Conservative” and claims his party and the Liberal Democrats “agree” on Iraq.
“Issues that once divided Conservatives from Liberal Democrats are now issues where we both agree,” Mr Cameron says in the leaflet. “Our attitude to devolution and the localisation of power. Iraq. The environment. I’m a liberal Conservative.”
The Liberal Democrats opposed British involvement in the war in Iraq and have consistently demanded a firm timetable for the withdrawal of British troops.
Last spring in Perth deputy leader Sir Menzies Campbell called on Prime Minister Tony Blair to bring British soldiers home “by the end of the year.”
The Tories gave their wholehearted backing to the war against Saddam Hussein and the subsequent occupation of Iraq by British troops and have not demanded a timetable for withdrawing British troops.
SNP leader Alex Salmond accused Mr Cameron of “one of the biggest about-turns in military history.”
He said, “This is an astonishing U-turn from the Tory leader and I would now expect him to put his name to our motion of impeachment of the Prime Minister.
“Having backed Blair to the hilt on Iraq it seems Cameron is doing one of the biggest about-turns in military history.
“However, converts to sanity must always be welcomed.
“It is a pity Mr Cameron didn’t see the light somewhat sooner.”
He added, “This is quite extraordinary. The next thing you know they’ll be waving Saltires.
“I think the Liberal leadership contest should be suspended and (they) just accept David Cameron as their new leader.”
The Liberal Democrat by-election candidate Willie Rennie said, “The Conservatives are clearly clutching at straws in a vain attempt to save their deposit.
Tigers? - now there is a team to unite Barf fans and Shedheads!
136 “…the possibility that there is no subsidy of health care for the poor if everyone else should decide they’d rather give their money to the local cats’ home.”
If everyone truly would rather give their money to the local cats’ home, they would probably vote for MPs, who would vote for a budget that would direct all the tax money to the animal welfare instead of the health care. So in the situatiom you describe, the same result would emerge regardless to whether the money would be distributed throug the state authorities or through the charities.
143 - Clearly we should be looking to someone with deeply grounded and long held principles like David Cameron. Just look at his longstanding opposition to the Iraq war for instance.
134. I’m a higher earner but I like the state to take enough money off me that I don’t get the feeling that I live somewhere where ‘have’s’ and ‘have-nots’are too obvious. If you’ve spent any time in a third world country like Mexico you’ll realize how ugly it is to see beggars on one side of the street and huge houses with armed guards on the other.
We came close to a situation like that during Maggies slash and burn period in the 80’s. Westminster where I have a flat became ‘cardboard box city’. More people living in shop doorways than in houses and flats. As a resident I was bombarded with letters from Shirley Porters council that they had the second lowest rates in the country. That it was impossible to walk on the pavement without stepping over bodies didn’t seem to have registered. Some Spanish clients came with me from Soho to the Savoy on the Strand for dinner and they said they had never seen anything like this even in Spain’s darkest days.
143 For most Liberals economics is not their political priority. That’s why Liberal/LibDem policy seems so opportunist to Conservatives and Labourites, for whom their main priorities are economic.
Let me say as a LibDem, that if I could get PR-STV, real freedom of information, a proper internationalist foreign policy, the abolition of the royal prerogative, the restoration of the right to silence and of habeas corpus, the abolition of all the terrorist legislation, an elected House of Lords, scrapping ID cards and other such intrusions into civil liberties, etc. then I’d happily vote for a higher rate income tax of 25% or of 75%.
That’s not unprincipled, it’s just a completely different set of priorities than the other parties - and the reason why Mark Oaten’s “tough liberalism” provoked far more hostility within the party than any rumblings on economics ever will.
Labour and Conservative politicians, accustomed to economism, tend to look at the Lib Dems and wonder how we hold a party together when we disagree so much on economic questions. I can’t see how any member of LCER is in the same party as John Prescott.
142 - Richard, I know what anarcho-capitalism is and it seems that you don’t.
Anarcho-capitalism would not only make contributions to health care and other public services such as education voluntary (or at least allow you to choose to what kind of good causes your money is used to), it would also privatise the judicial system, police and army. I think I have not expressed a view which would support anytyhing such.
Please try to find out what a word means before using it to describe the thinking of other people.
LibDem 1 : The Tories are awful, silly policies and nasty to boot. Why can’t they wise up and smell the coffee. They will get nowhere without learning from their defeats.
LibDem 1 (some months later) : The Tories are not to be trusted. They change their policies at the drop of the hat. Totally inconsistent. They will get nowhere unless they stick to a clear policy like we do.
Tigers seem to be doing OK this year despite large parts of the their team giving their all for England (and one for Ireland).
What a wide ranging discussion from Liberalism to underwear and now rugby!
OT - the IG price on Ming is 55 (a bargain I think) but all LIB dem Markets say call so IG are perhaps nervous.
Re Dunfermline - I would expect the Labour vote to collapse, but not actually go anywhere - The party with the best organisation may hold on to most of their GE vote but surely the Labour vote cannot collapse enough to cause a sensational result, can it?
151. What a load of exaggerated, sentimental trash Roger.
153 - You did not make a distinction between public services and other forms of public expenditure. Indeed, that’s precisely the point I was (clearly failing to) make.
If the only forms of public expenditure you favour are “the judicial system, police and army”, then the proper characterisation is a minarchist, but I won’t describe you as such unless you confirm that you do hold that opinion.
148 - And it takes a hell of a lot to do that. I’ve braved the Shed a few times and we always found a lot of agreement with the Glawcs fans but that may have been back in the days when Barf used to win things (I’m now ducking my head Tabman) and they were the hate figures. One of my rugby mates is from Gloucester but I’m afraid he’s defected to the darkside or at least the red, white and scarlet.
145 - We’ll be seeing you for the Heineken Cup Q-F then Tabman?
It was Mrs. Thatcher’s insistence that charity should play a far greater role which put me off her when I was about 15/16. While I’m a natural sceptic about the state making the right choices/allocating funds in the most effective manner, I remember thinking that she was far too much of an idealist.
Fred. I imagine from your post that you were also a resident of Westminster during the 80’s?
158 - if its the Friday or Sunday I might make an appearance - I am in Bath on the Saturday/night.