The Monday Guest Slot - Stephen Tall
March 27th, 2006
-
Dealing with the new politics - will Labour be third on May 4th?
It’s 80 days since Charles Kennedy quit as Liberal Democrat leader, plunging the party into its January mensis horribilis.
Opinion poll ratings dipped as low as 13%, the Daily Telegraph splashed its front page with a report that the party was in ‘freefall’, and several over-hyped and under-sourced rumours alleged three Lib Dem MPs were poised to defect to David Cameron’s shiny new Tories.
-
Then came the party’s shock by-election victory in Dunfermline (see picture) and in one bound the Lib Dems were free. The emphatic leadership contest result, a canny front-bench reshuffle, and healthier poll ratings, has ushered in a Menzies mirabilis.
How long will this fresh sense of optimism last? Ming Campbell’s first electoral test as leader will come with this May’s local elections, and the party’s expectations – which just a couple of months ago might have extended no further than bare survival – are once again fixed firmly on reaching dizzier heights. To work out if this is the triumph of hope over experience, let’s have a look at the form-book.
The figures below show the projected national share of the parties’ votes in that year’s local elections compared with the ICM poll rating (in brackets) immediately prior to those elections:
1998: Con 33% (31%), Lab 37% (48%), Lib Dem 25% (16%)
2000: Con 38% (32%), Lab 30% (45%), Lib Dem 26% (15%)
2002: Con 34% (29%), Lab 33% (45%), Lib Dem 25% (18%)
2004: Con 38% (33%), Lab 26% (38%), Lib Dem 29% (22%)
The Tories have added between 2-6% to their ICM national rating in recent local elections; Labour have dropped 9-15%; and the Lib Dems have increased 4-11%.
If this pattern were to repeat itself in 2006 – using the most recent ICM poll (18th March), with the Tories on 34%, Labour 37% and the Lib Dems 21%, as our bench-mark – we might extrapolate the following shares of the vote this May:Con 39%, Lab 25%, Lib Dem 29%.
The Tories would be content, though perhaps not ecstatic, with such a performance. It would certainly represent progress on 2002, when most of these seats were last fought, but would indicate that Mr Cameron’s pyrotechnics have yet to set alight the world outside the Westminster village.
Such a dire performance from Labour would create huge pressure on Mr Blair to announce his departure from Downing Street, so hastening Mr Brown’s translation from the Last Word of the Treasury to its First Lord.
For Sir Menzies and the Lib Dems, beating Labour and recording a high-20s percentage, would seem like an Olympic gold, Ashes triumph and World Cup glory rolled into one after what has been a truly torrid time. But, then, you have to go back to 1990, the Lib Dems’ nadir, to find a local election result (not combined with a general election) in which the party scored less than 20%.
The stubborn refusal of the third party to lie down and quietly die points to a wider trend: what has been termed the de-alignment of British politics.
If we look at the combined, average general election vote shares of the two big beasts of post-1945 politics, the Tories and Labour, and compare them with the combined, average vote shares of the Lib Dems and other parties for each of the last five decades, the fragmentation of voter loyalties is clear:
1950s: Con/Lab 92%, Lib Dem/Other 8%
1960s: Con/Lab 89%, Lib Dem/Other 11%
1970s: Con/Lab 80%, Lib Dem/Other 20%
1980s: Con/Lab 72%, Lib Dem/Other 28%
1990s: Con/Lab 75%, Lib Dem/Other 25%
2000s: Con/Lab 70%, Lib Dem/Other 30%
Voters no longer identify tribally with one political party based on their self-perception of class or religious interest (or their parents’ views). In 1964, according to the British Election Study, 48% of Tory voters identified strongly with their chosen party, compared with 51% for Labour. By 2001, the figures were 14% and 16% respectively.
As voter turn-out has declined, transforming the electorate into a selectorate, the remorseless march of the de-alignment process has continued apace. The cosy Tory/Labour duopoly is coming to an end.
And, however much Messrs Brown and Cameron might prefer to ignore such a reality, this is the new politics with which all parties are going to have to deal.
MessageSpace Advertising
Any particular reason for ignoring 1999/2003?
They were the two years that the Conservatives gained a load of councils and councillors. in fact wasn’t 2003 the year that the BBC ran election night with a preconceived idea that the Conservatives had done badly when the opposite was true?
1 - no reason (other than to save space). It makes no difference to the overall trend:
1999: Con 34% (28%), Lab 36% (50%), Lib Dem 25% (17%)
2003: Con 35% (30%), Lab 30% (42%), Lib Dem 27% (21%)
Does anyone know what Stephen’s projected figures would mean in terms of council seats / councils gained and lost by the three parties (obviously in approximate terms)?
4 - It would indicate that there would be very little change in terms of seats or councils except in London . Most seats being fought this year were last fought in 2004 and the party shares indicated for then and this year are very similar . My instinct is that Labour will not do quite as badly as in 2004 and make a few net gains outside London but local factors will come into play in some areas .
I’d expect Labour to do marginally better (2-3%) in years that have London elections. The Ken-factor generally gives them a boost against the general trend and Labour’s got a few too many rotten boroughs kicking around. There’s also the issue that their face-saving strategy is to pour national resources into the local Southwark and Lambeth campaigns.
Thanks for that interesting analysis, Stephen. An outcome along those lines would be dire indeed for Labour. They’d probably lose further ground in the Metropolitan boroughs outside London, and be punished very heavily in London and the Shire Districts.
Looking at London, a swing along those lines would give Conservative 40%, LD 25%, Labour 22%. Apart from the boroughs that are frequently mentioned, Labour would probably lose Hounslow and Ealing to outright Conservative control, lose Haringey to the Lib Dems, and be heading for third place in Brent and Camden. A Labour loss of over 300 seats in the Capital would be a likelihood. I can’t honestly, see Labour performing as poorly as that.
[4] One of the features of three-party politics (four-party in some places - actually, five-party in Oxford ;)) is that votes into seats doesn’t work under FPTP. It is to preserve that translation that many U.S. States have written the Elephant and the Donkey into law, so that the voter has a clear and simple choice. (This seems a weird practice to us, but has enjoyed the approval of the Supreme Court.)
Our system is wide open to spin - classically in 1986 when the Tories were being smashed, they persuaded the media that they should be judged on Westminster, Wandsworth and Bradford, and when they held two out of those three announced the results as a massive victory!
Presumably the fourth party in Oxford is the Greens - what’s the fifth?
In 1986, Labour Labour almost won Westminster and outpolled teh Conservtives in Wandsworth msising taking control by a single seat.
In Oxford, it is Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and the Independant Working Class Association (ICWA) who are all represented on the Council. No Conservatives, but they fight all the seats.
8 - 1990 surely not 1986?
I agree with Sean at 7, Labour will perform poorly but I can’t see them doing that badly. If the results were anything like what Sean said it would be disastrous for Labour, and would probably hasten Blair’s exit from Downing Street - but I think this scenario remains firmly in our dreams, for now…
8 “five-party in Oxford”
Let’s see, Lib Dems, Labour, Greens, Independent Working Class Association, and …?
[12] 1990 - mea culpa
What is it they say about Oxford being the home of lost causes?
O/T
Did anyone listen to Peter Bradley (Labour MP who lost his seat last year) on the radio this morning?
He was trying to argue that because the Tories had targeted his seat with more resources and consequently he had been outspent that some how the Tories where acting unethically!?
Heaven forefend that political parties should target their energise on winnable, marginal seats!
What’s worse was his suggestion that it was only the Tories who did this, all the parties do it Mr Bradley! Its how you win elections you deploy your resources to maximum effect in order to win the most seats!
…rant over… but it was bloody stupid argument by Bradley for radio four to even lend it credence.
Labour coming third isn’t too astounding - that’s what the figures state for 2004. And those figures were meant to send the LDs into Heaven…
[16] Bradley was a Westminster councillor when he was elected to Parliament, he’s stll got Porteritis…
O/T Completely - anyone got a thought on the likely Ukraine election result , and the resulting follow-through for the region? Seems a shame that a country with such a seemingly successful peaceful revolution should find democracy so hard that they vote for the old ways again.
16 - Speaking as someone living in an adjoining seat, I cannot really see that Bradley needs to look any further than himself for his failure to hold The Wrekin. If he’d spent half the time that he spent parroting Blairisms on attending to his base in Shifnal, Newport and Wellington he might well still be at Westminster.
Thank you Stephen for your efforts in the guest slot.
Historically of course for the Liberals/Lib Dems the parallel between local success and national breakthrough has largely eluded them. I’m sure we all remember numerious Lib Dem hacks waxing lyrical over the impending demise of many Labour and Tory MP’s on the basis of third party success locally over the years.
There appeared to be a glass ceiling that the Lib Dems would never break. The irony is that it took a combination of continued Lib Dem local success and more importantly the Tory collapse in 97 to finally bring 3 party politcs to the national scene. And now the Lib Dems are firmly entrenched in at least 40 plus seats, I believe the long term consequences for the Lib Dems of that Tory 97 collapse are yet to be seen. And those consequences, after 12/13 years of Labour government are much more likely to be a coalition government.
Stephen - why did you drop your double-barreled surname?
19 - A couple of points on Ukraine would be: 1) It is not clear that people have turned their backs on the revolution - a fair amount of movement was from Yushenko to Tymoshenko. 2) If you were an eastern Ukrainian mine worker who naturally enough wanted to look to mother Russia to bail you out by taking in uneconomic imports in the way favoured by Belarus, you would have little choice but to go for Yanukovych regardless of what his more unsavoury allies might have slipped in his rival’s coffee a year or two back.
Susan Small of Shifnal Staffs once complained about the portrayal of Telford in an Ad. I was sure the name couldn’t be real but it was.
I read recently that the other Bradley, keith was still depressed over his defeat. Unlike Peter he was just unlucky and will more than likely get his seat back if he stands again.
7/12 - Fwiw, my instincts are that Lab and Lib Dems will be slightly closer together than my extrapolated figures (I thought about “fixing the facts around the policy” but people have a come a-cropper like that before).
21 - Thanks, Jack. I think your last paragraph is especially perceptive.
It’s interesting looking at the local election figures since ‘79, which I hadn’t done before ‘researching’ this article. (They’re available here - http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-059.pdf - on page 51 for anyone interested.)
Though the Alliance had four pretty good local election results in the ’80s, getting 26-7%, it wasn’t a sustained performance. But the Lib Dems have now hovered at c.25%+ of the local election projected national share since 1993 (except when held on the same day as a general election).
None of which means the Lib Dems are going to sweep into government. But it does give the party a more entrenched base than it has known before, which is why I think we are less vulnerable (though not immune) to sudden collapses than might once have been the case.
21 - This might have done the rounds already but an interesting report in The Scotsman last Friday about the Lib Dems attitude towards the current coalition in Scotland.
While this is undoubtedly all part of the pre-election posturing by the Lib Dems, it does seem as though the loathing between the two partners in power is growing and I wonder how much of an inpact this would have on a future Lib/Lab coalition.
7. Sean, I don’t see how you have arrived at those numbers for London.
The actual vote shares in London in 2002 were Con 34.2%, Lab 34.1%, LD 20.6%.
Taking the difference between the 2002 national projected vote share and Stephen’s extrapolation from the latest ICM poll would give something like Con 39%, Lab 26%, LD 25% in London.
Labour would most likely hold Ealing and Haringey, but Brent, Camden and possibly Hounslow would go to NOC.
24 - Don’t know. Decent MPs lose their seats all the time of course. But an MP who goes down to a 20% swing against him, while no doubt a decent chap who is a model of kindness towards children and animals, does not look like the sort of overwhelmingly popular man of the people who would waltz back in on a re-run a couple of years down the line. It is a very marginal seat and will clearly be one to watch next time but, if I were Labour, I would choose a new candidate and not let sympathy get in the way of getting the seat back.
The strange thing about the Lib Dem vote is that it rarely has anything to do with anything they do or don’t do. I would happily bet that if they came out in support of capital punishment and full withdrawl from the EEC they’d still get their 20% and most probably from the same voters. They are at their most sucessful when the result of the government isn’t in doubt. It’s for this reason that I don’t agree with Jacks last paragraph. There is no evidence from any polls that the majority want a hung parliament. So at the next election as in nearly all previous ones the voters will decide which government they want-as indicated by the polls-and vote accordingly.
Stephen - thanks for articulating what I know has been happening over the mere 42 years I have been a Liberal.
Clearly “The future is bright the future is Orange”.
I assume Mike will be commissioning pieces from Labour and Conservative posters if they havent all thrown in the towel!
Kevin, Stephen’s figures suggested the Conservatives would be 6% up on their 2002 vote share, and Labour would be 12% down. I just applied those figures to London.
If the Conservatives were 18% ahead of Labour across London, then talk of a 1968-type result would not be far-fetched.
The mayoral contest in Lewisham could be closer than most people around these e-parts seem to think.
If you apply the General Election swing (in Lewisham) 2001/05 to the 2002 Mayoral Election, you get these possible 1st preference results this time:
Lab 36.2% - 16,117
LD 22.3% - 9,938
Con 17.3% - 7,685
Grn 16.8% - 7,471
Oth 7.4% - 3,307
If the 2nd preferences (from 4 defeated candidates: Con + Green + 2 Inds) split 50% neither, 40% LD and 10% Lab then the final result would be:
Lab 50.9% - 17,963
LD 49.1% - 17,323
22 - Well it certainly fits on election posters more easily;-)
32 - That assumes that Red Ken is seen as the puppet of Tony Blair, and thus suffers the same swing. I think this is false, and that Ken has a significant personal vote which means that the swing against him will be noticeably less.
Stephen,
I think the issue that you raise about it being a ’selectorate’ is important.
I’m of the opinion that campaigning’s main effect is to raise the turnout (important for labour who’s ‘promise’ vote is notoriously unreliable at getting to the polling station).
This means that resources become an increasingly central issue the more seats a party defends - this is where the current party funding crisis and declining/demoralised membership’s have an impact.
The LD’s seem to me the most optimistic (campaigning wise) party with a supposedly very active membership.
However they are small in comparison and I wonder at what point their expanding starts to reach the limits of their resources ?
Both Lab and Con have invested in expensive Database/Campaigning technology that helps them run campaigns with less members , with neither the members nor the money how do the LD’s challenge them further ?
While tribalism is loosening the Con and Lab vote will still have a sizable core vote , even when unpopular this vote keeps both parties in the running.
For the LD’s to build up a similar core vote will take time, I think the LD’s are right to feel optimistic about an increasingly loosening of the vote but ‘3 party politics ‘ may take longer than it apears at the moment - after all the 2005 GE was possibly a once in a generation opportunity for the LD’s.
I remember Kenneth Baker claiming Wandsworth and Westminster were the only results that mattered and how the supine BBC (which it was then) bought it hook line and sinker! Those of us not of a Tory persuasion were pulling our hair out at the injustice of it all. It’s the reason I understood the frustration of Tory supporters in the early 0’s when Labour’s spin machine was running on all cylinders. Those were the days!
24 - He can’t stand again, I’m fairly sure Keith Bradley is now a Peer of the Realm
Re: Ukraine- I have just come out of an interview where I made the point that Ukraine has a political system where no contending group is predominant, so negotiation and compromise are built into the system. This is why no single group is entirely pro or anti Russian or pro or anti the EU (although Putin is not pro Timoshenko or Yushchenko, there are still deals to be made, even with Russia). In some ways you could say that this election has been quite a success- the orange revolution was only the beginning of the democratic process, and however rough and ready Ukrainian democracy is, it is growing and is a standing rebuke to Russia, nevermind Belarus.
Having just returned from Aviemore and the Scottish Liberal democrat conference, I can certainly say that the relationship between the Lib Dems and Labour is pretty poor- Labour is getting the wind up on the number of seats they are set to lose to the Lib Dems. I don’t expect a breakthrough for the Lib Dems at Holyrood, although that is not impossible, but good progress seems pretty likely, and Labour are under withering fire even from the press that previously supported them.
In 1990, the Conservatives did well in London overall. Their majorities shot up in Westminster and Wandsworth, and they gained Ealing and Hillingdon, and nearly gained Brent. The media largely ignored Labour’s good performance elsewhere.
A thoughtful leader in Todays Guardian - I would have said much too early to judge, and whilst the party wanted an effective leader, the Liberal Democrat members are not as susceptible as apparently members in the other two parties are, to ditch principles to get into government”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1740192,00.html
Anyway they are at least talking about us, and on the doorstep, at least in England, we are one of the 3 main parties.
lennon. Ken Livingstone is not standing as Mayor of Lewisham.
As always Roger as your hair came out so did your brain. There was Hillingdon, Ealing and the Labour loss of Brent overnight. Westminster counted on the Friday and so the BBC had made up its collective opinion before a ballot box was opened in Westminster.
Why not do a tiny piece of research before you start ranting. However as you appear to be a Blair robot, research and facts would never enter into your contributions.
35. The problem for the Lib Dems is that the core votes of Labour and the Tories align reasonably well with obvious social and regional cleavages in the UK. Unless the Lib Dems can drag away a lot of voters from these two blocs, they will be left appealing to a rainbow coalition of disgruntled voters. This rainbow coalition already forms a kind of ‘core’ but it is too small to ‘break the mould’ of UK politics.
Re: 35 - I think this is a very interesting point. I think the LDs are still too inactive in too many areas. In these moribund places, the almost instinctive reaction for those disillusioned with Labour is to switch to the Conservatives. I don’t believe that for many this is because they have had a damascene conversion to Tory policies but because they are angry with Labour and there is apparently no other mechanism (apart from abstention) to show that anger.
Where an active LD group emerges (often more by accident than design) activity on the ground can mobilise the anti-Labour vote their way. This is how the LD (and other parties) begin to move forward. I think this also explains why the LD record of holding seats is poor - once the activists get elected, they are too busy being Councillors to keep the organisation on the ground active. Once that stagnates, the vote falls away or doesn’t come out at by-elections.
In the news today was Prescott announcing £468m extra for our wonderful sink estates. I wonder how much of that is heading to Lambeth, where labour hope to buck the trend in May?
Re: Ukraine.
It is not a mature democracy - and much depends on personality politics. (Bit like France then!) I believe that behind the scenes, the main players are more pragmatic than you think. The Orange Revolution has not been a great success, as it is now clear that the west is not so interested - they are decades away from EU membership - and the Ukraine did reasonable well from its relationship with Russia - for example cheap gas.
Yanukovych himself did not poison Yushchenko. They may not like eachother - but something could be worked out.
I can envisage a situation where any or all of the three main parties can work together. Yanukovych himself did not poison Yushchenko. Timoshenko, with the bizarre plaits, has played clever politics this last year, and is the real winner of the election, at Yushchenko’s expense. What is interesting is that the Communists and the far-right are not major players - unlike Russia.
In the meantime, it is getting interesting in Belarus. Can’t see a revolution there this month though.
OT: When Ukraine “turned west” last year, one of the first steps, ironically, was to announce a pull out of troops from Iraq!
It may be worth noting that the wrekin bradley didn’t exactly have quality opposition in 1997 and 2001, as his Conservative opponents were Peter “Hangman” Bruinvels and Jacob “Nanny does my canvassing” Rees-Mogg.
Yesterday Jack W and I were speculating on Blair’s going in 08 or 09 dependent on his attitude to Brown. Now today Tony declares that suggesting he was going to resign was a mistake!
But he doesn’t clear up if he thought that:
a. going was a mistake full stop OR
b. just saying when he was going to go by was a mistake
Where pb.com leads, the mighty and powerful follow!
29 roger. Your analysis is flawed. The electorate cannot vote for a hung parliament or any other parliament, just vote in individual seats that then make up the parliament.
Before 97 the prospect of a hung parliament and coalition government was much smaller because the Libs/Lib Dems struggled to break more than a dozen or two seats and thus the parliamentary sums made a hung parliament an outside shot. 50-70 Lib Dem seats make the prospect more much more likely after 12 years of a Labour government. Add to the mix that the Tories need a net gain of over 125 seats for a maj of one and that FPTP works against them presently and you start to put into place the pieces for a hung parliament.
My view is that with all the usual “events” caveats that the prospect of a hung parliament are about slightly better than evens.
47 - think he means b. Thought he’d end the speculation by saying he would go, but has only fuelled it and moved it onto “When?”
Local elections: Labour’s performance in 2004 was truly dreadful, and 2002 in London was not great. Can see heavy Labour losses in London, but perhaps they will hold their own in the rest of the country. Tories should do well in London, but can’t see how much more progress they can make outside London. Ditto Lib Dems. The key battleground will be the Lib Dem / Tory one.
37 - I had not noticed that. You are quite right. I do like the way he heavily publicised his successor’s mobile ‘phone number the moment he was ousted. Touch of class!
42 - Isn’t there some argument that the Lib Dems have to some extent done exactly that and dragged voters from the two blocs - essentially urban professionals who might previously have been expected to be Tory, village and small town Labour, and old-skool liberals of the non-conformist type. The issue then arises of how to unite that arguably rather disparate tribe.
34 - The mayoral election in Lewisham does not involve Ken Livingstone. The declared candidates so far are:
Steve Bullock (Labour, incumbent)
Chris Maines (Lib Dem)
James Cleverly (Con)
Mike Keogh (Green)
John Hamilton (Ind, anti-Bullock schools cock-up)
Sinna Mani (Ind, former Labour Cllr and Green mayoral candidate)
The Lewisham Mayoral contest could well be closer than many think. But I don’t think there’s a candidate in the running with the cross-party credentials to actually beat Bullock. At the moment, the best possible anti-Labour candidate would be Darren Johnson, but he plainly doesn’t want it.
38, 45 - Thank you both for detailed analysis and interesting insights. As is almost always the case, “it’s never as bad as one fears, never as good as one hopes”. I do just wonder how things in Kiev affect things in Minsk, but maybe not yet.
41,51 - Oops, completely mis-read the post. Apologies. :blush:
The Jacobites are stirring in Scotland and making the headlines in todays “Times” !!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105410,00.html
52 - although the Lib Dems have a significantly stronger grassroots base than they had four years ago following a string of local by-election victories.
53 - I think the increase in gas prices in Ukraine is symptomatic of the fact that distancing oneself from Russia is dangerous. Fear of similar things in Belarus will reduce the risk of revolution.
(My wife works as a researcher on the former Soviet Union. She has in recent years been “on revolution watch”.)
55 - True. If Chris Maines takes 1000 votes each in the five wards Lib Dems now hold, he only needs an average of 384 votes in the other 13 to reach 10,000 1st preference votes. (And that’s discounting extra Lib Dem activity going on in Blackheath, Perry Vale and elsewhere).
54 - And appear to be capitulating to the government as usual! The worst bit of the ban is all these smug non-smoking friends I’ve got who can’t stop commenting on how clear the air is - smell’s worse if you ask me!
Don’t suppose any of your estates expand into Moray Jack?
58. Narnia more like
Jack W @ 54 - have a look at Page 61 of the Times as well! It is almost an editorial on the sadness of getting rid of the Black Watch Regiment, who did such a fine job of work after the Rebellion in getting rid of all those pesky Jacobites (except in Harpenden, of course.)
58 Max. Sorry Max no ….. in the dim and distant past …. before WWII a relative had a holiday home in Findhorn overlooking the bay.
60 Augustus. You mean ethnic cleansing !!
59 James A. Ah yes …. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe ….. or Boris Johnson, Cherie Blair and Nicholas Soames ….
60 - I do think the way the Regiments have been treated is pretty shoddy given how much they’ve done, and continue to do, for this country.
“The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe ….. or Boris Johnson, Cherie Blair and Nicholas Soames”
Brilliant!
max: we have more in common than you might think. My father’s cousin was James Stuart, who was Tory S of S for Scotland in the 50s (earlier Chief Whip). His memoirs suggest he was a five-minute egg (told Churchill he wanted to vomit when Churchill said sentimentally “We must house the people!”), but according to my (pretty apolitical) mother he had wonderful manners, and his charm made her vote Tory right up to the Thatcher period.
15 Augustus C. “What is it they say about Oxford being the home of lost causes?”
Is that why this country gets so many of our useless Prime Ministers educated there?
63. Max - their proud history is of course exactly what would make Blairite ‘year zero’ freaks want to get rid of them.
65 - Where abouts’s in the Scotland was his constituency Nick? And those were the days when their was actually a bit of competition to be Tory secretary (or indeed shadow secretary) of state for Scotland!
Hello chaps
Sorry for the sparse posting. In reference to the actual post, I would say there is a very good chance of Labour going third. This however is not a certainty and the Lib dems still need to have a huge campaign in most, if not all seats, especially if it is to be a meaningful 2nd place It is no good to the lib dems in the long run if they get second place by having huge votes in places in Manchester City but don’t fight hard campaigns in surrounding counncils. To me anyway it smacks of all the eggs in one basket. We all remember what happened to the libs in Sheffield and Norwich it could happen next time in Manchester (if they do get in) and you never know even Newcastle. Although I reckon they have Liverpool for the next ten years.
64 He’s a very timid Lion!
[66] Yes, it would make a good ‘A’ level politics question - “In what ways were Callaghan and Major more successful Prime Ministers than Wilson, Thatcher and Blair?”
68. Funnily enough…Moray and Nairn
66 - so let’s look at our 4 most recent Prime Ministers who did not go to Oxford.
Neville Chamberlain - went to what is now Birmingham University
Winston Churchill - no university education - excellent during WW2, but not a good peacetime PM
Jim Callaghan - lovely bloke, but surely not a great PM
John Major - ditto
67 - I think there was a reasonable argument for the changes but I do think more of their identity could have been retained. Although the Scottish regiments have faired better than their English and Welsh counterparts in this respect.
71 - one I have always wondered if they will ask at A level politics is:-
In what ways can the SDP be described as the most influential political party of the 1980s?
63/67 Max/James. The Scottish Regiments have been treated very badly and their treatment will be a stain on this government.
70 zebidee. But he has a very fine mane !
65 Nick P. A James Stuart in the family !!
…. Almost wants me to move to Broxtowe and vote Labour ……… almost. 
60. I have been enjoying the Telegraphs fair well to arms coverage quiet poigiant really.
57 - I’d think that would be unlikely unless and until those wards became bankers for the LDs. We don’t know how well how well their vote will hold up with the increased turnout at a borough-wide election, and it takes some time before votes for councillors translate into a lead for the LDs at a national election. There’s plenty of potential for the LDs in Lewisham, but they don’t yet have the organisation to support a big bid for power.
76/65 Nick P. You’ve kept quiet about your Tory connections Nick …
….. even more so as James Stuart became Viscount Findhorn in 1959 !! 
Jack
“About 13,000 Scots die from smoking-related illnesses every year.” - The Times
I am not sure this no smoking policy has been thought through, what are we going to do with 13,000 extra Scots every year.
80 - Never fear Icarus - you can still rely on the Scottish diet - now where did I leave that deep fried Mars bar?!
80 Icarus. Place them in positions of influence and power and sort out the UK’s problems !!
You certainly needed a Scot as your agent in Misterton …. as the result showed !!
65 - James Stuart was an interesting figure. As a young man, he was equerry to the future George VI when he was Duke of York, and apparently fell out with him because of their mutual interest in Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, as then was. His rather trenchant attitude towards Conservative anti-appeasers as whip during the 1930s apparently prejudiced Churchill against him for a long time, permanently damaging his prospects (although he did become Scottish Secretary in 1951).
82. I thought they already were.
82 - Jack - a bit more local info on the three by-elections in Scotland on Thursday.
The Tory candidate for Borestone (Stirling) was in the year below me at Edinburgh and was heavily involved in the EUC&UA. In those days he sported an ill advised ginger mullet. For the sake of the party I hope this is no longer the case.
84 James A. Clearly not nearly enough !
85 Max. Ah ….. the indisretions of youth. I feel it your duty Max, to post some of his election literature !!
“About 13,000 Scots die from smoking-related illnesses every year.”
Funnily enough, they’re still going to die, despite a smoking ban.
I think local factors are becoming more and more important in local elections. Many people still vote tribally but I would say a mjority now vote on the basis of the party running the Council and perhaps more crucially the record of the local ward councillors.
In my own ward Labour are invisible and because of that their vote keeps on declining - maybe 12% this year.
I would suggest that this trend of local elections being fought on local issues is welcome. Gloucester has a Labour MP (swing to him in 2005) but they have the fewest councillors of the three parties on an NOC Council.
88. What a relief
I’ve been trying to find information on turnout in recent local elections, but the best I’ve managed only gets me upto 5 years ago or so [eg http://www.lgcnet.com/pages/products/elections/turnout.htm ]. Clearly local election turnout is often skewed by the occurence of other elections on the same day [Euro, general, etc], but I was thinking it would be a useful indicator to look at this time around.
A like-for-like increase in turnout would suggest that the electorate is being motivated to vote and would imply a change in mood [which has generally seen a decline in turnout recently], which would imply that the electorate is turning towards the Tories in order to kick out Labour.
Were there to be a decrease in turnout then I don’t think that Labour would need to be overly worried about the ‘Cameron effect’, since it would indicate that the electorate don’t yet view the Tories as an effective/acceptable means with which to bash the incumbent government.
80 Probably move them down to London to run the country for you.
A lot is made of cross-ticket voting in locals and general. Not sure how much of this is true though. The LDs typically ourperform at local elections, in comparison to GEs. Is this a matter of getting the usual vote out more effectively in locals?
Take Liverpool for example - large Labour majorities at GE; solid LD majority on city council. Do the Labour GE voters stay at home for locals, or do they vote LD? Any stats on this would be interesting.
79 - And funnily enough Findhorn is the only place in Moray to return a Tory councillor. It’s one of the most ‘independent’ councils - Labour are the biggest party on Moray council and even then they only have 5 seats.
91 - Not sure about the logic of this. It’s difficult to generalise, but my experience has always been that a higher turnout at local level usually means that Labour voters are turning out in higher numbers. On this basis I would have thought a lower turnout would be more likely to indicate disillusioned Labour voters staying at home, which certainly would be soemthing for Labour to worry about.
95 - which is what I am driving at in 93.
93 The clearest evidence is where the County Council elections were held at the same time as the GE and the same people voting at the same time gave the Lib Dems about 5% more of the vote in the County elections . Robert Waller has recorded this condsistently for 3/4 GE’s . Differential turnout is a separate factor which generally harms Labour most especially when they are in government .
73 SBS. didn’t say they were the ONLY useless PMs that came from/through Oxford! - or that they were any more or less uselesthan the others you quoted.
My spouse, of course, has other views of an Oxford education.
A man after my own heart:
“David Cameron has abandoned years of Tory opposition to new house building across the South-East, describing the “not in my back yard” tendency in his own party as “bananas”… Senior Tories said his call for more houses - to be outlined in a speech today - amounts to a sharp and deliberate change of direction after years in which the Conservatives have been seen as the “no to everything” party.”
I never thought I’d see a Tory leader turn on the NIMBYs; excellent stuff.
95. Higher turnout AND a higher Conservative vote share would clearly be a problem for Labour though.
@ 99. And thus the prophecy of Julian Critchley came to pass. “The Conservative Party has become a party of Estate Agents rather than Estate Owners.”
Warning: this post is ludicrously off-topic and personal, in reply to max and others above. But it might amuse some of you on a slow news day.
Thanks observer for the info on James Stuart - he didn’t mention being pro-appeasement in his autobiography! He had a varied life, among other things as a lumberjack in America. I don’t think he was well-off - his brother John inherited the family title and castle (my father asked him where the grounds ended and he pointed vaguely at the horizon and said ‘out there somewhere’). The family also had Cavers “Castle” (a souped-up country house, in reality) near Howick, which is now a ruin. My father, a romantic at heart, was dead keen on the Douglas connection and wore the tartan tie (recently discovered that Tessa Jowell was born Douglas Palmer like me, so we’re presumably related) but I’ve never had the chance to explore much in Scotland and my wife is not too keen, having been brought up by mad zealot Scottish nationalists.
My father’s family was mostly Tory till my generation - his uncle George Borwick (as in Borwick’s Baking Powder, invented by a bored vicar who made the family rich for a while a century or so ago) was MP for, I think, Bexhill. We’ve always tolerated each other cheerfully - not much option with everything from my youthful communism to an uncle’s current UKIP activism. The arrival of my mother, a Russian from a Menshevik background who voted Tory but liked the Soviets because they defeated the German invasion, confused matters further, but nobody ever tried to tell me what to think and just left it to me to work out. I’m still trying.
Talking of Findhorn earlier, it reminded me that it played a small but poignant part in the Jacobite Rising in 1746 :
During the early Spring of 1746 the French Navy brig Le bien Trouve was anchored in Findhorn Bay awaiting Hanovarian prisioners from Inverness and Prince Charles Edward Stuart’s new ADC Richard Warren. Outside the bay two government sloops, HMS Hawk and HMS Hound awaited the Le Bien Trouve’s departure. The Hawk and Hound were unable to pursue their quarry into the bay because of a large sandbank.
On the night of 6th April Le Bien Trouve slipped away unseen with its’ human cargo and important despathches of recent Jacobite victories in the Dornoch Forth. After a speedy sea voyage Richard Warren reached Dunkirk and on 20th April reached Versailles and rejoicing at Jacobite victories broke out. The terrible irony was that three days earlier on the 17th April the calamity of the Battle of Culloden had taken place. Never had such rejoicing been misplaced as the flower of the Clans lay dead on Drummossie Moor.
102 Nick P. What a splendid pedigree !!
BTW Cavers castle is for sale. Some of the early 16th centry castle remains together with an clumsy 19th century extension. Although the site is in a bad way I understand that offers over £250k are required. Time for you to buy back the ancestral home ??
99 I can see that being enormously popular in the Home Counties!
Unfortunately that wasn’t the last time the French Navy invaded British territorial waters
105. As usual I suspect there is rather less to this announcement than meets the eye.
O/T - F.A.O. Alastair Matlock.
Alastair - you stated yesterday that I had engaged in personal abuse against Rik Willis. Please notify me where I have done this. I have debated with Rik many times, and he with me, but in neither case have we resorted to personal insults to each other AFAICR. Similarly I have endeavoured to keep the debate with yourself along the same lines - I reserve the right to criticise Conservative policies in strong terms and have done so; I would not intend to and do not believe I have used abusive remarks against your person.
#95 - I think that, [all other things being equal] a higher turnout is normally better for Labour as ‘their’ voters are normally more prone to staying at home [and answering the phone to talk to the pollsters…]
What I’m trying to get at is a less local and more background effect. Since 1997 we’ve seen lots of elections where the turnout has plumetted due to dissillusionment with Labour in government and fatalism about the result [eg Leeds Central bye-election of 1999 with a 19.9% turnout is a classic example]. Indeed this was predicted for the Dunfermline by-election by Mike Smithson on this site. In this instance, although a ‘concern’ for Labour, low turnout isn’t a threat and is a sign of a benign political climate where they aren’t being challenged.
Looking at Leeds Central again, turnout rises by 4.7% between the 2005 and 2001 elections, more than twice the increase in turnout seen across the country [+2.0%]. Yet, with a higher turnout, the absolute number of votes for Labour is reduced [also marginally for the Tories], most of the extra votes from the increased turnout going to the Lib Dems. Hence, increased turnout was *not* good for Labour. The Leeds Central changes were indicative of a pattern seen across many relatively safe Labour seats where the Lib Dems gained lots of ‘anti-war’ votes. In this case people had something concrete to vote for [and it wasn’t the Conservatives].
From what I can tell of the overall figures, turnout in local elections has been declining from a peak during the early 90’s, which was the last time politics was ’seriously’ contested, in the sense that the electorate felt the outcome was in doubt and that their vote mattered.
My contention is that a rise in the turnout in the local elections now would be indicative of a general feeling that the Conservatives under David Cameron are a more credible alternative to the government. Conversely, a result which sees Labour severely embarrassed by coming in third, but with overall turnout still down, would represent a situation in which, although the electorate is disenchanted with the Labour government, they don’t have any enthusiasm for the Tories - ie the Tories remain toothless.
Thus, I am extremely interested with finding figures for turnout in local elections that extends up until the present, and also at what happens in May.
108 - Do we really have to go through all this again???
102 - There appear to be quite a few Labour MPs who have ancestral connections with parliamentary Conservatism: Alistair Darling, Fiona Mctaggart and Mark Fisher spring to mind. Perhaps you should all form a dining club…..
On the SE issue, I think Cameron’s made the right call. All governments eventually have to recognise that the SE is the key engine of growth in this country, and the only way that growth can be maintained is by allowing housing and infrastructure to grow. It’s extremely painful to think of woodlands being felled for Barratt new build or water meadows vanishing under concrete or tarmac, but hopefully greenfield building can be minimised. Cameron can afford to lose some SE votes on the issue given Tory strength in these areas. Despite criticisms of Prescott’s planning for the SE, the basic Labour approach hasn’t been that different from Gummer’s in the last gov’t.
110 - that is the end of it as far as I’m concerned but I couldn’t let the insinuation pass without comment.
111.”There appear to be quite a few Labour MPs who have ancestral connections with parliamentary Conservatism: Alistair Darling, Fiona Mctaggart and Mark Fisher spring to mind. Perhaps you should all form a dining club…..”
Ketty Ussher and the Bottomleys
112 - I don’t think it is appropriate to take this any further on this forum - in interest of civility, but if you want an answer then you can email me and I will explain it to you.
The Professor to write a guest slot I am pleased to report that The Professor will be writing a Monday Guest Slot during April. It will, of course, be about Gordon.
106 Admiral Penketh. Indeed. On 19th September 1746 the French ship L’Heureux rescued Bonnie Prince Charlie form the head of Loch-na-Nuagh and the Prince Regent escaped to France.
There is an excellent book on the naval aspects of the 1745 Rising that an oldsea dog like youself might be intersted in :
Ships of the 45 : John S Gibson … published by Hutchinson in 1967. Although out of print I’m aware of several copies available through the book search engine :
http://www.abebooks.co.uk
115.”The Professor will be writing a Monday Guest Slot during April.”
April 1?
117 - very good!
There seems to be some downplaying of Labour and Tory chances ahead of the May locals.
117 Andrea.
115 - Hmmm, that will be interesting. Will the Professor finally reveal his identity? I look forward to his column
120 Voice FTSW. It might be autobiographical.
119. Jack, you know, I’m shocked that Stephen Tall in his good piece decided to put a photo of Willie Rinnie instead of his ” Beech Road pavements” photo!
115 Excellent Mike and who else have you got lined up - Jack W on the prospects of the Jacobite Party at the next GE or AHM on Hunting Nick P with hounds ?
The expectations game means it is almost impossible for the Conservatives to “win” on May 4th.
123 Mark S. Much
…. but Mike doesn’t want articles on foregone conclusions :
Jacobites Sweep to Election Landslide.
Palmer Outfoxes Tory Hounds After 4 Recounts.
115. Mike - stop toying with us!
121 - That’s a point I wonder weather the Professor is employed at the same institution I study at. I hope for the sake of the University’s reputation that he doesn’t.
124 - as the French might say - quel domage
As to further topics, howabout Tabman on the Perfect Quiche?
Totally O/T, does anyone know at what time DC’s bloody stupid speech is going to take place please ?
If its already done, does anyone know if there is there a thread with the transcript in full please ?
FWIW, I had 13 negative comments on the doorstep this morning about it against only 2 in favour.
128 Tabman. A confession at last !!
129 local planning committees can be absolutely blinkered in their opposition to even the most trivial forms of development on Green Belt land (I know, I’ve sat on one).
That said, a commitment to mass house-building on Green Field sites (if that’s what it is) would be electoral death in the Home Counties. Safe seats wouldn’t look particularly safe with the Liberal Democrats campaigning hard on this issue.
129 Tory Boy. Cameroon was in Chiswick earlier and made a speech to some residents. Is it on the Tory website ??
130 I ate all the quiches
131 - something that ought to be done forthwith is the removal of VAT from Brownfield (how appropriate …
) development. Then the economics of reusing older buildings/sites might become less weighted in favour of the green belt.
131. I think the important phrase there is ‘if that’s what it is’…I suspect in reality it is just a bit of fluff to make the Tories look concerned and cuddly about housing.
131 Sean. I have to say it’s a bizzare policy for the Tories to pursue. Even the hint of concreting over the green belt, fields or sports fields would be an absolute gift to the opposition. Even if it wasn’t, but could be portrayed as such it’s tacticaly inept.
I doubt there’s enough time for it too impact the locals unless Labour and the Lib Dems are sharp and quick enough, although Tory Boy’s canvasssing indidcate the potential problems for the Tories longer term.
131 - A major problem with new developements in East Sussex Greenfield or not is that there is a serious shortage of water even before the last couple of very dry years . I believe that a new estate in Newhaven 3/4 years ago did not get approval because the local water company could not guarantee supplies .
133 - Jack, a local example of the policy in action being forced through via the Tory controlled council is goign down like the proverbial cup of cold sick here, too. Shame our locals are next year.
131 Sean, don’t I know it !!! AHM - apologies in advance…….
Being totally cynical, notwithstanding that I haven’t seen the script yet and am doing my best (but struggling) to retain a sense of proportion ahead of doing so, what a totally stupid thing to do/say this side of May 4th.
This is going to cost us dear.
As an aside, what will DC’s reaction/position be if he loses the Party membership vote on the new guiding principles for the party later this year ?
I’m aware of a growing number of people who took a leap of faith and voted for him last year who are now in dark despair for having done so.
If the polls begin to slide or there’s a blow out in May,this is going to kick off something alarming.
FWIW, Here is the coverage of DC’s remarks on the party’s web site:
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=128812
Looks pretty sensible to me and doesn’t appear to amount to any fundamental assault on the green Belt…My immediate guess is that more may be done to encourage the provision of ‘affordable housing’ as part of the larger development applications.
For my sins (grevious and diverse), I’m a member of a working group in my own Council on this subject.
“131. I think the important phrase there is ‘if that’s what it is’…I suspect in reality it is just a bit of fluff to make the Tories look concerned and cuddly about housing”
He shouldn’t even be hinting at it.
137/138 Tabman/Tory Boy. It may be that the detail of Cameroon’s policy is fine and dandy. But most voteres don’t have a great appreciation of planning and housing save NIMBY, especially where gipsies are concerned.
It just seems a blunder to leave hostages to fortune this close to the locals. Is there some masterplan here ?? … I’m struggling to find one ??
Getting rid of Home Information Packs is indeed sensible. But I think that, in general, this subject is far too sensitive to be broached in the run up to the local elections.
41 Jack,
If there is - please let me have a copy - pronto !!!
138 - As helpful and constructive as always ;). Why wait until you know the details when you can just sound off about a leader whom you’ve never really been reconciled to having anyway?
141 - Perhaps he was encouraged by positive responses to the question - “Do you think there should be more housing?”, without asking the follow-up question “…and in your area?”
“I had 13 negative comments on the doorstep this morning about it against only 2 in favour.”
Excuse me if I’m missing something but does canvassing often occur on Monday mornings? Who is at home then, pensioners and students?
78 - Are you suggesting that the Lib Dems will have trouble converting votes for ward candidates to votes for the mayoral candidate because the mayoral election will be more akin to a national election? That would be a bold claim, to say the least. You would expect turnout to be much higher in Lewisham than in the locals in other London boroughs if that were so. The figures from 2002 and mayoral elections elsewhere don’t bear it out.
For info, the average (mean) vote for ward candidates of each party was as follows in Lewisham 2002:
Lab .. 1108 (44% of mean turnout, or -1.3% from Bullock’s 1st prefs)
LibDem .. 530 (21% of mean turnout, or +4.6% on Feake’s 1st prefs)
Green .. 510 (20% of mean turnout, or +7.7% on Mani’s 1st prefs)
Con .. 472 (19% of mean turnout, or +0.6% on Stone’s 1st prefs)
LEAP .. 443 (17% of mean turnout, or +9.1% on Irvine’s 1st prefs)
… so it looks like there is a little split-ticket voting, but not a huge amount.
139 John O. Thanks John. What do you make of the Banana part of the speech ?
I think this has come too late for any short term damage and it’s not playing on the media too much. More long term … ??
146 - Must say a similar thought also crossed my mind….
As a non-Tory, I think Cameron’s home building annoucement is probably the smartest thing he’s done. It’ll hurt the base, but in the end they’ll still be a load of Tory MPs in the countryside, just as Labour never lost a seat over the abolishment of Clause 4. This kind of statement is exactly what a generation of wannabe home-owners wish to hear.