Has Tony outsmarted them again?
March 28th, 2006-
No apologies - it’s back to the Blair non-departure
With Tony Blair’s departure date comments in Australia continuing to cause ructions and Labour MPs calling for in that well-worn cliche a “smooth transition” I’ve returned to the political betting markets with a few hundred pounds to bet on the Prime Minister surviving. The 3/1 that’s available on him staying beyond the end of next year looks great value. 
There are several reasons:-
Labour party rules make a challenge to the leader much more difficult than those in the Tory or even Lib Dem parties where MPs alone have the power to force a vote of confidence. With Labour a conference decision is required and we are miles away from a situation where opponents could mount an effective move.
The loans affair seems to have peaked and Labour is successfully turning the spotlight on the Tories who continue to refuse to disclose who their secret backers were.
The polls are looking good for Blair compared with the “crisis” in September 2004 which preceded his famous statement on the evening of the Hartlepool by-election about not going beyond a third term. Then YouGov had Labour getting a six-point boost if Brown took over. Most recent polls have had Brown doing worse although the last YouGov survey showed a one point gain if the Chancellor was in charge.
Blair still looks driven giving the appearance, at least, of wanting to complete his policy agenda. The latest talk on an elected House of Lords show the breath-taking speed that he is able to frame the debate and set the agenda - taking attention away from the loans issue at the same time.
Brown is reluctant to initiate a coup as we have seen time and time again. If the Chancellor resigned taking several cabinet minsters with him that could bring down Blair. But Brown is ultra-cautious and is not going to risk his plan to be Prime Minister by being seen to be the assassin.
Finally Tony Blair is just plain lucky. This was the sole reason why, last July, I put my money on the London Olympic bid being successful when Paris was the tight odds-on favourite. I made money then and I think I’ll make money on the latest bets.
The main worry must be Blair’s health and the overwhelming pressure of the job.
William Hill, meanwhile have tightened “Blair out lasting Thatcher” price from 9/1 at the weekend to 6/1. This is not online although I am assured you can place a bet by phone. November 2008 would be when he would have served longer than the Baroness. Looks like a nice punt.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
The Telegraph reports that, for the first time, the issue of the transition of power has been raised at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour party.
This is a significant development. Rebels have spoken on the fringes and in the media before saying Blair should go, but this moves thigns on. The person who raised it at the PLP is a Brown fan.
Brown will no doubt be hoping others will do the dirty work for him so he isn’t the assassin.
Getting all cynical [for once] I said to a friend that Blair couldn’t resign as he needs the money from being PM to pay for his mortgage. This isn’t entirely true, though, as everyone assumes he will go on to make a mint on the US lecture circuit and by writing an autobiography. However, one would have thought that the main interest in a Blair book would be his own inside account of the Blair-Bush relationship, so… maybe Blair is waiting until Bush is gone [Jan 2009] before he goes himself to spill the beans on the “special” relationship…?
1. I’m not sure it is significant, mainly for the reasons Mike gives. It doesn’t really matter how much talk there is, or even where it is. Blair can stay as long as he likes unless either Brown chooses to force him out, which he can’t without damaging himself in the process, or external factors bring him down. That would have to be something on at least the scale of defeat of key legislation and a serious rebellion in a subsequent confidence vote.
There is at least one more reason for Blair to hang on longer, and that is that despite his all-but approval for Brown as his successor, I’m sure he’d really prefer to nominate his own man. At the moment, there is no credible alternative because all the other figures in senior positions have serious black marks against them. If Blair ever gets round to his reshuffle, it will give him the chance to put someone in the Foreign Office as an alternative successor. If he does, it will make both an earlier departure (but still Oct. 2007 at the earliest) and a non-Brown successor more likely. If not, back Brown and 2008/9.
Blair has always said that he will serve a full term. I am not sure why so few people take this seriously. GB does. Most of the “crises” of the last 12 months have been overblown because the media and some backbenchers believe that they can hasten Blair’s departure just by shouting loud enough and hyping. The latest Blair statement is clearly designed to counteract this. GB is not bothered about this as he knows that Blair is staying for at least two more years.
Points to mid or late 2008 giving GB the option of an election in (most likely)Spring or Autumn 2009. GB may have a spell at the FCO in between.
David at 3. Are you thinking that Straw is going to be fired as Foreign Sec? It’s a nice thought but I can’t really see it. I wouldn’t say for example that Benn “has any Black marks against them”? Infact if Brown was to fall under the proverbial bus Benn would be an interesting choice. And the irony of having a Benn as leader of NEW Lab would be irresistable!
1. I think it has been rised before too. It was reported Paul Flynn once asked him when he’ll go.
but as you said, the difference is that this time it’s not a serial rebel to ask for it (even if he has rebelled on Education and Terrorism Bill), but a fan of Brown. But I got the impression he’s just a fan and not a “Brown’s ally” (I mean someone who did it with a clear scheme in mind and approval of Brown)
IMHO,if Brown doesn’t assert himself and force the issue now,
his chance will have gone.
His previous ‘circumspect caution’ in this area could and has already been described as cowardice/lack of killer instinct by some.
To wimp out again, would send out all the wrong signals and would be extremely damaging to his chances.
I heard that several newspapers had suggested that if Brown didn’t wield the knife now he would-in effect-show that he didn’t have the backbone for office. I really can’t imagine what he’s supposed to do? He can’t just instigate a contest whenever he feels like it.
Tony Robinson has called for TB to step down which I think could be significant.
8 - “My Lord Blair, I have a cunning plan …”
Vino - O/T I have answered you on the previous thread re WB.
5. Not fired, moved on to another post - Leader of the House or similar. Five years is a decent spell at the job and nine in a great office of state. I don’t consider Benn as a possibility yet (or Miliband) because they don’t have the necessary seniority. That’s why it’s crucial for Blair to create the vacancy if he wants to go down that route. Benn could certainly be a future leader, but not with International Development as a springboard.
“……But we need a futile gesture”
It’s lose-lose for Labour now as far Blair is concerned. The longer he now stays the longer the sense of drift will have to fester. But if he goes early it may actually be too early for Brown whose honeymoon will be long since gone by the next election. Labour now hold a lot of seats on slim majorities and I expect them to suffer the sort of tactical voting in the marginals next time that the Tories did in ‘97.
8. Roger, Jackie Ashley is one of those who wrote yesterday that Brown should act now (actually it seems she was urging him to do so)
I’m trying to remember who was Maggies heir apparent before she plucked John Major from nowhere? I cant remember anyone. The idea of a major Cabinet reshuffle is something Blair is likely to keep up his sleeve till close to the local elections. It’s always good for a short term boost-not to mention as a diversion from bad news.
[7] You haven’t got the hang of this “spinning” lark, have you, TB? Re-read the Professor’s post. Let’s assume that the Prof is who he says he is (and not another figment of Our Gracious Host’s imagination, which none of us can yet wholly discount). Why would Gordon Brown want the FCO? He of all people knows where the power lies in NuLab’s Whitehall. What the Prof is saying is that Blair has told him that it’s a pre-condition of the next Labour leadership election that Gordon isn’t at No. 11. And it’s the P.M., not the heir apparent, who’ll decide who the next Chancellor is.
What is clear is that Brown’s popularity in the last Parliament was indeed the “not Tony Blair” factor, coupled with a series of presentationally inept Tory leaders.
I agree with Mike’s last point, though - never ever underestimate “events, dear boy, events”.
Andrea. I wouldn’t say Jacky Ashley has any influence within the party whereas Tony Robinson does. And of course he is known as a Blair loyalist
16.”And of course he is known as a Blair loyalist”
Baldrick is a Blair’s loyalist!
If GB moves to the Foreign Office we’ll all want to know the identity of the professor!
[14] John Moore- cut down, Cecil Parkinson- resigned over “indescretions”, Michael Heseltine- outsmarted by JM to name but three…
16. ‘Tony Robinson has influence within the Labour Party’. You cannot be serious.
Blair’s out of the country so psychologically now’s the time for plotting if its going to happen.
Re - Brown , There seemed to be no countering the media’s claims that the Budget was his last and the ‘ blue print for his premiership’ narrative also seems pretty uncontested. This may be because he is going to the Foreign/Home office for a year or two and not necessarily that Blair will step down in September.
There does appear to be a solid deal with Brown but its creating tension in the party because no one else seems in on it and so peoples anxieties and desires are still swirling into the mix.Those allied but not in the ‘need to know’ loop are the most twitchy and suspicious - hence the ‘brown fan’ at the PLP meeting.
What has resulted from last weeks Dromey/ Clark spat ?
I’d guess that each outburst has put each player in touch with ‘like minded’ factions ( if they werent already).
This doesn’t necessarily mean the heat will continue as strategies will be forming ( ” wait till after may ” for example.
As ever, Blair is safe until there’s serious movement among the big beasts - If this week is the tories turn to get monstered over loans ( ” Mr Crick is in reception “) then the crisis is over .
Clarke’s actions to me seem the most reliable weather vane.
If anyone wants to follow the Ukrainian election results (now 70% in): http://www.cvk.gov.ua/vnd2006/w6p001e.html
It’s moving towards the Party of Regions now because the eastern regions have been counting more slowly. So the exit polls probably were right.
20 - Wasn’t Tony Robinson elected onto the NEC? Not sur how much influence the NEC has in Labour circles anymore. When I were a lad it seemed to be a big thing.
23 - further to this, IIRC he was a leading light in the Actor’s union.
There’s no doubt that Blair has Brown over a barrel on this one. And that is of course because Blair as PM still holds all the power and all the cards.
It’s slightly unfair to accuse Brown of not having the “killer instinct” required for PM, as he knows as well as any that those who wield the knife dont get the crown. However, the Liberals just showed (with Ming) that he who pays the knife wielder can get the crown - as long as he is the strong front-runner, which Brown is. In the Liberal case though, there was secret knowledge about Kennedy (his alcoholism) that was the knife. So… is there secret knowledge about the Blair government that could be the knife? If so, will the Brownites use it?
If they dont, I agree that Brown’s time may actually be passing. Any promotion of Benn/Milliband to the heart of the cabinet in the near future will rightly be seen as a declaration of war by the Blairites. But what can the Brownites do about it? Unless they have that knife… nothing without damaging their own changes. All the Blairites are casually saying “Brown is the favourite” which they will continue to do until their new man is properly in place!
As for the effect on the polls, I am less convinced that the numbers are against Brown. There are a good many Labour activists who are sitting on their hands doing nothing until Blair goes. Likewise there are many voters who are Labour through and through who will not vote for Blair. Although Brown will send soft Tories back to Cameron, he will also, IMO, raise turnout among Labour supporters and energise the activist base (even though Brown is unlikely to be that different to Blair in policy terms - but they can hope cant they!).
The big losers in this will be the Liberals, who Blair sends lots of votes to. As a Liberal I want Blair to limp on forever, in fact to fight another election!
However, when I think with my heart, not my Machiavellian brain, I want Blair to go today - because he has lost touch with reality after all this time, and has become the most irresponsible and corrupt PM of modern times.
20 James A. I think you’ll find that Baldrick has considerable influence in the root vegetable wing of the Labour party ….. otherwise known as the NEC. The more so if they are members of the National Union of Turnip Workers and Associated Growers.
23. Tabman, he has been on the NEC, I think until 2004.
24. He has been vice-president of Equity.
ANy chance at all of Blair backtracking and going for a 4th term?
26.”I think you’ll find that Baldrick has considerable influence in the root vegetable wing of the Labour party ….. otherwise known as the NEC.”
Jack, he’s no more on the NEC
20. Well he’s on the NEC and after deciding that it was time for Blair to hang up his boots he was invited into several radio stations to say what a wonderful leader he had been but the time had now come…….
I think it was last week.
25 - exactly, many in the labour party want Brown but Brown seems happy to wait, is this because…
A)Brown has a solid deal
or
B)Brown thinks he has a solid deal
29 Andrea. Indeed. he gave up the NEC for the love of a good turnip.
31 Or C) Despite all the appearances to the contrary Brown actually enjoys being Chancellor and doesn’t really fancy being PM having seen what it’s done to his friend Tone. However he has to go along with the pretence as it’s a vote winner (for the moment) and NuLab have no other obvious candidates. - Or is this now too far-fetched…
PS Sorry. EX member of the NEC
33 Forgive me for being a cynic, but might it all come down to money in the end? Would Gordon’s memoires make more as the PM we never had, or as the PM who got turfed out by the electorate after the housing bubble burst?
32 - Jack, just woken up?
You must get the butler to bring your porridge a touch earlier!
[26] I know they’re arcane, Jack W, but do try to get these socialist acronyms right - NUTWAG is the National Union of Turnips, Worzels and Associated Growths…
Where is TB leaving after the end of 2007 available at 3-1?
William Hill have ’suspended the market’. They are ‘reviewing their prices’. As staight forward and undevious as…..anyway, they have the power, and they are using it.
38 - Can’t see live prices, but presumably the Blair Switch market on Betfair.
35. Is this the housing bubble that has supposed to be bursting since 1999?
re 38. David - it is the “Blair Switch Project” and I think that I got all that was available at 3/1.
40 It’s the one where estate agents are currently predicting house prices will drop 20-30% in the next 5 years… I agree “burst” is probably the wrong word… but mortgage companies have been advancing such a high percentage of the house price (especially to first time buyers) that this will be quite a problem…
42. Garbage, been reading this nonsense for too long now.
Which estate agents? (because they are really going to do themsleves out of business). Employment at record levels, mortgage rates at 40 year lows, that’s why house prices have risen, its not brain surgery.
42 Anna. No bubble bursting presently !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4848654.stm
…………………………………
36/37 Tabman/IA.
How will a house price crash be a problem?
There is no other good the persistent inflation in price of which would be so celebrated. Can you imagine people rubbing their hands with glee and announcing the persistent increase in the price of cars?
If tomorrow a great crash happens and my house loses 95% of my value, it would be a wonderful thing. It would be slightly galling that I had indebted myself to buy it when I could have waited a year and bought it for cash, but it wouldn’t just be my house that had lost so much value - so I could sell my house at a loss (which is a sunk cost anyway) and buy a much bigger one (if I wanted to).
The only people for whom a crash would be bad news is people who had invested their savings in many houses. For the vast majority of us (who need exactly one house) it would be wonderful news; for those without a house who are struggling to afford one it would be even better.
This is how it seems to me, anyway. If someone would like to politely explain how I am not being made poorer by the relentless increase in house prices I will be glad to hear it.
Cookie at 45. Suggest you look up the word ‘bankruptcy’ in the dictionary.
46 Marcus. Suggest you look up the word “opportunity” in the dictionary.
45. I disagree with that analysis a little Cookie, but i know what you are saying.
Perhaps house price inflation is good for a consumer economy, people can withdraw equity from their houses to spend on new cars/plasma TV’s etc… There is also the factor that people feel richer and worry less about a pension shortfall, again keeping them spending. All this provides jobs in the high street/estate agents/building inductry etc…. and ripples through the economy at large.
Given the economic conditions i would say houses are fairly valued at present, there is certainly no bubble, despite what the Daily Express keeps trying to tell us.
Guido is going large on a Sept handover - is this shaping up to be MC vs CH or OO vs PB part 2 ?
OO is 1-0 up from the first leg…
46 - No need to be patronising, Marcus. I was after an answer here rather than a battle of wits. But as long as I keep up the repayments on my mortgage, what’s the problem?
The Brownites surely won’t be forcing the issue at the moment, will they?
If he were to take over now then he would surely want to call an election before too long, otherwise any controversial or unpopular issues that he would see vocal questioning of his mandate from the country.
Is Labour’s financial circumstance such that it would be able to fight another election in the near future?
He’s got to be absolutely fuming about the loans row - if DC _does not_ slip up then this 18 month window of opportunity before the Tories have formulated clear policy may have been his only opportunity for GB to get his own mandate with a majority.
For a similar reason, it’s surely not in the Tories interest to get rid of TB just yet… propping him up (when he tries to get through stuff that they would have done, a la Education) when it suits them is just fine and dandy for the time being.
Which reminds me… missed the papers in the last week or so… has it been established just exactly WHY Dromey launched his attack when he did? Was it about to be broken in a national paper anyway, did he have some crazy idea that setting the party into turmoil was somehow a good thing? I’m still puzzled by that.
If it was anything at all to do with discontent caused by the Education bill then DC’s strategy of supporting it was in fact a masterstroke.
The reason for the disaster in the early 90’s wasn’t caused by house price falling but because interest rates went up and people couldn’t afford their mortgage repayments. I agree that it would be good for everyone except the property speculator if prices went down and does anyone really care what happens to Van Hoogstraten and friends?
52. I disagree, i think it would be disastrous for the UK economy if house prices fell considerably (20-30%). The resulting fallout would lead to major job losses, and a sever economic slowdown or recession. You can only pay the mortgage if you have a job after all.
48. A serious drop in house prices (say 20-30%) would almost certainly have a major depressive effect on the economy. Consumer spending is heavily influenced by moves in house prices, and accounts for around 70% of overall GDP growth. Mortgage equity withdrawal, mentioned by an earlier poster, has had a very important role in keeping consumer spending up in the last few years. The recent decline in MEW has been one reason for the slowdown in consumption over the last twelve months, and MEW would collapse in the event of a major drop in house prices.
FWIW I think the risk of a major crash is small. Although unemployment is rising, it is doing so only modestly, and mortgage rates remain relatively low. The much more likely scenario is that house prices rise at 0-5% for 2-3 years. This will probably mean consumer spending grows quite modestly too, but it is a recipe for stagnation rather than catastrophe.
Any of “DC’s masterstrokes” has been overtaken by his non-disclosure of the loans. Labour learnt early on that when you are found with your fingers in the till you limit the damage as quickly as possible. Cameron can’t enter a fish and chip shop these days without being asked about the loans and anyone who saw Michael Crick humiliation of him on newsnight will know that he’s got a lot to learn. Even the excellent Ken Clarke was left floundering infront of Paxo because of his leaders ineptitude.
Cookie, I am not trying to eb patronising but you seem to have forgotten about all the people whose deposited savings account for the money the building society lent you secured on the value of your house.
If house prices fell 95% yes, a few first time buyers would benefit but literlally millions of savers -mostly old people and the retired- would be bankrupted.
Frankly, I’m a bit tired of people whining about the cost of houses - if no-one can afford to buy then house prices as a percentage of average income fall. The vast majority of people benefit significantly from rising house prices.
Governments and councils take responsibility to help people get started but, by and large, most councils do.
It’s never been ‘easy’ to buy a first home - nor should it be - but it is a damn site easier to buy (and sell) a home in Britian than in almost any other western economy.
Guido reckons Jul/Sep is a good bet and gives his reasons.
http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2006/03/are-there-six-dozen-good-and-true.html
In “The sun” this morning a violent attack against Ken Livingstone + an actual call to vote against Labour in the locals…
“Tax bandits
REMEMBER the poll tax — the hated Tory charge that toppled Margaret Thatcher?
Labour promised something better. Instead, we’ve been lumbered with a draconian council tax that has DOUBLED in nine years.
The latest 4.5 per cent rise, twice inflation, leaves a typical household to pay a jaw-dropping £100 a month.
And this year there is no £200 election bribe to soften the blow for pensioners.
Some town halls waste money, but most struggle to absorb extra costs imposed by the Treasury.
Councils now take responsibility for hospital patients and the elderly once cared for by the NHS.
They support a growing army of pen-pushers costing billions.
Chancellor Gordon Brown has so far got away with stealth taxes.
But council tax hits hardworking families and pensioners on fixed incomes like a sock in the eye.
By chance, they have an opportunity to make their voices heard — in the May 4 town hall elections.”
I used to find Guidos site funny but he seems to have fallen so deeply in love with DC that it’s now become just another Conservative blog.
57 - but they would only be bankrupted if I stopped paying back what I owed them. Which I suppose if I was unscrupulous, I might reasonably do, as personal bankruptcy no longer seems the big deal it once was and I wouldn’t need a mortgage anyway.
Couldn’t a consumer boom also be driven by people not having to be spending quite so much on their houses and therefore having more money?
Yes, mortgage repayments aren’t totally unaffordable yet - but it used to be the case that inflation would make it much easier much more quickly, so it would only be a struggle for the first few years of a mortgage. In current conditions it is going to be a struggle for the whole lifetime of a mortgage. The spending boom now is going to run out of steam as more and more people find themselves in this situation.
“If tomorrow a great crash happens and my house loses 95% of my value, it would be a wonderful thing.”
Be careful what you wish for!
56. A house price fall of the magnitude being discussed would also have some intriguing distributional effects; the least affected would be young renters and older people with no mortgage or debt secured on their properties. The most affected would be families with large mortgages and often further debt secured on their houses. This group would face serious balance sheet losses that in some cases would lead to forced house sales and in most a cutback in their discretionary spending. This is a rather critical group politically too - these people swung strongly to Labour in 1997 and have swung away only slightly since.
15 - IA - You self evidently place a lot of emphasis on ‘The Professor’s’ posts, rather too much so for your own good,IMHO.
I suspect you might well find him ‘on the offer’ if you choose to buy Blair’s longevity. Ahh Innocent Abroad, how apt.
56 - Surely most retired people mostly own their own homes and have few debts. A general collapse in house prices would not bankrupt them and would have less effect on them than most (they’d have no problem moving if the collapse was general, although they would be in a poorer position to sell their home to pay for care). I hesitate to suggest that you should look up the term “bankruptcy”!
The effect would be felt by people with negative equity who wanted to move, people who were keen to borrow against the value of their home and confidence generally - all important issues as Fred notes. But actually pensioners would be amongst the least affected.
59. roger - you are a master of NuLab karate - dont like the message - disparage the messenger.
Cookie, your understanding of economics is a bit patchy, mate.
In fact a high inflation/high interest rate environment makes house buying more expensive because in effect consumers are forced to pay down their loans more quickly.
In the olden days of rampant inflation interest rates had to be much higher. When I bought my first house (£25,000 - in 1983) my morgage payments were £300 per month and in 1990 my payments on an £80,000 morgage were over £1000 per month -and that was a fixed interest deal with MIRAS tax relief.
You raise a real issue that inflation isn’t going to pay off peoples morgages for them - but the alternative is to pay more each month.
Given the choice, at the moment, people are happier to spend the money on consumer goods - and good luck to them.
60. Technically you are correct as if you keep up the mortgage repayments then presumably the building society or bank will be reasonably happy. However this is not really the point - as I mentioned earlier consumer spending is highly correlated with movements in house prices, both because rising prices make people feel better off and because they allow the withdrawal of equity from houses (i.e. additional borrowing)to finance more consumption. If house prices fall these effects go into reverse and consumer spending and thus overall growth will drop. The small number of winners in such a scenario would be heavily outweighed by the large number of losers.
James at 64. - if the building society you lent your savings to can’t get that money back (because the assets it has secured the loans on are worthless) you lose your money.
Millions more people have savings (that they depend on in their retirement) than big morgages.
a 95% drop in house prices would be catastrophic.
Sorry, should have explained a bit better - my point was that low interest rates per se don’t make houses affordable - what makes houses affordable is low interest rates in comparison to inflation.
Though obviously low inflation is desirable for all sorts of other causes.
Yes, Marcus, plenty of banks and building societies would go under if there were ever a house price fall of that magnitude.
68. Marcus - yes in principle there could be a further issue if lenders’ own balance sheets were significantly affected by a drop in house prices. This could then see a credit crunch with loans being called in and new loans severly restricted. Actually this happened to some extent in the early 1990s. But that would require a very steep fall in prices and a large rise in defaults. And defaults will only rise significantly if either rates rise sharply or employment falls sharply. The 95% fall Cookie (I assume jokingly) suggested would probably do the trick, but I doubt 20-30% would.
Thinking back on the early nineties, I bought a flat for £79,000 in 1990, which by 1994 was valued at £29,000. Fortunately, I was able to let it out until the price recovered.
[63] Err… “nudge nudge
;)” perhaps?
WRT to house prices, I always liked the old Caribbean-origin guy I met years ago who said that he “rented his home from the Building Society” - I do think that home ownership is a different kettle of fish with low interest rates and low inflation - clearly negative equity creates labour immobility (which no one supports AFAIK) - but the underlying issues of land shortage (relative to most if not all other “advanced” economies) and the desirability or otherwise of savings going into housing rather than productive investment opportunities remain.
Fred - yes, the 95% wasn’t serious - while I’d like to see much cheaper houses, I accept that that sort of sudden economic shift can’t be desirable. But I would like to see a gentle descent by about 20-30%.
I’m fortunate - I have a moderately well-paid job, a partner, and co-operative parents. But young single people absolutely cannot afford houses. And as a result this will be the first generation for some time who cannot afford the lifestyle their parents had.
69. True up to a point, but low real rates also tend to greatly inflate house prices, as we have seen. After a certain point, this damages affordability for first time buyers because the lending multiples most banks and building societies work off will prevent such buyers being able to raise a big enough mortgage. As many first time buyers have very limited savings as well, they can also struggle to raise the required deposit.
Halifax BS have released figures suggesting the average first time buyer’s deposit has risen to £24k from £9.9k in 2000. This is quite a big sum, and as a result, such buyers are getting older (33 versus 31 in 1995) and fewer (300k in 2005, versus 532k in 2002).
59. You could be right but there is a difference between someone who cynically and wittily looks at politics and someone who does a hard sell. The difference between for instance Private Eye and an article by Mark steyn. Guido even wrote a letter to Margaret Beckett demanding something or other…..
All on here know how dull it is to read a partizan rant-just read some of my efforts if you can bear it-but that’s what Guidos blog is at the moment.
Just a quick word on the Moray by-election. It seems certain (as is being reported on the Scottish Tory web-site) that Mary Scanlon will resign her list seat (the official selection is tomorrow) in the Highlands & Islands to fight the Moray by-election for the Tories.
It’s a big risk as you can’t just go back to being a list MSP if you lose the by-election. She will probably be replaced on it by David Petrie.
74. Cookie - yes you have a point about the inter-generational issue I think. But remember people in their 50s and 60s who are home owners have been exceptionally lucky - if they bought houses in the 1970s (i.e. they were able to get what was then rationed mortgage credit) they benefitted first from high inflation that eroded their initial debts, then from the deregulation of the financial system in the 1980s which boosted prices by freeing up mortgage credit, then from the sharp fall in rates from the mid-1990s to now which has inflated prices even further.
77. Max, but could she try to get back on the Highlands & Islands list for next year if she loses the by-election?
77 Max. That seems somewhat politically brave of Mary Scanlon. I don’t rate her chances as spectacularly high in Moray, that is after all something of a SNP fiefdom. What say you Max ?
80- Jack, it could depend on how much personal vote Ewing had. when she stood from Westminster in 2001, SNP lost 11.3% in Moray (mainly to Lab and LD).
77 Yeah she doesn’t have a great chance but she had already been selected to fight Moray in 2007 in any case.
OT It seems that Mayor Ken is starting to embroil himself in more hot water with some fairly sharp comments about the Reuben Brothers and the American Ambassador in Britain. He was laid into today by the Sun on the issue of his GLA precept. Is the shine coming off him and does it open up an opportunity for a more interesting Mayoral Contest in 2007? If so who would challenge and what are the chances of him being beaten?
82 Ian C. And lose again in 2007 ??
81 Andrea. Still pretty solid for SNP though.
83 I don’t see how getting the Americans to cough up for the congestion charge is politically unpopular. Who are the Reuben brothers?
84. Jack, in 2001 at Westminster level, they had just a 5% majority over Labour. I wouldn’t call it solid.
Anyway, the good news for SNP is that they performed well last may in the Moray area (one of their best performances IIRC).
80 - It’s very tough but I think we have to at least be seen to be making a fight of it. We are in second place, we have a good candidate and the seat has a Tory pedigree (polling over 17,000 votes as late as 1992). Their is also no question that Margret Ewing had a significant personal vote and I’m not at all convinced it will all transfer to Richard Lochead (who is from outwith the Highlands and Islands although it should be noted that Mary Scanlon is from Inverness not Moray itself) - in the event he stands for the SNP.
The SNP should hold it but this development makes it at least a bit more interesting.
58-Chris
The Sun to-day and a Labour minister yesterday commenting that we have reached the top of the escalator with this ridiculous tax.
The current Labour strategy of rebanding by stealth through the back door and the never ending Lyons talking shop is only likely to exacerbate the situation.
Could well be one of the big issues at the next election.
Marcus, do stop patronising my (IIRC) Tory-voting constituent Cookie, you’ll drive him into my arms.
On the topic, FWIW I’ve given my own view (summer 2008) before, so I think Mike is right. But with the possible timeframe narrowing it’s becoming (even) less of an issue for most MPs. As regulars here know, I support the Government in general and TB’s premiership in particular, but to be honest I don’t really care much whether the changeover is in (say) December 2007 or June 2008 or December 2008. I’m against it happening now, but it won’t.
Similarly, critics know it’s going to happen in the forseeable future and it’s not going to happen imminently, so with a few exceptions they’ve stopped talking about it - even most of the usual suspects have got bored. Journalists are another matter - they need to keep stirring the pot to sell papers.
Max, Sorry, but I cannot remember where exactly in North East Scotland you live, but please remember that a lot of us here are relying on you for good, quick, accurate gossip on the Moray By Election. Keep it coming!
90 - I believe he lives in Edinburgh… but the Tories in Scotland are a small bunch…
22- Thanks for that link. I see from the latest results that the liberal partyof ukraine are stuck on 0.04%. Still, I imagine that won’t stop them issuing some “we’re winning here” leaflets next time around
22. is 3% the threshold to get seats?
Maybe Scanlon has been persuaded to do it as a last hurrah - not beyond the realms of possibility and would be a nice boost for the Tories if they won. But if she loses she is very close to 60 anyway and might well get a peerage for her trouble. She sounds as if she has had a decent career outside politics and doesn’t need to scrabble around for a year or two just for the sake of building up pension entitlement.
90 Augustus. Max lives in a no smoking pub in Edinburgh !
Marcia reports from Dundee and Stephen B from close to Inverness. And there are a few other Scottish posters too !!
90 - I live in Edinburgh! Although I’m a party member in DC&T as I grew up on a small village in Peeblesshire.
91 - Tut, tut Lennon - 15,000 members and growing since DC took over!
96 - In a small village even!
96. re party members.
are UK figures particularly low (for all parties) or similar numbers are present in other countries around Europe?
Livingstone calling the American ambassador a “Chiselling little crook” after describing him as a George Bush fundraiser who bought his ambassadorship just shows that he’s not lost any of his populist instincts. The Sun is honour bound to criticize him but you can be sure there will be plenty of glasses lifted to him in London this evening.
NB There is as much chance of Ken losing in London as there is of Glenda becoming Labour leader.
Livingstone is increasingly becoming a buffoon Roger.
Indeed but a very popular one.
His council tax demands are now being noticed by London voters, and eroding his popularity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4852794.stm
UKIP is planning to field about 300 candidates in local elections.
MEP John Whittaker said he would be delighted if UKIP helped Labour win seats off the Tories. In particular they will target Warrington to oust the tories from the council
To pick on an American multi millionaire friend of George Bush who wants to con Londoners out of his contribution to the congestion charge doesn’t even require the political nous of Ken Livingstone. It’s a gift!
re 100 I would not rate the chances at that level. Ken was helped enormously last time by the Tory candidate’s links with Jarvis and a huge level of LD-LAB and CON>LAB switching.
Even then Norris got much much closer than anybody was predicting.
Will that happen in 2008? A lot depends on the Tory choice of candidate. Ken might have problems with the Jewish vote.
The Jewish vote in London is small-as it is in the UK-and even if it voted as a block which it never does it is inconsequential when compared to the Muslim vote which COULD vote as a block if religious affiliations became an issue.
99-US Ambassadorships are normally given at the whim of the President to friends/contributors/etc. Even Saint Bill did it.
Jews are only about 2.5% of London’s population, but a pretty influential 2.5% I reckon. But if the Conservatives can find a decent, reasonably well-known, candidate, then they have a good chance of winning in 2008.
What Livingstone really benefitted from in 2004 was high name-recognition in a low turnout election. And even then, his margin of victory wasn’t great.
107. re Jewish vote.
London parliamentary constituency with the largest Jewish population are:
Finchley (23.9%)
Hendon (22.5%)
Hackney North (14.1%)
Hampstead and Highgate (13.6%)
Ilford North (12.5%)
Harrow East (10.4%)
Chipping Barnet (10%)
109 - Any sugestions for who that might be Sean?
104 - john wittaker the ukip mep is my old lecturer from lancaster uni. I used to have a load of fun with that guy. Although i firmly support being in the e.u i used to try and convince him that ukip should sell some moral issues that are caused by being in the e.u, such the horrid cap.
98. Do you think that they’re low? I would have thought that they were probably comparatively quite high.
111. Bound to be a celebrity….
113, Russell…I asked it, because in Italy parties which polled less than 20% last time have 550,000 members. The commies (with 6% of the vote) have 90,000 members.
The Greens with 2-3% of votes have 31,000 party members.
I think those numbers are highes than those for UK parties with the same level of electoral support.
109 Sean. I think Roger is correct. Livingstone is one of these rare characters in politics who bucks trends and for all his faults is seen as in the one sense as a highly political animal and on the other hand above the fray working for the interests of most Londoners. Highly frustrating for political opponents, but I think true all the same.
Nobody has ever made much money betting on Ken’s political demise. And certainly the Tories will need a credible candidate after the shambles with Lord Archer and Old Shagger Norris.
116 - Not sure if he’s too busy focused on the Olympics, but the only obvious candidate I can think of would be Seb Coe.
I’m running for Mayor as an independent, my sole* policy being filling the Thames with dolphins.
Vote Julian H
“Everyone Loves A Dolphin”
* boom boom
118. Julian, be sure I’ll come to canvass for you
199. Excellent. Anyone else? Anna? Book Value?
120. will you offer Champagne Celebrations?
116
- You’ve got my vote right there…! (Isn’t a transferable vote a great thing…)
121. Haha, of course; I’m sure I’ll be “sweet” too.
123. So, we could send Anna campaigning in Clapham Common, you in Hackney and I’ll go in Bromley…..
77 - A bit late replying to the Moray news but there’s speculation that that Dave Petrie might not want actually want the Highlands and Islands list MSP place. Assuming not, goodness knows who it will be as no 4 dropped out before the election last time as well.
124. With jokes like this you’ll be Chief Speechwriter (yes, I’ll correct the grammar / spelling).
re 104. “Mr Whittaker, an MEP in north-west England, said Warrington was being targeted by the party and he would be happy to see UKIP help Labour oust the Tories from council control.”
err…Warrington is Labour controlled, the Conservatives have only 6 councillors out of 57.
125.” Assuming not, goodness knows who it will be as no 4 dropped out before the election last time as well. ”
Number 4 is John Firth and number 5 is Christopher Zawadski
126
125 no 5 on the H&I Tory list was Christopher Zawadski who stood in Orkney in 1999 and 2003.
A key element in the 2004 Elections was that Ken got 35% of first preferences even though Labour secured 25% in the GLA election.
Both Norris and Simon Hughes saw their votes about 3% below what their parties did for the GLA. Ken also picked up a lot the 9% of votes which had gone Green in the GLA election.
Jack W is right - Ken has, or certainly had, extraordinary cross-party appeal. With a decent Tory candidate, though, he could be hard-pressed next time particularly if the party nationally sustains its current polling levels.
117 lennon. Hasn’t Seb Coe said he’ll essentially stay out of politics because of the 2012 Olympics ?
How about a London Tory political heavyweight like Peter Stringfellow ? …… lap dancers, dodgy haircuts and elderly tanned torsos for every borough ??
Seb Coe standing for the Conservatives would be awkward, as he’d find it difficult to attack the tax rises for the Olympics. Besides, his roots in London are fairly shallow.
While a Conservative with long experience of local government would be good, the best choice for the Conservatives might be a Bloomberg-type person: someone with an independent fortune, a record of getting things done and able to garner cross-party and cross-community appeal.
128 and 130: Thanks - can I ask where you dug that info up from? I’m usually quite good at digging out stuff like that but failed miserably on this occasion.:(
134.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2003/scottish_parliament/html/12_region.stm
135: Doh! And thanks.
Roger/Jack W.
Think you are both wrong about Livingstone
Whilst clearly ‘America baiting’ will be popular to a small proportion of the electorate (whilst selectively ignoring other Countries who do similarly) I don’t think that’s the point.
His never ending precept on Council Tax is now being recognised in
London as ‘his’ tax rather than Council Tax which is beginning to drain his popularity, but I sense it goes deeper than that.
Following on from the Evening Standard reporter incident, then last week the Reubens, I was struck during his rant about the US Ambassador yesterday at how gaunt/old he had become of late.
It’s a genuine question and I don’t wish him ill (apart from politically obviously) but is he well ?
Regarding the other point about ‘our’ Candidate for the next London Mayorals, lets think of a charismatic Conservative Londoner (apart from Rik W obviously) who could step up to the plate and benefit from this………………….
Therein lies the problem.
133 observer. I’m struggling to think of a Tory candidate that fits the bill.
I’m of the view that any realistic candidate needs a decent media profile in London to start with or they’ve had it. Red Ken, Shagger and the Rev all had a decent start, but it was and remains Ken’s “otherness” that handicaps all his rivals.
137 Tory Boy. I think Mike @ 131 puts my case well.
Even with recent troubles …… when was Ken not in “trouble” …. he thrives on it … I just don’t see Livinstone being closely challenged next time round.
138 - True, Jack, no-one comes to mind immediately. But a candidate with the credentials I described could change that. If they announced their intention to enter the fray some time this year and spent the next year or so diligently getting plugged in the Evening Standard and the local news programmes (which is where your own money could come in handy) then it could transform the situation. But, I agree, it will be difficult to find someone who fits the bill. A decent local government figure without much recognition, like Andrew Boff, is probably more likely - although I can’t help wondering whether Portillo could be tempted….
140 observer. Portillo certainly has the social liberal credentials for a London Tory candidate and the profile. But does he have the stomach for the fight and has he recently become too divisive in Tory ranks ?
I have it on good authority that Portillo has already said he isn’t interested, and to be honest, I’d vote for Livingstone in preference to Portillo.
The problem is that hardly anyone with a high enough profile is interested in the job.
131.”Both Norris and Simon Hughes saw their votes about 3% below what their parties did for the GLA. Ken also picked up a lot the 9% of votes which had gone Green in the GLA election.”
Norris got 28.24 in terms of first preferences, the tories got 27.84% in the PR part of the vote for the Assembly. Hughes got 14.82% of first preferences, the Libdems got in the London-wide Assembly members part got 16.5%.
Ken got 35.70% and Labour got 24.43%.
9 - Tabman - thanks, in regard to enlarged City as you say politics of it could be very interesting.
But on the First Past the Post vote, the Tories won 32%. Steve Norris has performed less well than Conservative Assembly candidates on both occasions he’s stood.
141.”Portillo certainly has the social liberal credentials for a London Tory candidate”
Jack, Norris was socially liberal too when he stood for mayor and it was irrilevant in the end. Then I don’t think it’s all that important in a mayoral election.
Cameron would, I think, support him strongly, which would maintain unity, and most Conservatives would probably recognise that Portillo’s distinctive policy profile would be the most likely to work electorally in London. But getting Portillo interested is another matter. He might well regard the Mayoralty as below the salt, and might find it difficult to demonstrate the concern for nuts and bolts that you need in local politics.
145. Sean, I would take the PR part for comparison and not the FPTP part. but then maybe none of them should be considered to make a comparison.
247. wasn’t there a piece in the Mail some months ago about the husband of a Portillo’s mistress being in a court battle with her (for the divorce) and threatening to tell the court all the details of Portillo affair with his wife (including the fact Portillo made her do plastic surgery, because he likes “big breasts”)?
I don’t think it would be the right publicity during a mayoral race!
The PR part is bound to inflate the vote of minor parties, and reduce the share of the big parties, Andrea.
150. but the FPTP could be influenced by the particular candidate in that constituency.
Seb Coe seems the only vaguely attractive candidate to me, which I’m afraid doesn’t say much for the London Conservatives, really.
Had the GLC still been in operation under its old electoral system, there could well have been a Tory majority, under the old system. One reason why Mrs. Thatcher was ill-advised in abolishing the GLC altogether, rather than drastically pruning its powers.
146 Andrea. Every thing is irrelevant if you lose !
I think a candidate from the right would have done substantially worse than Shagger. The Ken factor does for them all presently.
152. fred, the consolation is that Lab without Ken wouldn’t be in a much better situation, I think.
One can never be entirely sure, Observer, when an election takes place under a different system; but yes, I think the GLC would have gone Conservative in 2004, if it had still existed.
154. bah, I don’t know, Jack, afterall at last year’s GE (and don’t tell me the tories were running a so socially liberal agenda), London was one of the areas with a biggest swing towards them.
then what I meant is that yes, Norris said he was backing the repeal of Section 28, the use of cannabis for health treatments and a review of cottaging laws during his campaign….but in the end, none of those things are part of London mayor’s powers, so I don’t think being so socially liberal was relevant.
I don’t think the social liberal/social conservative thing is terribly relevant to the Mayoral election. And London is perhaps less socially liberal than some people imagine (it now has the highest level of Church attendance of any part of England, and an ever-growing Muslim population).
155. Given that they settled on the hideous Frank Dobson the first time around, you may have a point Andrea.
157 Andr