How punters were misled over Brown’s poll ratings?
February 15th, 2006-
Another case of media sloppiness when reporting a survey
On Sunday morning the post-Dunfermline decline in the Gordon Brown betting price on succeeding Tony Blair was stopped and punters began betting on him again. This was prompted by widespread 
coverage of a YouGov poll in the Sunday Times that seemed to state that Labour would do better under the Chancellor than with Blair.
This was the critical section of the report: “On the eve of a speech by Brown on terrorism, a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times has found that Labour would be six percentage points ahead of David Cameron’s Tories, by a margin of 43% to 37%, if Brown was leader. Liberal Democrat supporters, in particular, favour the chancellor.”
-
But from the detailed data about the poll, now available, it is clear the the question of which party people would vote for if Brown was leader was not put.
The actual question was “If you had to choose between the two, which would you prefer to govern Britain? A Conservative government led by David Cameron: A Labour government led by Gordon Brown.” It was a straight Brown or Cameron choice with no option for respondents to indicate the Lib Dems or any other party.
-
The reason why, in the Sunday Times’s words, “Liberal Democrat supporters, in particular, favour the chancellor” was that those who filled in the survey were not offered the possibility of supporting their own party.
The last time that YouGov put the Brown-Cameron question in such terms the Chancellor was ahead 46-37 - so there has been a three point decline in his position.
From the new poll data Lib Dems split 57-22 for Brown. If the option of saying they could vote Lib Dem had been offered then, looking at the figures, it is probable that Brown would not have been ahead.
This latest case follows our report on Monday of how parts of the media misinterpreted the implication of the Lib Dem leadership questions in the same survey.
The problem we have is that when a poll comes out we are totally reliant on how the paper that commissioned it actually reports it. If things are presented wrongly then there is nothing we can do until the hard information from the pollster is made available.
COMMENTS ON THE SITE Can we turn the noise level down and stop insulting others who post here. PBC works because people of all allegiances feel able to come and discuss political betting and political outcomes. There are other places where you can abuse supporters of rival parties.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Journalists often grossly misinterpret all market research and social research: it is not just voting-intention polls. The level of understanding among the general public of these academic and commercial disciplines is superficial and wonky, you often read or hear things about market research that are just idiotic. Journalists must take a fair share of the blame for this widespread, even wilful, ignorance. And I don’t think that it is always because they are trying to build a good story out of weak material, but that they really, really are just a bit thick.
However, I’m sure it suits most politicians down to the ground, because they can get away with talking the most appalling guff about survey results and very few people can see through their smokescreen (present company excepted, of course).
I don’t understand why the pollsters don’t demand greater editorial poll over the way their polls are used. After all it is their reputation that suffers for the vast majority of people who don’t recognise when their poll is being misused. Populus was already suffering after the embarrassment of the GE, but the Tory leadership poll cannot have helped at all.
Over the course of the past 50-odd years, I have on occasion known the actual background to an incident or story that has appeared in the media. In every single instance, the newspapers have distorted what happened and misprepresented people’s actions and comments. Without exception, the media story has been at best inaccurate, at worst downright wrong. Whether this is due to laziness, incompetence, stupidity, political bias, malice or any permutation and combination of these traits, I can’t say. Humbert Wolf’s ditty from the 1930s - “You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, the British journalist. But seeing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occassion to” - would suggest this is not a new phenomenon.
MikeS… just caught up with this, seeing as I am on Far Eastern time.
Re your remarks on Comments. A couple of points.
I think it behoves us all to stay within the bounds of decency, and I think most people do that - indeed nearly everyone. However I’d hate to think I was no longer allowed to say that Labour MPs reminded me of a ‘Pee Wee Herman Convention’ in their geekiness and the length of their trousers. I regard that as being within the traditional arena of British polemic, and as such a necessary party of a healthy body politic: satire is one of the only ways the powerless - the people - can censure and rebuke the powerful - the politicians. We need more of it, not less.
Moreover, it should also be remembered that this government is doing and had recently done some extremely contentious things - there is bound to be highly charged atmosphere on a political website. Especially when professional members of that government are present on the forum, and they are giving their own tendentious spin on things.
But that, as I have already said, does not excuse personal abuse. Probably all of us have been guilty of a certain amount of this from time to time.. but I note that it is those on the left who dish out the worst of the bile (’racist’, ‘nasty’, ‘bigot’) while they simultaneously seem to be the most sensitive to any criticism of themselves. But that could be my own biassed viewpoint, natch…
I do enjoy the website, though. Ta!
Perhaps I should have noted that a number of papers do get things right. When the FT use MORI there is usually a commentary by the firm’s head, Bob Worcester. The Telegraph have for years used used the political scientist Professor Anthony King to handle the details of their polls while John Curtice of Strathclyde University is always popping up in the Indy.
The Guardian also do well with the comments and reporting of their monthly ICM polls. My only irritation is that the paper assumes that this, and only this, is the poll that matters.
Suddenly it seems that nothing from YouGov can be taken at face value.
more worrying for Cameron is that the Sunday Times was once spinning for the Conservatives….remember the Kinnock smear about his alleged close relations with Moscow during the cold war…..still it seems the Murdoch press are not willing to jump out of the new labour bed….but there’s time yet…hopefully.
4 seanT wrt name-calling, apologies to you for the bigot bit Sunday, I agree with Mike that the heat has to be turned down. We are all adults here (I think) and even though some of the statements made are patently ridiculous to others, we should be able to subject them to criticism without this site turning into a playground. There are enough sites around full of anger and bile - pb.c is better than that. And The Professor in post 158 yesterday shows this to be true.
6 Peter Pigeon Another totally unpartisan comment, I see.
8 Should I have used ironic font?
Tim, apology accepted - shalom!
Re. Mike’s point; were there not some similar binary choices given to poll respondents during the GE campaign, i.e. ‘If you had to choose between Labour led by Blair and the Conservative led by Howard’? I seem to recall the gap was bigger than in this YouGov poll though I may be wrong.
Fred - yep. YouGov asked comparable questions to the Brown/Cameron question for Blair/Howard in the run up to the General Election. Details are in the Telegraph trackers here -
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL050101014_3.pdf
In YouGov’s final pre-election poll, asked to chose between a Labour government led by Tony Blair or a Conservative government led by Michael Howard the figures were:
Blair/Labour 52%
Howard/Conservative 35%
Don’t Know 12%
Blair/Labour lead - 17 points
12. As I suspected…so a 5.5% ’swing’ here…with a large rise in don’t knows.
I haven’t been on for a few days have things been getting nasty?
Everyone looking forward to Billy suggesting that now there’s a joint premiership maybe Gordon should do PMQs once a fortnight?
Well, well, well. Very interesting.
The wheels haven’t fallen off the Cameron Bandwagon after all!
Wasn’t the poll reported as part of a “Brown takes over” piece in the Sunday Times? If so, then I guess that explains the failure to go into detail, rather than signifying a shift in the paper’s stance towards Brown.
14 - yes, very much looking fwd to PMs’Qs today. Although I think we might see a restrained Hague, as a barnstorming performance today might lead to some awkward comparisons with last week’s little blip in some sections of the media.
The really interesting issue here seems to be to be the editorial backing from Rupert Murdochs press for Brown.
It seems to me that having toyed with the idea of changing sides and backing the Tories post Blair all the Murdoch titles have started to shore up support for Gordon Brown, especially since Murdochs interview with the BBC last month.
As is often the case I guess that editors are second-guessing the boss’ preference but it is possible he has specifically instructed support for Brown.
Either way the Sunday Times story was a blatant set-up.
4. As an occasional Lab contributor to this forum I quite enjoy SeanT’s outrageously partisan offerings. I do feel this site is a less enjoyable place to visit than it once was - not because of the level of personal abuse - which is not particulary excessive, especially when compared with other sites. But it has become too much of a Tory clique - and I’ve noticed that increasingly there is very little serious reflection upon opposing views. What increasingly happens instead is that the Tory boot-boys move onto the attack when ever any dissenting voice expresses itself. I’ll give it a little more time - and hope things improve.
I’ll do the name calling over on my own site.
As a huge fan of PB.C (Why didn’t I think of it I ask myself frequently) because it is hugely useful to us political punters. Sometimes I do find the off-topic comments useful, but often it is just yah-boo ner-ner-na-ner-nah pixel wasting crap.
Start your own blog! Get it off your chest is my suggestion. Really, it will be cathartic. [No Oaten jokes please].
18 - I disagree, I think it’s a fairly balanced debate between Lib Dems and Tories. Of course we could do with a few socialists and Labour party supporters to balance it out fully.
Murdoch won’t switch his backing to Cameron until nearer the election - he doesn’t need the regulatory risk of antagonising the government. Even then, only if Cameron has a decent chance of winning. No profit in backing losers…
But note he has started to hire ex-Tory spin merchants to handle his public affairs, clearly he is hedging.
The Sun moving to neutral will be the first sign, that may require the removal of Red Rebekah Wade. Saw some research showing that The Sun readership’s political profile is moving away from Labour and has returned to having a Tory majority. That is an interesting sign.
“a few socialists and Labour party supporters” yep both of those would enhance debate, but where will you get any socialists from.
I am old enough to remember marking canvas cards as L, C or S (the S was for Labour - Socialist)
18 - has he not met the Lib Dem “boot boys”?
20/23. Over the last few days even Libs have been thin on the ground. It’s increasingly Tories talking to themselves - and I’m not interested in listening to that.
Can someone explain how YouGov weight according to Newspaper readership?
If you look at the penultimate page of that report it shows weighted figures of
Express/Mail 260
Sun/Star 356
Mirror/Record 257
Guardian/Independent 64
FT/Times/Telegraph 154
Taking the most recent abc circulation figures (in thousands) for these papers in the UK give
Express/Mail 3104
Sun/Star 3879
Mirror/Record 2057
Guardian/Independent 571
FT/Times/Telegraph 1669
which means the following YouGov weightees per hundred thousand circulation
Express/Mail 8.3
Sun/Star 9.2
Mirror/Record 12.4
Guardian/Independent 11.2
FT/Times/Telegraph 9.2
Am I missing something or are they over correcting towards Left leaning newspapers and under representing Mail readers?
Darth Murdoch loathes social liberalism above all, and what Cameron is trying to do with the Tory party in this respect really irks him. He will dangle his continuing support for NuLab as a carrot to get Cameron to toughen up his rhetoric before he switches sides. He will almost certainly succeed too, because the power of the dark side will be too much for Tory hierachy to resist. It cant be underestimated how insideous Murdoch’s effect on British politics is.
I would have said that in recent weeks it has become something of a LD clique. As Mike has pointed out, the composition of this site’s readership will naturall ebb and flow with the contemporary agenda - Tories during their leadership contest, Lib Dems during theirs. The only group slightly under-represented is Labour, but as the party of incumbent government you are never going to get floods of support on sites such as this. I haven’t read much of the last couple of days admittedly, so sorry if I am completely out of line on this, but I don’t think anything at all has been overboard recently and I don’t think anything should change!
That’s why I am a Tory.
WRT comments. As an avid reader of, rather than contributor to, the comments on this site may I suggest that some of the ‘regulars’ seek a different forum for the inane post-prandial badinage that is meaningless to everyone else? Some of the threads of paltry conversation go on for miles and miles and make the reasoned discussions harder to follow.
ABK2008 - it’s weighted by readership figures from the NRS, not circulation figures.
PS Any betting markets on when Darth Murdoch will succeed in turning Anakin Cameronwalker?
RE Murdoch. I read on somewhere (on the web) yesterday Rupert Murdoch described as a ‘born again Christain’; does anyone know if this is true?
… Or Christian even.
I think yesterday was an emotive day, with regard to the ID card bill, a subject many people such as myself feel VERY strongly about.
I don’t expect the rather pointed remarks expressed yesterday to become a permanent feature of the site.
I don’t think there is a tory clique, we’ve had weeks of Lib Dem postings on the leadership election and associated scandals and given the difficulties and growing unpopularity of labour’s policies it isn’t surprising there aren’t many defenders, with the notable exception of Nick Palmer.
As there seems to be a widespread desire for the site to turn to weightier matters, this link may interest liberals of all persuasions and constitutional conservatives like myself - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2040625,00.html
Unemployment up 108,000, Oct-Dec, ouch.
What increasingly happens instead is that the Tory boot-boys move onto the attack…
There you go again. You continually look for a fight (and your opponents are nearly always “boot-boys” or “bigots” or whatever) and yet wail like a babby when you get a return hit.
I’ll give it a little more time - and hope things improve.
And you’ll do what exactly? Close the site down?
Just go and re-read Mike’s request about Comments, and try to be a little more constructive in future.
…and I haven’t noticed a decent recipe on here for a while - where is Jack W?
Does anyone know if there is a list of provisional figures for the new constituencies. I read Anthony’s report which is excellent but couldn’t see any figures for the less interesting constituencies. Of course if I were less lazy I could it myself.
31 None of the biographies seem to mention anything about his faith. I did however find a website portraying him alongside fundamentalists and evangelicals. Don’t know if they are really saying he is Cn though.
http://www.americanfundamentalists.com/cast.html
34 - I am indeed surprised that more hasn’t been made of this - and I guess that it shows just how far this government has gone down the authoritarian road… Scary.
38 Try http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/ new boundaries page.
31. 39. I found the story again, it’s in American business magazine because Fox and Sky are becoming heavily involved in porn.
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/02/12/rupert_murdochs_pornography_profiteering.php - 58k - 13
41. But Baxter’s methodology is different (and greatly inferior) to Anthony’s so the results are quite different in some cases.
41 - Although I’m unconvinced about the way electoral calculus do there maths - from a brief overview it appears that they assume all seats are homogenous and make no political breakdown by ward assumptions - leading to Chippenham having almost the same majority as Chelsea and Fulham
(Not that I could have done better at all, just highlights how much work Anthony did…)
42 It seemed to come as surprise to some of the posters on that site that he was born-again!
It’s actually quite entertaining to read down the comments (which rapidly become a not-wholly-good-natured slanging match) makes you appreciate how mild much of the ribbing on this site is!
43/44 Point taken. I think EC gives a good overview for the curious, but if you are proposing to spread bet on seats for the next GE, Anthony’s is the best summary I know of…
You are up early today Anna!
[34] More details on the proposals here:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/documents/bill/ria.pdf
I think you might be even more worried, Fred, when you read it…
45 WOW! I didn’t read the comments section before. Americans sure know how to dish it out don’t they?
47 Have a tute to go to
C U later…
Thanks for the helpful note, Mike. sean’s response fairly illustrates the issue, I think. He says:
“However I’d hate to think I was no longer allowed to say that Labour MPs reminded me of a ‘Pee Wee Herman Convention’ in their geekiness and the length of their trousers. I regard that as being within the traditional arena of British polemic…”
It seems to me to be meaningless, juvenile and unpleasant abuse, but that’s not the problem. I don’t at all think that sean shouldn’t be allowed to say it, or even that he shouldn’t be allowed to say it *here*. But as Guy Fawkes says, it would be helpful if this sort of thing was mostly on people’s own blogs, since otherwise contributing to the site ceases to be a pleasure. It is legal to interrupt a seminar by shouting YOU BIG FAT FOOL at the speaker, but if this happens at every seminar people get fed up and it becomes harder to get anyone serious to take part.
49 I think my favourite is the “Have I told you how much I love the ignore button? One click and no more trolls” comment… Scathing!!
Read a newspaper on a story you know about. The news reporting is normally adequate.
Now read a story where there is some analysis required (eg opinion polls), and you again know more than the reporters. You are appalled at the low standard of their offering .
You are perfectly entitled to be appalled. But I can’t see how you can possibly claim to be ’surprised’.
53 - If that was aimed at my 40, my surprise is not at the newspapers, but at the Liberal and Conservative MP’s who havn’t been jumping up and down shouting loudly in objection. Understand that my post as written could be confusing though…
Another thing that could explain the lack of Labour representation here and on other simular sites is that it seems to be the Conservatives and Lib Dems as parties who have more of an internet presence, and are more “Internet aware”. Take for example the party websites; the Labour one is crap, while the Conservative and Lib Dems are quite substantial. Also there are more Conservative and Lib Dem supporters blogs. I put this down to the opposition and its supporters using every method of communication to get there message out, such is the dominance that Labour has over the mainstream media.
As an addendum to above, once Labour have to sit on the other side of the House again, it is more than likely they will have plenty of people wanting to use the internet in the same way as the Tories and Lib Dems do now.
48. Thanks Innocent.Yes it is very worrying, though not I fear surprising. Vaguely reminiscent of Hitler’s enabling law of 1933, although I’m sure Nick P wouldn’t like this comparison.
18. I’ve never been called a ‘boot-boy’ before. Could you explain please? Aren’t they the young lads who shine your shoes outside railway stations and department stores?
22. We still use S for socialist on canvess returns when we come across a labour voter.
57. I too have never been called a boot boy. Another day, another insult
The moving tale of a pb.com newcomer
59. Very good.
Regarding the lack of government supporters here, given that they only got 20% of the available votes in 2005 what can you expect?
Recently politics has been rushing headlong into various attacks on civil liberties, this is politics at its most personal. I suppose, as these policies are introduced that people will respond to these as the personal attacks that they appear to be.
On the subject of the thread, the one thing that this does show is that lib dems should not even think about shifting further to the right, if they do they will leak support to Brown and become little more than a rump party, similar to that post war. The lib dem contest is so important in shaping the future of this country’s government, in my opinion if they allow for near perpetual labour government they will not be forgiven.
Choose wisely. Choose very wisely.
59 - one of the reviewers is Alan Simpson.
61 - ukpaul, all three contenders are absolutely committed to opposing Labour’s illiberal measures.
63 - hence, your “shifting to the righ” point is irrellevent. There is no reason why the Lib Dems could not pursue a more liberal economic agenda; it has nothing to do with the civil liberties agenda.
Rupert Murdoch certainly Roman Catholic and was made a Papal Knight(some time before his divorce and re-marriage).
His social conservatism has become more obvious in his old age. And with his becoming an insider, an established-media player looking to protect the rent he extracts from his various media properties.
*was* RC. (Can we have a crib-sheet for the working tags, please?)
48. Dear me, I think Fred’s concerns are illusory. I trust Tony Blair implicitly. Has he ever been wrong? I think that it’s a jolly good idea to go about circumventing Parliamentary debate, and about time too. After all, there are so many areas nowadays where our Government needs to take very firm action, and who needs those pathological rebels anyway? They’re all ne-er do wells who’ve never done an honest day’s work in their life. All they do is moan about law after law, regulation after regulation. Haven’t we all had enough of that?
Our Government realises, very wisely, that speed is of the essence. Parliament, good though it’s been, just doesn’t seem to match up, and that is a very, very sad state of affairs. But action must be taken! These are dangerous times! We’re in a war, men! We can’t have protesters waving banner and placards when there’s a war on! If the Government isn’t given the powers to lock up protesters and terrorists for 90 days at the very minimum, then I and a lot of others will want to know the reason why.
The only trouble is that Blair’s star has been on the wane lately. I can’t for the life of me imagine why, but there it is. Very sad. Some people nowadays just don’t know what’s good for them. Anyway, enough of that, because there’s some good news. Gordon Brown, appears to want to carry through the people-friendly agenda that we’ve all come to appreciate. Now Brown is a very popular man, and rightly so, but just you listen, because I have a feeling in my bones that that nice young David Milliband should be given a go. I saw him on TV once and recognised something straightaway. That young man has so much charisma that it would be hard to see anyone voting against him! Now how about that! 100% of the vote for Labour, and then they we could then dispense with all that Parliamentary nonsense for once and for all. Milliband could be Prime Minister for life!
63 - Except where they support Labour’s illiberal smoking ban
63 - Choose an ineffective leader and one who does not exude the warmth that will make Brown look the technocrat that he is and there will be problems.
Campbell would be effective for a while but Hughes is the person who I feel would be most effective in this, I’m afraid that Huhne is a disaster waiting to happen. Given that Hughes may well lose some votes to the tories that makes Campbell the logical choice although I think you’ve missed the boat if you don’t choose someone who will attack labour first and foremost.
[65] Please can someone explain to me the difference between income from rent and income from profit? Isn’t it a bone of contention among economists?
Just to conclude the ‘abuse’ exchange (from my side) on a conciliatory note - really all I’m asking is that seanT and friends keep their rants about the iniquities of people they disagree with reasonably infrequent, so we can concentrate on the main purpose of the site. As Andrea says, I can always skip them, though this carries the risk that I’m challenged to answer something and don’t see it.
Speaking of which, john has asked me about the cost of the Iraq war, and I believe I’ve already responded, but here’s what I recall saying. It’s difficult to assess it realistically, since according to inclination one can include or exclude costs such as fuel for aircraft (which would otherwis have been used in training, but perhaps less?) or the cost of mainitaining units (on the theory that without Iraq we could have reduced the size of the army further). I don’t know the official current estimate, but if you write through your MP (s)he will get it for you. The Stop the War Campaign will also give you their view, which I suspect will be significantly higher.
Tabman - Ragarding civil liberties, you’ve been joined in that battle by Cameron’s cinservatives so it looks like it won’t be the USP that it was last time. Obviously that has to be challenged but dont take your eye off the ball by allowing your perceived position as to the left of labour (you may not agree but that’s the way it seemed) to disappear, allowing Brown to colonise this area.
67. Milliband has no soul! Ive seen rocks with more charisma! You Sir are either delusional or a wind up!
These measures aren’t Labour’s they are the Government’s (which is the Civil Service) - Labour has been too long in power.
The massive expenditure on “consultants” and the waste of money on IT projects are other symptoms.
Seeing as I suggested that lib dems should be aware on positioning a little balance by warning tories of the same!
Cameron has made a good call by emphasising social liberalism, if he so much as thinks about pleasing the socially conservative reptile that is Murdoch then watch yoursleves go back to that 30-33% band. If you’re looking for a clause 4 moment, take on Murdoch. It could be bloody but good for the country, and it would definitely enhance the standing of your party an d prove that it has changed.
(and while you’re at it do something about that new labour stooge Rebekah Wade)
67,73. I think 67 is a wind up.
43/44 - Having looked at it, Martin Baxter’s boundary analysis is clearly nonsense and some of the predictions are way, way off-beam.
Taking the area I know well, he has assumed that the wards moving from Bristol West to Bristol North West have the same (for example) Labour representation as the rest of the constituency. In fact, being the leafy suburbs, they have a Labour vote of around 10%, compared to 35% in the remainder. This will massively inflate the Labour share in the new Bristol North West.
This is the problem with Baxter all over - too much broad brush to say anything really meaningful. On the other hand, the analysis of the composition of the new seats is however helpful and something I’ve not seen elsewhere.
Great joke by Hague there.
78 -Superb!
Blair sounds very excitable. Unnerved already.
76 Ditto
I thought 67 was the Professor at first.
Why isn’t PMQs on my telly?
Has Blair lost it? He seems to be getting rather worked up…
82. Watching people ski is obviously more important than a the Prime Minister debating terrosism.
BBC2 are playing it from the start now.
Just sold some more Blair … he’s on the way out sooner rather than later.
67. Is certainly a wind up, and an excellent one too. A worthy successor to The Professor..or possibly his alter ego.
77. Yes the good bit about Baxter is the comprehensive info. on which wards and parts of wards are on the move, although there are a couple of mistakes I’ve noticed.
Nick P. there has been a notable lack of ranting today (perhaps connected with Roger’s absence?), but lots of sanctimonious condemnation of it. Perhaps we could give both a rest.
Why is Jack W not here to big St Tony up today?
What on earth is wrong with Blair today? He is clearly releasing loosening his tenuous grip on reality…talk about a hissy fit.
Ming is getting better each time! I liked the Gordon Brown comment. Missed Hague, will have to watch him when the beeb put it on their website.
90 - Yes, I thought Ming came across well too.
‘The elderly toff opposite’… oh dear!
NickP, the important thing to remember, and the thing you seem to forget - is that you are the guys in power. You are the Establishment. You rule, literally.
Therefore, given that you are the ones taking decisions, changing the country, taking huge liberties, you are bound to come in for serious criticism. And so it should be: as we are the people who have to put up with it, we are expressing our dissent. And, furthermore, because you, new Labour, have made some very controversial decisions in the last few years - Iraq, 90 days, ID cards, top-up fees, etc etc - that dissent is getting increasingly vituperative.
Play a mind game, if you don’t see what I mean. Imagine pb.com was around in the dying days of Thatcher, or through the Major era. I think most of the commenters then would have been angry people from the left, people who really hated Maggie and the Tories. I doubt there would have been many Tory commenters - either because most of them were ashamed of their own party by then, or because they were actually in government and too busy. Either way it’s always the opposition that is motivated and angry, by definition.
You see? That’s the situation we have now. Because of Iraq, ID cards, etc, your government is loathed and reviled by many people, just as the Tories were. I know that’s difficult for NuLabur to believe, that they could be perceived as morally equivalent to the Tories in their dog-days, but it’s a fact. Your remaining supporters are lukewarm in their praise (’well, they’re still better than the other lot’), your opponents are outraged and angry.
Deal with it. It’s the price of power.
However I do take on board your remarks on keeping the polemics to a reasonable minimum, for the sake of overall discourse - you’re right, we don’t want a basic slanging match. I hereby swear to compare you and your colleagues to Pee Wee Herman lookalikes and bizarrely dandruffed geeks no more than.. ooh… once a week. Peace be upon you!
92. That was a bit uncalled for. The class war continues on the labour backbenches. Very amusing how the brush off the by election defeat.
Can someone just clear something up for me re. the smoking ban. Whan they talked about private members clubs did that include Working Men’s Clubs/Unionist clubs/Labour clubs/ British Legion clubs etc or was it more like the New Club, Whites, etc.
Re PMQs - I loved Hague’s quip that it was the first time in history all three parties had been represented by a stand-in for the real leader.
94 - It certainly is. Blair looked frazzled and sounded rather chippy in his last reply to Blair. Definitely not a good week!
95 - I think it would have included all of those.
How did Ming do today?
97 - are you implying Blair is talking to himself?
99 - Quite well, I thought. Got in a good shot at Brown over the D&WF byelection, and goaded Blair about it at the same time. Nicely done.
[93] Blimey - I pretty much agree with all of that… must get some new pills from the doctor, or something
All I would want to add is that I think what did for the Tories after 1992 (a fourth term, of course, for better or worse) was not so much anger, let alone hatred, as pity. Opposition parties’ supporters cannot incite or excite pity- they just have to exercise patience.
ukpaul @ 75 I think that the idea of the Tories taking on Murdoch as their “Clause 4 Moment” has a lot going for it.
92 - what was that comment about?
97 -
- though clearly he’s about the only one he listens to, I have no knowledge that this complex has advanced to the talking stage yet. 
I meant ‘in his last reply to Hague’.
105 - that’s conviction politicians for you, Alastair
104. Ming. It was from a Glasgow labour MP. Someone called him baldie after he said it.
105 - Grrrr. Obviously 105 referred to Tabman at 100! God forbid that I should start talking to myself as well!
104 - Some Labour backbench non-entity uttered it in response to Ming’s goading of Blair over the D&FW byelection.
107 - good to see Labour cementing their appeal to Middle Britain.
107 - Ming was born in a tenement, too
105 - Conviction politicians. Who brought the BNP in to this?
Oh, you mean politicians with political convictions, not criminal ones
Hague was good, but I thought Blair was good too.
I thought it was an excellent PMQs.
I hear Simon Hughes got to ask a question again. Did he fare any better this time?
Did anyone think Hague is better than Cameron?
93. Stay with it Sean and keep dishing it out. There’s no need to apologise for anything. This government is becoming an authoritarian obscenity. Maintain the pressure and ID cards will finish off Blair and Brown together.
115. Hague is probably the best in the whole house.
I’m not so sure about Hague, good constituency MP but some NOTW views are simply a bit too “Tebbit” for my liking which will mean he looks out of touch. Still a great orator….
Max at 95: yes, all clubs are included - basically any enclosed public premises. The defeated amendment proposed to introduce an exemption for private clubs of both kinds.
Hague was very enjoyable, as he nearly always is, though in my opinion he was on a sticky wicket - some Tory voters will be less than keen about it being legal to glorify terrorism. Ming was OK too - he’s a bit dry at times, but more focused on mainstream issues than CK used to be. The question that mentioned him (I agree with woody that it was uncalled for) was from Ian Davidson, who was actually having a go at the Government for not being sufficiently left-wing.
One thing that did strike me during PMQs was the open hostility Labour MPs were showing the LibDems after the Dunfermline debacle. This does not bode well for the anti-Conservative tactical voting and tacit arrangements which so reduced the Conservative majority in 1992 and greatly exacerbated the loss of seats in 1997. I could see the Conservatives doing rather better in terms of seats than the vote share might suggest at the next election.
I always wonder when I see Hague described as a good orator whether people understand the word in the same way that I do. He’s great at the jokes at PMQs but I could never imagine him delivering a rousing speech. It was hard to take him seriously when he was going on about Britain becoming a “foreign land” and charging up and down the country crying “x days to save the pound”.
119: ‘yes, all clubs are included’
What about the bars in the Houses of Parliament?
122 HOC bars excluded from the smoking ban - naturally. Do as I say, not as I do.
121. I think Hague has always lacked the ‘gravitas’ to be a great orator rather than just a very good debater. He has the intelligence and rhetorical skills but there is something missing in terms of his personality. A pity.
120 - I expect there may well be a squeeze going the other way in some areas - LD in the urban areas, Con in the Midlands.
122 - No surprise there.
119 - A group of smokers can join together , buy premises , form a smoking club , employ only smokers and allow only smokers as members and this would be against Nulab law . A totally illiberal policy which would be open to challenge as an infringement of their human rights .
124 I think you can see him “giving a good speech” (rather like Simon Hughes on our side). But I have sneaking regard for Hague. And he doesn’t say “I love it, I love it”
122: ‘HOC bars excluded from the smoking ban - naturally. Do as I say, not as I do.’
If that’s true it’s outrageous. How can the arguments for banning smoking in a private members club possibly not apply to bars in the House of Commons?
129 Because it is a Royal Palace presumably. But I can’t believe they will ignore the vote.
122/129 I think I heard somewhere that the Houses of Parliament are classified as a ‘Royal Palace’ and are therefore exempt. However this may just be a wind-up.
It’s not a wind up, they are excluded from all current licencing laws and will be exluded from the smoking ban.
When there was strict opening hours Westminster was one of the few places in London where you could drink to the early hours.
I have a feeling that they are subsidised, too…
No it is true Mike.
127, Why NuLab law? As far as I can see a large majority of Lib Dems and quite a few Conservatives voted for a total ban as well.
120 - Yes how dare those upstart LibDems start taking Labour seats. TB came over all peevish about this back in May after he’d lost Cambridge, Bristol West, Rochdale, Leeds NW etc. etc. Given the next election could be like 1997 in reverse could we see some fairly serious anti Labour tactical voting in some areas? Bring on those bar charts……
119 - Thanks very much Nick. I thought that would be the case but wasn’t entirely sure. As much as I dislike the ban I imagine that javing one place in a small town or village that allowed smoking would have had a pretty damaging affect on all the other pubs in the area.
122 - Suddenly a career as an MP sounds a lot more appealing!
127 - That does sound like paradise Mark but I’m pretty sure you can’t specify ’smoker’ in a job description!
135 - Andy C, he shouldn’t have done; after all, most of those seats were really Tory seats and just “on loan”
Besides - if you go back far enough, Labour has a whole bunch of Liberal seats that we’re waiting to take back
(I’m readiing a book on 1906 at the moment)
Fergus at 20. It is nothing new, it always happens after Labour lose to the Lib Dems, the atmosphere gets very hot, you have obviously have not been in Liverpool over the last 20 years, look at the reaction to losing Withington. BUT,and this is something a lot of conservative sympathising posters on this site do not appear to get, is that the average Labour voter is different to the average Labour activist, and still sees things very much from the anti conservative point of view, and votes as such.
108 - Alastair, would you fancy writing a short piece on Ming’s performance and we’ll “guest” you on the blog?
119. ” some Tory voters will be less than keen about it being legal to glorify terrorism.” I am confused by this comment. Are you implying that if this bill fails to be passed in the commons then it is perfectly legal to glorify terrorism on the streets of Britain and that it always has been?
If we can use existing laws to arrest an elderly man shouting “nonsense” at a labour conference and a women reciting the names of soldiers who died in Iraq but are unable to arrest people bearing inflammatory placards then something is seriously wrong with the interpretation of various existing laws.
127/136 If you’re desperate to get round the smoking ban, I’m sure you could declare yourselves to be a sect of Rastafarianism, who smoke tobacco for religious purposes…
136 & 127, Actually, Max, in today’s Tomes (page 12, Hugo Rifkind) there is a diary piece about an organisation which is making it clear to applicants that the role is in a “smoking” office. The organisation doing the recruiting is UKIP.
137 Tabman… Do you reckon you’ll get those seats back in your lifetime?
142 “Tomes” should be “Times”, but I have not made up anything else!
143 - Anna - stranger things have happened …
141 - Mrs Cameron did that, didn’t she? Apologies - she’s a Trustafarian.
Quite why people thought MC was good I don’t know. Listening on the radio it came across as a bit back lustre. No passion or animation cf Blair and Hague.
145 Such as?
[119] If Nick Palmer is right on the definition, and in particular on “enclosed public premises” (and he was there, the rest of us weren’t :D) it is very similar to the law in California which has led to roofs being removed etc (admittedly in a better climate) - as ever, there will be opportunities for lawyers. Presumably Parliament has just voted to transfer profits and value to pubs with gardens!
Are churches now banned from burning incense?
145 - go and read up on the elections between c1920 and c1935. (or else talk to Sean Fear). Alternatively, go and look at the results in Canada in 1993. Or the results of the 1983 GE here.
FPTP can do very, very strange things to political parties. Especially when there are significant 3rd and regionally-based party blocs.
Are pubs also banned from having open, natural wood fires… ?
Hague - excellent first joke, then stayed on serious political issues and avoided being dragged into party point scoring by Blair. Always good with the soundbit and strongly supported by Tory benches. Good choice of subject and always nice to see a pop at Prescott (although Blair’s resposte was good)
Blair - he is a class act, but he was rather like the A grade pupil who got a B today. His hissy fit did him no good and and constant reliance on party points and sweeping generalisations do him down. However he does have the gift of getting out of awkward spots!
Sir Ming - A blown first chance, the point about the D&WF by-election was good (welcoming new members etc) but it went on too long and he was heckled and it missed its goal. However the thrust of his two questions was good.
Overall, Hague 5, Blair 4, Campbell 3 (out of 5)
134 Agreed that it is a shame that Lib Dem MP’s betrayed s fundamental tenet of their party’s constitution in voting for such an illiberal law .
136 Cannot see that a job description specifying smokers only would be against any current law indeed there have been cases where some jobs have been advertised as non-smokers only . You are also correct that having one pub or club in a town or village in which smoking was allowed would be packed and the others would be losing money .
“115. Hague is probably the best in the whole house.”
I’ve not seen him today, but I don’t usually find him better than, uhm, Patricia Hewitt or Theresa May!
151 - and as Bullseye is fond of pointing out, in 2005 the Tories and Labour got
[149] Stephen Pound MP got there before - this is lifted from The Times website:
Mr Pound said that he had gone on an “investigative” trip to bars in smoke-free Dublin.
“What an extraordinary sight greeted me when I visited a number of pubs.” Mr Pound had found the pavements outside covered with patio-heaters and armchairs. “Anybody who wanted to go into the admittedly smoke-free pub had to fight their way through a tangible fug of nicotine-soaked air,” he cried, arms flapping like a dodo. “Which makes something of a nonsense of it!” He interrupted himself to announce that he had an investment tip. “Buy patio-heater shares NOW!”
156 Oh dear… I touched a nerve there didn’t I?
What do people think of reform of PMQs? The Daily Politics kind of mooted this, the banning of questions asking the PM to comment on or refuse to follow opposition policy and also the stopping of obscure questions about specific constituency matters that the PM has no hope of answering in a meaningful way. We all know why those questions matter - so Tory MP Nigel Waterson can press release taking the PM to task over Eastbourne’s NHS in the local rag back home but does this constitute really having Prime Ministerial accountability?
156 - oops, it ate my “less than” symbol!
that should continue:
less than 70% of the vote, and there is a long-term shift to three party politics. 63 LD MPs, plus the Nats, represents the biggest blocking minority in the house since the 80-odd Irish nationalists of the 1900s.
I gather Shirley Williams, a Ming supporter, is quoted as saying Chris Huhne is not far behind Ming - unsure of source but would guess Daily Politics?
134.”Why NuLab law? As far as I can see a large majority of Lib Dems and quite a few Conservatives voted for a total ban as well. ”
In the first vote, 81 tories and 55 Libdems voted “ayes”. In the second vote (private clubs), 47 tories and 47 Libdems voterd “ayes”.
27 (+2 tellers) voted no in the first vote and 50 (+2 tellers) in the second.
155. We’ve had one wind up on here today Andrea. No need for another.