Sean Fear’s local election commentary
March 24th, 2006
-
HOW BADLY WILL LABOUR DO ON MAY 4TH?
Labour is in the fortunate position of being expected to do badly in the local elections on May 4th. Anything other than a complete disaster can be portrayed as a success by Labour’s spin-doctors. So will Labour face a complete disaster, on a par with the wipe-outs of 1968, or 1976-1978?
In fact, this is unlikely. In 1968, Labour were reduced to 350 councillors in London (compared to 1,400 Conservatives). In the late seventies, they did not perform quite so badly, but still lost boroughs like Leeds, Tameside, and Oldham to outright Conservative control. By contrast, even in the mid-1990s, the Conservatives still managed to hold 520 seats in London, and it’s hard to believe that Labour can do worse than that.
Labour’s performance in by-elections since the start of the year (and in fact since Autumn last year) suggests a national vote share of 28%, which is about 9% behind the Conservatives. By-elections in London in 2005 implied a swing of 2-3% from Labour to Conservative and a similar swing from Labour to Liberal Democrat.
If Labour’s performance on May 4th matches its by-election performance, then it will lose considerable ground in London. Several boroughs which Labour controls, such as Hammersmith, Bexley, Harrow, Croydon, Brent, Camden, and Merton, are vulnerable to small swings to their opponents. Labour were lucky to win 15 London boroughs outright in 2002 (compared to 8 for the Conservatives) despite being level-pegging with the Conservatives, in terms of vote share. A loss of 150 seats is plausible. That will hurt, but it would still leave Labour with c.700 seats in the Capital.
Outside London, the scope for Labour losses is smaller. In the Shire District and Unitary Authorities, there is little left for Labour to lose. They may well lose Crawley, one of their very few remaining authorities in the South outside London, and could easily lose 100 or so seats, but there will be few big headline defeats.
In the Metropolitan Boroughs, Labour may manage a small net gain in terms of seats. These were last contested in June 2004, which was a particularly poor year for Labour. Few authorities are likely to change hands, as only one third of the seats is being contested.
Last night’s by-elections saw two seats changing hands:-
Bradford MBC, Keighley West: Labour 1,819, BNP 1,216, Con, 627, LD 208. Labour gain from BNP. Clearly there was huge tactical voting from opponents of the BNP to oust their candidate, doubtless caused in part by annoyance at the sitting BNP councillor quitting and causing an unnecessary by-elections. It is notable however, that the BNP vote share, 31%, was unchanged from 2004, and may point to a high vote for that party in Bradford on May 4th.
Bracknell Forest UA: Con 921, LD 444, Lab 174, UKIP 119. An easy Conservative hold in a safe seat.
South Oxfordshire DC: Watlington; Con 737, LD 274. An easy Conservative hold.
Sunderland MBC – Millfield: LD 566, Lab 397, Con 260, BNP 79. LD hold. This will be very pleasing to the Lib Dems as the other two seats in the ward are held by Labour.
Waverley BC – Ewhurst: Ind 372, Con 360, LD 230, Lab 6(!): Ind gain from Conservative. A very curious result. Waverley is controlled by Conservatives with independent support. A Lib Dem win here would have given them control of the council. The victorious independent will be able to put either party in power on this council
Sean Fear
Sean is a Tory activist in London
MessageSpace Advertising
Waverley - I think the “Labour Cannot Win Here” poster campaign was spot on!
Although it did not result in a Lib Dem victory of course!
Great analysis Sean
Good article as always, Sean.
Re London boroughs…..does anyone have info about Tower Hamlets?
3 - No info about Tower Hamlets, but I recieved my first leaflet from Respect this morning - putting up 2 councillors in my ward in Lambeth. Leaflet was surprisingly well written, didn’t mention Galloway at all, and whilst mentioning the war, wasn’t focused on it, but rather on ‘all the parties supporters are rich, only we truly represent the poor working class’ kind of a line.
It will be interesting to see the Conservative spin in the lead-up to these elections.
I think that statistically it’s quite difficult for us to live up to the growing expectations for the number of gains we might make given that we had such a good result last time (under IDS!).
I wonder how Camerons PR teamn will handle this challenge - because if they don’t manage the media well it could end up being presented as a disappointment for DC no matter what the actual results are.
I am still worried about our ability to get the message out on the ground in many boroughs and constituencies and I fear we may be out-campaigned by the LD’s who are still excellent at a street level.
Hi Sean , A good synopsis as usual . I do agree with you that the BNP result was not as bad as expected given the circumstances of the byelection . I fear they will gain a number of seats this year in a few areas where they can concentrate resources .
Sean, a very thorough analysis.
A couple of points
1.London
The Tories have consistently since 2002 done better in Londonthan the national trend.In terms of winning authorities i suggest 7 gians much as you.However I would expect them to win nearer to 230 seats. With some Lib dem gains this would reduce Labour to below 600 seats
2.Metro
although Labour did badly last time that was in spite of all posatl elections in 2004 in Metro which are thought to have benfitted Labour turnout more.
So Torie scpuld win Bradford,Bury and Coventry.
3.NonmMetro
Woudl expect labour to lose Blackburn,Hartlepool and Warrington to NOC.,and Crawley to Con newcastle u Lyme to NOc.
Across all councils I suggest labour will lose.nearly 600 seats.
Roger heape
7.”In terms of winning authorities i suggest 7 gians much as you.”
what councils do you think the tories will gain?
Please remember that not all mets had all postal ballots in 2004.
Also, Labour did do quite well in some Mets like Wolverhampton or Birmingham : roll :
Thanks for the kind words.
I can’t see Labour losing 600 seats; if they did, it would be goodnight to Tony Blair. Don’t forget, fewer than 4,000 seats are being fought in total.
Marcus, that’s a very good point. David Cameron has to manage expectations slightly downwards.
Thank you Sean. Excellent summary as usual.
Might I ask you or any other local wonker to speculate on a “Solihull” for the night for any of the parties ??
7 Most unlikely that Conservatives will win outright control in Bradford as they would need 13 gains and only 1/3rd of the council is up for election this year . They ahould become the largest party though .
Former Lib Dem councillor Talib Hussain, who last week joined Respect, became already bored with his new party: http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/mail/news/tm_objectid=16857788%26method=full%26siteid=50002%26headline=respect%2dcouncillor%2dquits%2dparty-name_page.html
13 Looks like a case of no respect to me.
14. Looks like a case of a “floating” councillor too
There is a lot going on in Tower Hamlets but the politcal parties will sensibly be keeping their strategies to themselves.
What is obvious is that Labour are challenged in all 17 wards.
Just on the Sunderland result - I make that 4 seats that have been contested in the metro-North East recently (two in Sunderland, 1 in Stockton and 1 in North Tyneside) that have all swung against Labour. Perhaps an indicator for that part of the country come May but obviously a very small sample.
I note that Peter Oborne in “The Spectator” puts the boot into Cameron by saying that he has failed his first major test as Tory leader in the cash for coronets affair. Oborne kindly says that Cameron “has at best been useless” ….. Ouch !
What’s that about your enemies behind you ?!?!
16 - As you say very hard to call, just have the feeling that it might be most difficult for the Lib Dems as the Labour vs Respect narrative takes hold.
18 - He also wrote a glowing piece in the Mail on his budget performance which unsurprisingly you seem to have totally ignored Jack!
[118][120] Perhaps Mr Oborne needs pb.com’s famous darkened room
20 Max. Referee !! …… you can’t expect me to read the “Daily HateMail” …. Mrs Jack W will not give it house room, for reasons I can’t go into
…… and the Dowager still remembers its’ shameful pedigree from the thirties !!
[21] As, from the numbers I strew about there, it seems I do too…
22 - I don’t think any of us have you down as a Mail reader Jack.
I’ve always had you down as a Morning Star man myself!
24 Max. Your judgement goes before you Max.
…..by Comrade Jack W of Red Square March 24th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Out of interest does anyone know if the Morning Star is still published. I remember seeing a copy once talking about all the good work being done in ‘People’s Korea’.
re 18. I think that Oborne is being a bit unfair. Clearly the Tories have a lot to hide here and it if they can get away with not being open that will be tremednous for them.
My guess is that Cameron has seen the “dirty donor” files and has decided that the best strategy is to shut up - if he is allowed to.
27 but surely he won’t?
26 - try http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index2.php/free
Labour loans row rolls on
28 Peter, who’s going to force him to reveal the names? Neither Labour nor the Lib Dems will want to make a hue and cry over it and the media seem to be stumped by the “It’s the past, in the future let’s cap donations at £50,000″ response. Top marks to DC for tactics…
26. yes, Max, they didn’t like Gordon’s budget.
Labour’s former general secretary wrote to backers saying any loans would not have to be declared, it has emerged.
But the party has since named all 12 backers, who lent it almost £14m before the last general election
31. It would be better still if he would go further on proposed reforms, especially ending the scandal of people being able to buy seats in the Upper House. I don’t think suggesting more state funding for parties is a very good idea either - he should be tapping into the anti-politician mood these stories create, not generating a new source of public resentment.
Sean Thanks for this excellent overview. You mention a two to three per cent swing from Labour to Con/LD in London as measured by by-elections. Is that compared with the last GE? The good news for the Tories is that, however predictable, big gains in London always get disproportionate coverage so they’re guaranteed some good headlines. Watch for DC flashing copies of the front page of the Evening Standard as he does a whistle stop tour of captured boroughs. The bad news is that, if you’re right, a 37% vote share isn’t particularly impressive and if there are no prizes north of Watford gap DC won’t be able to demonstrate his pulling power in the north and midlands. All in all on this analysis it would be seen, I suspect, as bad but not utterly disastrous for Labour, a relief for the LDs and close but no cigar for the Tories. In these circumstances, I suppose the results might be forgotten pretty quickly.
I still have a sneaking feeling, however, that, if there is a surprise, it’s that Labour will do worse than expected. The Press are gearing up for ‘Pressure grows on Blair to quit’ stories. It wouldn’t take much to see them dominating the post results weekend’s coverage.
If the state funded political parties, then it would be every taxpayer who pays. We could all then get peerages and everybody would be equal.
26. More on the Morning Star…it still has columns by Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Alan Simpson.
32-Blue2Win: exactly. So did Labour have the agreement of the backers when their names were made public last week, breaking a promise to them? Presumably not the head of Capita who resigned after his name was released. But are the other ‘lenders’ any happier? Will this cause potential financiers to think twice? And this is before we get anywhere near the peerages issue.
Think Cameron’s got this one right; the media will keep this rolling, no need to get his hands dirty, as some of the mud may stick.
Mike 27 - No keep the news about which unsuitable people have been subbing the Tories until just before the locals. It will be impossible to keep quiet - they will just keep asking Cameron if he knows who lent the money. If he says he does know then the next question is was he recommended for a peerage? This is why it has to come out into the open. If he says he doesn’t know who gave the money, he just looks foolish.
In the end it would be better for the Tories to get it out in the open now so that we can all forget about it.
Excellent analysis Sean - keep up the good work. Comparison with 1968 not so clear cut because of the 3 plus party system but I do think Labour are heading for meltdown - who will benefit though?
Just a sudden thought. How did Brown answer the question “Did you know about the loans? - I think he very carefully said that as Treasurer he didnt get involved with party funding. Has he actually said he definitely didn’t know who had given them?
36. without forgetting Plaid’s Leann Wodd’s column about Wales (her last one is “Build more homes: LEANNE WOOD tackles Wales’s housing problem”)
The seats that are up seem to suggest no massive changes in Birmingham but I think the LD’s may cause some suprise’s in the West Birmingham/Solihull area.
The Chief reason is that they have recently been joined by the Peoples justice Party -this gives them 2 extra councillors (I think another cabinet post ) and (aparently)400 new members.
The PJP were originaly disgruntled Labour members and the eventual split was arguably the rocket fuel behind the Labour/PJP/Lib dem postal vote furore.
They should easily hold their seats if theres no longer competition from the LDs (The Labour Party in that surrounding area is pretty disgraced for obvious reasons).
It gives the LD’s a sudden injection of activism that could release resources to other targets in the BIRM/Solihull area.
It also takes the LD’s much closer to their Con partners in terms of seats (and cabinet control) and as ‘The Coalition’ is gaining a reputation for expensive indecisiveness both Parties will be eyeing up their chances of shafting each other quietly before they let Labour back in.
What about Wigan? Labour only need to lose 5 seats to lose overall control for the first time in decades. In several wards they are vulnerable to independents, Tories and LibDems.
41. No less than five incorrect usages or omissions of the apostrophe in that last post. The results of your namesake’s destruction of grammar schools, perhaps.
43. Well policed. Worthy of your Greater Manchester namesake.
What will happen in Hastings?
45. That’s a deep philosophical question……
42 - labour reckon they will lose St Helens to the LD’s, NOC in nearby Wigan sounds like a safe bet.
43 - I usually aim for at least six.
I even got my own ‘political avatar’ wrong -there is only one s in Crosland
40 Icarus The Times reported yesterday that
A spokesman for the Chancellor rejected any suggestion of impropriety. He said: “Gordon did not know anything about the loans. He has never even met Rod Aldridge.”
Then today Politics.co.uk report that
The Labour party funding row continues this morning with the revelation that a major donor has been appointed to head one of Gordon Brown’s flagship projects.
Rod Aldridge, who is reported to have loaned up to £1 million to the party, will help launch the chancellor’s £150 million youth volunteering scheme in May.
Mr Aldridge resigned yesterday as chairman of services company Capita, saying continued scrutiny about his involvement with Labour was damaging the firm’s reputation.
You may wonder about the credibility of Brown’s denial of knowledge of the Capita boss who he has just appointed to his ‘flagship project’ and the ignorance of the loans, especially when GB was election co-ordinator and is on the Labour National Executive Committee and so sees all the regular financial reports.
If he really did not ask where the campaign money was coming from, or did not know how much was being spent or recognise the basically weak position of the Labour party’s finances then he is derelict in his duty or lazy or naive.
As Chancellor of the Exchequer he must be reasonably numerate and financially aware after ten years in the job.
Well, over on “The Dark Side” (vote-2006.co.uk) a number of very youthful Conservatives - whose knowledge of spelling and the apostrophe would make JAmes Anderton have a fit of the vapours - seem to indicate that they are going to carry all before them on May 5th. Their entire site is long on “faith”, but short on “works”.
crossland @ 47
don’t raise the bar too high for LibDems re St Helens, Lab hold should be expected.
Interesting that the Lancaster Cons have placed an advert in the Westmorland Gazette sseking candidates. If anyone is interested, Sarah Fishwick would like to hear from you at morecambeandlunesdale@tory.org
BTW “Are you prepared to put aside a few hours each week to help improve council services where you live and work as part of a team?”
If anyone would prefer to telephone Sarah, try 01524-701592, and ask her about Carnforth Connect busses!
43 James Anderton. You seem to be swirling around in a cesspit of your own pedantry :
Crosland NOT crossland.
I am pretty sure that if the loans to the Tories is still not disclosed by the time of the local elections one of the Labour friendly papers will smoke them out. Easily done too. Just choose an ovderseas donor who has given in the past and announce them as a donor in a front page splash. The s*** that hits the fan will cover Cameron now that he’s implicated himself by colluding in the secrecy. Very wise not to waste such a story until politics is back on the front pages which of course means the local elections. I’m surprised Cameron hasn’t learnt that trying to keep something quiet is impossible. I would say the odds of him keeping these names quiet is 100 to1 against!
52 And the only flaw in this clever plan is when the Tories and former rich donor sue said newspaper for libel
53 - Very difficult if the accusation is true as standard disclosure would reveal it. It is not like being accused of brown envelopes which is all deniable - the Tories do have actual bank accounts and I suspect even rather secretive deals are documented fairly well.
54 Roger seemed to be suggesting that the paper should make it up though… maybe I’m reading his post wrong???
Libel suggesting an known (ex) donor is giving money to the Tory party? Or findind a Tory peer who has donated?
How much damage does it do to the reputation of a donor suggesting they have contributed to their chosen party?
43 “No less than five incorrect usages or omissions of the apostrophe in that last post. The results of your namesake’s destruction of grammar schools, perhaps.”
Do you mean “fewer” rather than “less”?
55 - No, sorry, looking back on it I see why you could have read it in that way. But I am not sure whether it would take particularly brilliant investigative journalism to smoke out one or two of these people without resorting to invention - they will be from amongst the usual suspects and you can ask around.
56. Roger, the lastest news is that some of them have government contracts and they fear to lose them.
56 A labour loan has cost a guy his job…
Is there somebody who knows where to find a list of businessman who have accepted peerages and sit as Tories, in, say the last 5 years?
56 - It would almost certainly be libel to suggest, inaccurately, that they had given in a manner which people widely and correctly perceive to be against the spirit of the law.
62 And libel if you implied that the Tories had sold peerages and couldn’t back it up…
61. Here’s a list of all peers in order of their creation (actually the last post-election lot isn’t included):
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/lifepeers.html
if you’re interested, it’s easy to look who was a businessman.
63. Anna, but they wouldn’t say it, they would just write: “Mr X gave Y and Mr X got a peerage” without making any explicit link, but letting readers implying it.
63 - You would just do the same as with Labour though - just say he gave X on Y date and was made Lord B of C on Z date - then say “it gives the appearance that…”
64 - Ah, I see you’re thinking what I’m thinking.
64 To be honest I think the whole concept of “making up” a story to try and out Tory loans is bound to fail… Sorry Roger, it’s a non-starter of an idea for me…
63 - no, you can’t libel a political party.
67 Anna. Some industrious Labour MP who reads the site might decide to use parliamentary privilege !
68 Why not? Don’t they have a legal identity?
64 - Doesn’t work like that, note the Ashley Cole (Arsenal footballer) rumours where just an inference is proving actionable. All that needs to be proved is that the intent was there to mislead.
69 And wreck their career in the process?
70 - not sure, but I remember being told it by a very active activist who is now an MP.
72 Anna. Hardly …. many on the Labour side would look on it as a feather in the cap …… and then when the cat’s out of the parliamentary bag the media may report it with relative impunity !
73 I’ll look that one up and get back to you…
71. Actionable doesn’t mean winnable.
70 - I think it comes from a case involving the Referendum Party years ago. You are not allowed to be sued for defamation by government bodies because it inhibits free speech too much, and that was extended to parties. There are also difficulties on legal identity, but not insurmountable ones.
71 - No, that’s a different argument. The Sun identified an act they said was performed by a footballer and then (it is argued) came so close to naming him that a not-overly-suspicious person would have known who they meant. You can easily argue that you need to have an overly suspicious mind to believe that there was (rather than merely might be) a causal link between the loan and the peerage.
80 - I can’t see a prominent Tory peer really wanting to fight a libel case anyway.
80. they can actually run 2 different articles: one about who the loaners are and one about recent peerages.
The Tories realistically have no chance of keeping this quiet. They should have looked for a suitable time to bury bad news (when Labour were forced to out their donors perhaps). As Peter Oborne (my least favourite political journalist) has pointed out it makes Cameron look evasive. Not a good more for someone more interested in PR than politics.
Actionable and winnable - I think that Private Eye and other august publications could tell you a bit about how use of inference isn’t a get out clause.
Regarding James’ point, depends on the article but if The Sun or NOTW (for it will be they, the traitorus scum of the fourth estate) try and make the implication clear so that people ‘get it’, they will have strayed into territory where a libel case is inevitable.
Two things which make me angry about this (there’s usually at least one per thread!). Firstly, anyone who tries to claim that ‘they’re all at it’ to deflect from the fact that it’s the damn government who need to be attacked as they are in power! Secondly, anyone who says we ‘have to move on’, a phrase which is, as the phrase has it with patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel.
71 etc - I have looked it up and the source is:
1) SIR JAMES GOLDSMITH (2) THE REFERENDUM PARTY v (1) ANIL BHOYRUL (2) DAVID RYDELL (3) SUNDAY BUSINESS NEWSPAPERS LTD (1997) 4 All ER 268.
As a rather irrelevant postscript, Bhoyrul was later one of the infamous Daily Mirror “City Slickers”.
84.”Actionable and winnable - I think that Private Eye and other august publications could tell you a bit about how use of inference isn’t a get out clause.”
if I run an article about who the donors are without saying anything and then in the next page I run an article about who’re the latest peers, I don’t see how they could find me giulty of libel
84 - I think you are on fairly safe ground here as a paper if you wring your hands and say “Ooh dear, it is all a bit sad that due to this affair a lot of people might wrongly suspect this hardworking businessman of being some sort of crook. It is awful that the Tory Party put the poor man in this difficult situation.” Another point to ponder is that it may or may not become very hard to libel one particular Tory peer even if you tried depending on the outcome of ongoing proceedings across the Atlantic.
86. actually on reflection, running the articles in that way wouldn’t be very useful! Readers of that newspapers could get the idea, but the majority of people would still be clueless
I would have thought the first legal fall out may be from those Labour lenders who have been exposed when they were solomnly promised anonymity at the time the loans were made.
The Capita case is perhaps indicative of the pressure that may apply to some of these people now they are ‘outed’. Two have certainly said they want their money back on time ‘in the circumstances’.
If any of them get the boot or find the local golf club blackballing them as a result or a shareholder causing mayhem, then legal action may prove a welcome release cum counter attack.
How many of them did not let their boards know what they were doing?
84 ukpaul. But the implication of part of your arguement is that the Opposition may get away with murder until they get into government - Bizarre !!
And frankly with the Tories track past record on cash for coronets do you really think they and the Lib Dems to a lesser extent haven’t recently been pocketing £m so some oik who politically nobody knows or cares about can park their bum on the red benches ?! ….. large brown envelope anyone ???
The Radio 4 link at 6.30 was ‘ Are you an analogue listener in a digital age’.
89 B2W. Good point. Do you think that many Tories will be blackballed at the Golf Club then ??
90 - Not at all my point Jack; the position of being in government makes your actions more *important* as they will directly impact on legislation and the governance of the people.
Oppositions don’t have that power.
Of course it is equally wrong for an opposition party to do something that a government does but it is singularly less important. Say, for example, that the minister and shadow minister for defence are both getting backhanders from the arms industry (just an example, don’t sue!), the government minister is the one whose crime is more important, given the corruption that may ensue regarding contracts etc.
Latest news is that now 3 lenders to the Labour party want their money back. Pronto.
Just watching Cable in his budget response and realised who his delivery reminded me of - Michael Winstanley! Liberal North West MP in the 70’s and also of ‘This is Your Right’ fame.
Essential viewing after watching Bob Greaves and Tony Wilson on Granada Reports!
After that blast from the past we return you to our normal programming…..
Interesting where I live in Lambeth seems to be Labour’s main hope of ‘doing a Wandsworth’ and salvaging some scraps from a night where they are hammered elswhere. The current set up is Lib Dem 27, Lab 29, Cons 7. So Labour only need to gain 3 seats when there are three split wards with 1 Lab, 2 LD… So just gaining the split wards alone would give them twice as many seats as they need for outright control.
Labour’s national emails seem to direct everyone in London to Lambeth, and at local level people are being tele-canvassed and leafleted like never before in a pre election period. Will be interesting to see what happens but I think there’s a pretty strong chance of a Labour gain here.
94 B2W. Latest news is that now all the lenders to the Tory party are parked outside a news-stand. Pronto chauffer !
93 ukpaul. Accepted on the relative importance of the governmemt and opposition, but that didn’t appear to be the implication of your 84.
Before Jack repeats again his “they are all at it theory” he should scan through the list of LD peers and try to find one who is not either a party hack or a genuinely worthy Briton?
87 - I doubt it’s safe to do that. New Statesman was closed down for mentioning that there were rumours about John Major was having an affair with a caterer. They made no comment on whether the rumours were true It was certainly true that there rumours.
85 - I don’t know the details about not technically being able to libel a political party, but I am sure they go back much further than 1997. The activist (now MP) I mentioned told be you could not libel a party back in 1990. There must be an older ruling.
98 Jon. Well I’m sure we’re all relieved to find out that the Lib Dems are content to stuff their allocation in the Lords with party hacks …. most reassuring !! …. frankly that’s almost worse that buying your place !!
98 - Jon, he’s just peeved because after donating a case of single malt and a couple of stags to John Thurso’s campaign he wasn’t awarded with a Lairdship
100 - what’s the problem with party hacks? The Commons is full of them. (OK - see your point now!)
87, 99 - discussing something of true public import rather than an extramarital affair (John Major? Never!) is a bit safer as it is covered by qualified privilege (the “important if true” defence).
100. Jack, don’t tell you aren’t relieved by the fact that Jenny Tonge is a Baroness now!
103. if it’s discovered Edwina has worked as a carater, could they claim back the money they had to give to Major?
98 - one who is not either a party hack or a genuinely worthy Briton?
And of course the two categories pretty much overlap
105 - I suppose they could claim she “took care” of her constituents…
105. carater should have been caterer…r and t are so near on the keyboard!
not sure how BV was able to understand it!
106 - I mean “catered for”. Sort of lost the impact there.
107 - I sort of read it as halfway between caterer and caretaker, I think…
98/100 Jon. Indeed it worse than I thought. It seems that one of the best qualifications to become a Lib Dem peer is to lose at a General Election ….. and the more the better ….. let alone sundry other lame reasons :
Lord Newby .. Baroness Miller .. Baroness Northover .. Lord Mackie .. Lord Jacobs .. Baroness Ludford .. Lord Phillips .. Lord Oakerlott .. ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
110 - what should we do to remedy matters? Lord Cleese of Torquay?
101 Tabman. A terrible flaw there Tabbers …… moi donate a case of single malt !!
:(
104 Andrea. Baroness Tonge ..
:cry:
I wonder if we will have a poll out in the Sundays on Labour sleaze.
ICM on the 19th of March reported 56% thought Labour as sleazy as John Major’s governmnet and 17% more so. It would be surprising after the news of the last 6 days if that had not turned worse for Labour in regard trust and sleaze.
No wonder T Blair has flitted off to the Games. But is his back safe? The First Minister of Wales says he ought to go now. The gang is lining up. That Moody Blues tune is coming back into my head……….
We’ve already said ‘Goodbye’.
Since you’ve got to go
Oh you had better go now.
Go now. Go now. Go now
Before you see me cry.
I don’t want you to tell me
Just what you intend to do now.
We’ve already said ‘Goodbye’.
Since you’ve got to go
Oh you had better go now.
B’stard is back in New Labour, so where is Spitting image when you need them?
I do hope Tone stays. This and the NHS and pensioners being duped with the disappearing £200, tax credit fiascos and sleaze will run and run and Labour will be in a hell of a mess with Blair still in Downing Street for more than a few weeks more.
112 book value. Talking to yourself isn’t a qualification for the Lords ….. except Baroness Nicholson !!
If you can’t find sufficient talent for the Upper House then ……….
114 B2W. “….so where’s Spitting Image when you need them?”
Sorry but I’m afraid you’re beyond parody old chap.
I am delighted that the tories have chosen to keep their lenders a dirty little secret. Eventually, the lab side to this story will run out of steam, and bored journos will turn their attention to the open goal which cameron has presented for them.
111. Jack, you’re unfair: Baroness Ludford managed to win a seat at Euro Parliament. And she even got the vote of Vanessa Redgrave…some Orange Bookers here were shocked by Redgrave’s support!
111 - well you know how to stop that… get rid of FPTP!
118 Andrea. Case proved !!
120. Jack, try to picture Vanessa at an election rally with Tabman
Who’s going to care if the Tories have received loans? Even if it does come out, it isn’t going to look like sleaze.
The issue about Labour is they deliberately used a loophole in their own rules, they claimed they would be purer than pure and it looks like peerages were being bought. Every donor of over a million is a peer or has been nominated for peerage.
Labour has its own issues before the local elections that make the possibility of Tory loan revelations small fry.
We have thousands of hospital staff being laid off, a million public service workers walking out, not to mention sleaze, likely new Iraq revelations, soaring council tax and utility bills, and plummeting approval for our lame-duck PM.
26. Max and “The Morning Star”.
Tomorrow’s selection of articles will include:
- Ministers turned a blind eye to gangsmassters (their main article)
- John Pilger: the war lovers who know nothing of war
- Alan Simpson: Brown could have given wealth back to the people who made it, not those who pocket it
- Summer’s on the way: clocks go forward an hour at 1 AM
- Read Eye: Sick of middle class tossers
- Music: Steve Diggle interviewed
121 Andrea. Do I have to ??
124. Jack, do you prefer to read a copy of the Morning Star? I think the article about the war lovers could appeal to you
125 Andrea. Some choice
…. a bit like asking if I’d rather be lunch for a shark or a crocodile !!
126. an election rally with Vlad is enough?
122 - “Who’s going to care if the Tories have received loans? Even if it does come out, it isn’t going to look like sleaze. ”
Feels like panto season already - “it isn’t going to look like sleaze.” - “Oh, yes it is!”
Don’t the Hamiltons do panto?
128. SBS, sadly Christine Hamilton hasn’t updated her website recently, so we don’t know if she has scheduled some mimo appearances.
But last events include an appearance as “Face of British Sausage Week” (Christine loves sausages).
http://www.christinehamilton.co.uk/index.php?f=data_home&a=1
128..”Don’t the Hamiltons do panto?”
Yes, I believe they used to be part of that long running pantomime and farce known as Conservative government.
Seriously speaking Neil Hamilton once starred in something called “Pantomime”. He did “The Rocky Horror Show” too.
And finally, just for those who have already had dinner (otherwise the pic could ruin it):
http://www.christinehamilton.co.uk/users/www.christinehamilton.co.uk/upload/strawberryjam.jpg
Completely off-topic…
George Bush has just landed in Air Force One at Pittsburgh Airport, which our office building overlooks.
He is hosting a fundraising dinner here tonight in aid of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). There are snipers armed on top of all the surrounding buildings and loads of helicopters circling. Airport and all surrounding roads closed off. Incredible sight.
I’ve been looking at the results of the BNP from January to March 2006 and comparing with the results from January to March 2005 to see if there was any common ground or differences between the two.
In 2005 over the three months the BNP stood in 5 locals and results were 1.9%, 4.8%, 7.6%, 9.8% & 22.3% giving a mean of 9.3%.
In 2006 over the last three months the BNP have stood in 4 locals and results were 10.3%, 16.6%, 30.2% & 31.0% giving a mean of 22.0%.
In these 9 locals there were 3 Labour holds, 1 Tory hold, 3 Labour gains plus 2 Lib Dem gains which to me shows how the standing of “others”[in this case BNP] can cause havoc to the main parties for example below where the Conservatives gained Beauvale in the Notts County Council elections last May.
Candidate Party Votes Share of vote
John David Taylor Conservative 2100 38.44%
Di Ryan Labour 2083 38.13%
Penelope Sue Fell Liberal Democrat 771 14.11%
Sadie Bethany Graham British National 509 9.32%
Beauvale is a fairly safeish Labour seat and to me it was very much a surprise when the Tories edged it .
133. vino, do you know if they have previously contested the 5 seats they contested in early 2005 by-elections?
(is the question clear?)
31 - 28 Peter, who’s going to force him to reveal the names? Neither Labour nor the Lib Dems will want to make a hue and cry over it and the media seem to be stumped by the “It’s the past, in the future let’s cap donations at £50,000″ response. Top marks to DC for tactics…
by Anna March 24th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
On the contrary both Labour and Lib Dems have named people who gave the loans. The Lib Dems loans were never secret and came from people who were already peers. And both parties have called ont he tories to tell the truth.
This morning on the Today programme I heard some hapless tory being sked wh the names had not been revealed. this one is going to run until the truth is revealed.
134 - Andrea - sorry I don’t know - it’s just I travelled through Beauvale on my way home tonight and thought about the BNP connection.
136. Vino. thanks anyway.
Only just got around to reading today’s Indy, has anyone else seen Matthew Norman’s demolition job on Charles Clarke, I don’t think he likes him.
Let me quote;-
“poisonous, puffed up, jug-eared gargoyle apology for a democratic politician”
“the modern equivalent of an 18th century princeling being driven through a town in a gilded carriage, pressing a nosegay to his face and railing inwardly at the sheer impertinence of the starving populace for jeering him on his way”
“the very paradigm of the office bully”
“this rancorous thug”
Ouch!
138 Rachael from North London had a piece on Clarke the other day.
138. so I’m not the only one who doesn’t like him!
The “Tory loans” is a non-story Roger, the moment has passed and the media have moved on. You’re the only one still harping on about it. Anyway, Labour are in power, and that’s why “Labour sleaze” has been the story.
35 , yes it’s 2-3% compared with 2002. It implies a Tory lead of 4-6% across London.
52 - It’s actually not at all uncommon for parties to advertise for council candidates.
96 - Labour is hopeful of winning Lambeth. You always get councils bucking the trend (eg the Tories winning Brent in 1994)
133 - they also got 7% in Sunderland last night, which takes the mean down to 19%. Yours is not really a like for like comparison, but a mean vote share of 19% is probably similar to what the BNP will manage per candidate on May 4th.
Why would David Cameron betray any possible confidentialities in connection with possible loans made to the Tories? He isn’t Tony Blair, is he? He kept the lid on the matter of he took any drugs when young.
I can’t see any mileage whatsoever in this matter damaging anyone but Labour who look like they are no longer in control of events and have been caught out abusing their position.
Unison have announced they will not support Labour in the local elections.
Strike action next Thursday is set to be the biggest walk-out since 1926. I can’t imagine many of those who are striking will be keen to vote Labour in the elections.
When people’s routine is messed with and their bins don’t get emptied as they should, this has to dent Labour support. Labour may spin it that the action is irresponsible, but that will only union supporters to other parties.
Respect has already won support from the London Fire Brigades Union. It will be interesting to see if they court other small unions and the membership of larger unions.
“Might I ask you or any other local wonker to speculate on a “Solihull” for the night for any of the parties ”
By that, do you mean a council that will be won or lost against the trend?
142 - Sean Fear - yes you are right I missed the Sunderland result which in a sense makes the post more balanced i.e 5 results each in the same time period - agree it’s not a like for like comparison,if the BNP do obtain a 19% mean vote in May then they will cause some losses to Labour I assume but I don’t know who will gain.
Vince Cable putting the boot into big Gordo* …
“As someone who’s [actually] come into Parliament from the Business World …”
*and Squeaky George by implication
141/143 Bob/Printz. Non story for the Tories …. I think not :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4841748.stm
And the Observer, Sunday Times and Indy on Sunday have teams on the story. Slow burn …. but the Tory aspect of this isn’t going away anytime soon. They should have been open from the start as the Tory Shadow Dominic Grieve stated.
143 What % of Labour funding comes from unions at the moment?
146 - Pity he’s in the wrong party to ever amount to anything in Parliament then, isn’t it?
144 Sean. Yes …. a complete upset in scale of victory or defeat.
147. Jack, have you noticed that Grieve made that comment whilse Our Lord Matlock was out of the country? And he has been calm since his return…do you think the 2 things are related?
147 Jack: The general public don’t care…
151 - Actually, I think Dominic is probably right Andrea. But Labour are the ones taking the heat for this - let them burn, I say.
149 - Alastair, you Conservatives occasionally do some good work therein; when you join our party of course!
153. Alastair, so you could confirm us that we won’t find the following headline in future editions of “South Bucks Star”:
“Senior Beaconsfield Tory in cash for honour: Alastair Matlock gave 2 Bernini sculptures in exchange of a Peerage!”
154 - Hell will freeze over and the moon will fall into the sea before this Conservative does that; but thanks anyway for the invite.
156 - Surely what’s good enough for Winston Spencer … ?
151 Andrea. Miss Marple you strike again !!
152 Anna. Labour will be relieved then.
153 AHM. I see a holiday in the Bognor fleshpots hasn’t mellowed you Alastair !!
155 - Are you implying that I pinched two Bernini sculptures from the Vatican, Andrea??!!
Get me my Solicitor!!
Very fair analysis, Sean - thanks.
On the other topics: the Morning Star isn’t a bad read - they report trade union issues in detail and overseas stuff like the situation in Colombia that most papers don’t bother with, and they’ve been known to take a critical line of sister parties - e.g. they criticised the Russian Communist Party a few years ago for flirting with anti-semitism. The CP itself barely exists any more, so they cover all the minor left parties including the Greens. You couldn’t call them fans of Tony Blair, though.
Tory loans: no, you can’t libel a party, or I dare say we’d all sue each other to death. My guess is that the shyness over their loan list is because some of the people on it are (a) foreign citizens or (b) disreputable or criminal or (c) both. It will surprise me if Cameron is able to sit on this indefinitely.
159. maybe we could try to see if actionable is winnable
Lots of *very* defensive Tories on this site on the loans issue!
Fun! Fun! Fun!
157 - Not really, Tabbers. He wisened up and left, remember?
162 - Where, pray?
160 In light of the donor from Capita resigning due to his loan being made public, do you think Labour were right to publish the names of their anonymous donors Mr Palmer?
160 - you can’t libel a party, but you’re having a good go!
163 - yes, after the party had disintegrated. Fortunately for all of us LG had prepared him well for Round 2 of the C20th War. And he’d done all his best reforming work in the 1906 Parliament.
Churchill … that great Liberal
162 - Who’s the Tory Tonto?
156 AHM. Subterranean Weather F