Will talking up a Labour defeat get Blair out earlier?
June 19th, 2006-
Brown aide says the party could be out of power for 15 years?
The main lead in the Guardian this morning is a report of comments made by one of Gordon Brown’s closest advisers, Michael Wills MP, at a fringe union conference meeting at the weekend that the party is on course to lose the next election. The former minster is reported to have said that voters have lost trust in the party, won’t listen to its message, and that Labour is heading for defeat.
He goes on: ” We have got good messages and we are delivering on public services so why is it they don’t listen any more? It is because they don’t trust us. Iraq is an important part of that. The presidential style of the prime minister - which brought us great dividends in the early years and now we are seeing the mirror image of that - is also part of it…Unless we can get people to start listening to us, unless they are prepared to hear the messages we are putting across, we are going to lose next time. There is no question about it.”
The paper notes that Wills was helped by the Chancellor to gain his seat and has subsequently seen him as an important adviser on British identity and the public mood. He used to be a TV producer.
-
But is this a real warning at all or is talking up the prospect of defeat the latest tactic by the Brownites to get Blair out and their man in?
The weakness of the Chancellor’s position is that he has shown himself to be reluctant to take steps that would force Blair’s resignation. One aspect of the weekend YouGov poll of Labour party members that wasn’t given prominence is that two thirds, 66% to 27%, were opposed to Blair being ousted even though the majority wanted him out sooner rather than later.
-
So with the Brownites reluctant to take the final step and the party showing it hasn’t the stomach for a coup Tony Blair is left holding all the aces.
As the Tories showed with the oustings of Thatcher and IDS sometimes the only way of getting rid of what’s seen to be a failing leadership is to take a proactive step. Labour has not got to that stage yet.
In the betting the Brown price has eased further - to 0.39/1 - while the Tories are favourites to win most seats.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Labour are certainly in self-destruct mode just at present - almost as if they are suffering from a collective death-wish.
But this is by no means the same as our having to suffer a Tory government, is it? We are now in a three-party system (four-party in parts of the country) and anything can happen over the next few years.
The fact is - as I said on the last thread - the Tories have no idea about their purpose in the future scheme of things, apart from getting a small clique of Old Etonians into positions of power. That is hardly an enticing prospect for the rest of us.
I don´t really want to wish time away, but how I wish I had a crystal ball!
It may be a three-party system in the strictest sense of the word, but as long as Menzies Campbell is leading the Lib Dems, they’re unlikely to progress anywhere any time soon. They’ll flatline, and I’ll have a tenner with anybody who wants to claim otherwise.
Yet again, I assert that the voting majority (i.e. ‘normal people’) are naturally small-’C’ conservative. Poll after poll shows right-wing policies are popular in their own right. The problem to date has been the perception of the party behind them; as soon as the Conservatives (big-’C') are seen as the central apologists for such policies, they fail miserably.
So what’s that, then? It’s an image problem. Simple as that. How do you fix an image problem? Well, what do you think DC’s been doing the past few months?
By the way - speaking of Menzies - check out http://www.tv-ark.org.uk/commercials/ads_p-s.html - see the Scotch Video advert towards the bottom of the page? “Before they were famous …”
Sorry, that’s rather cruel … but it’s uncanny, don’t you think?
May I point out to Ed that for many years the left of centre parties have received a majority at General Elections. Even the all conquerring mrs. T. did not get above the low 40’s.
I don’t agree with Ed, needless to say, but in any case I think he’s missing the point.
The important thing about the next election will be the *relative* position of the parties. It is hard to see the Tories getting an absolute majority, given the way the electoral cards under First Past the Post are stacked against them. It’s also hard to see Labour staging enough of a recovery to preserve their majority.
60-odd Lib Dem seats in that environment suddenly starts to look a lot more significant than when either of the other parties has a working majority. ‘Flat-lining’is therefore neither here not there.
Re 2. I cannot see the point you are making Ed except you seem to trying to divert this thread into one of those tedious Tory-Lib Dem spats for which PB.C is becoming famous.
The real issue in British politics today is the Labour succession and everything else pales into significance by comparison.
Although I suspect Mike of being anti-Brown at least he is focusing on what really matters. The longer Blair stays the tougher the challenge for Labour to get re-elected. I am coming to the view that Gordon and about half the Cabinet have got to resign unless Blair gives an early date.
This will be a bold step but one that it necessary. Menzies Campbell did the same with Kennedy six months ago and although there was some pain I suggest that the party is better for it. Lib Dem MPs are telling me how much better it is now they feel they have a sense of direction.
So come on Gordon and others - be bold.
5. How would you expect the instictively - in some cases almost robotically - Blairite MP’s to react to that scenario if it was successful?
As it happens, I don’t see that Gordon has the character for that. Nor at the moment does he have an issue; the public is only likely to buy such a course of action if there’s at least a nominally credible political reason beyond ‘I want the job’. IDS and Kennedy were opposition leaders; different rules apply when forcing out a sitting PM, which is an extremely rare occurance in British politics - who was the last before Thatcher?
From Brown’s point of view, Blair has to be pursuaded to step aside and his track record on that is poor. Besides, the quotes from the intro are that the party is unpopular and untrusted, not just Blair. A genuinely new leader might be able to sweep that away but GB has been heir since before Blair became leader in 1994 so is the ultimate continuity candidate.
During the 1980s and 1990s voters regularly told pollsters they’d pay higher taxes to get better public services. But they didn’t vote accordingly, did they?
I think the wiser Tory heads (here or elsewhere) regard the idea of a small-c conservative majority - based on polling evidence - in a similar light. No one, for example, wants more crime. And people’s views on that subject, or immigration, or any other Tory touchstone, haven’t changed AFAIK since Michael Howard’s day.
Nor do I think that “normal people” are that conservative. For example, when an American State Governor (I think it was in the mid-West, someone will rememmber which state) reprieved everyone on Death Row on his last day in office, because he couldn’t be 100% sure of their guilt, there was an uproar and a demand to legislate away such executive clemency. Again, I will doubtless be corrected if I’m wrong, but I don’t think even the Democratic Unionists want to restore capital punishment.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
David 6. I agree that this is going to be painful for Labour but I wonder how many true Blairites there really are at Westminster. It is easy to sign up for the pro-Number 10 camp because there lies the way to preferment and office. Take Blair’s ability to hand out jobs away and how many true believers will there be left?
Gordon has been thinking for nine long years about what he will do when he becomes PM and there will be big changes - almost a re-launch of Labour. It won’t be the same party - believe me. And after waiting for so long Gordon is not going to give up power easily.
Yes Cameron does present a threat but Labour will pick up many of those former supporters who switched to the Lib Dems in 2005 because of Blair.
Come on Gordon.
There is an interesting article in today’s times by William Rees-Mogg. He talks about the weird situation that has developed in British Foreign Policy since the replacement of Jack Straw by Margaret Beckett, ending with the words : “How much longer can Tony Blair blunder on?”
I don’t normally like WMR’s views, but if the facts are correct (and of course they not be really ‘facts’ at all), then I feel that Blair’s EU policy seems incoherent.
Link here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2231913,00.html
Will talking up a Labour defeat get Blair out earlier?
I would say yes, but then again, maybe it only serves to encourage people to unite behind the great election winner. Blair is Labour’s most successful Leader.
If Labour loses the next election, it’s very likely that Michael Wills (who already got an above avarage swing against this year) will be defeated too
But why ditch Blair and replace him with a leader (Brown) who would seem to poll even more poorly?
I suppose the simple fact is that few Labour MPs and Members realise, or want to realise, that all the evidence suggests that their current mess in the polls would not be “righted” by a change of leadership and could even get worse.
The worry for Brown and his allies must be that sooner or later the perception that he is a negative electoral factor will start to permeate even the stubborn, restive Labour party consciousness and seriously undermine his chances at taking over from Blair.
Consequently Brown, barring a sharp deterioration for Cameron and the Conservatives or a sharp improvement for Labour and Brown’s own standing, must move quickly (within the next 6-12 months at the most) to secure the Labour leadership if he is ever going to get it.
Within the Labour Party the state of denial about their predicament is bizarre (to say the least), leading figures simply ignore the latest polling evidence (Straw and Blears over the weekend) while dismissing the threat posed by the Conservatives (Ball’s at the Compass Conference) and continuing to assert that Brown is an electoral assesst (Hatterlsey’s assertion that the “son of the manse” would easily beat Cameron)… if labour want to continue in government they have got to come to terms with the new threats they face, for all their reputation as experts at the rapid-rebuttal and populism they are still locked into a mindset that views the political scene as little different to how it was ten years ago…
re main thread-I hope so.
Those who support Labour but want Blair out need to keep wheeling this one out every so often . Mainly because the Blairites will keep using the media to portray their version ” we can only win with Blair”.
Its a straightforward effort to replace that message with ” we can only lose with Blair” or similar
Like a lot of politics there isnt an ‘objective’ truth here- But competeing attempts to persuade.
Blair’s key attraction has been winning so removing that appeal makes sense.
As a Conservative who was *desperate* to be rid of Mrs Thatcher by about 1988 I can fully sympathise with the Brownites.
By then Mrs Thatcher had become impossible- overbearing, unreasonable and out of touch. And unpopular.
The problem seems to arise for leaders after about 8 or 9 years by which time most of their cabinet opponents have been vanquished and many of their more common sense advisers have gone on to do other things.
Blair is in that phase now.
I suspect, however, that the serious rumblings are only just beginning. Obviously it is different to Thatcher, not least because he well remembers (and is haunted by) the spectre of Thatcher’s fall, but my guess is that it will take at least another year or two of this kind of speculation before a big hitter (Straw?) does a Hestletine and comes out publicly against him.
All the speculation will flare up again at the Conference and again on his tenth anniversary in No 10 next spring.
Of Course TB may have another ‘cunning plan’ like the 1994 announcement to ward off trouble.
As I’ve said before, I really don’t understand why people think Labour would get a boost were GB to be made leader. It seems that Labourites wax lyrical about him [8], while the reality is that the public are just as sick of him as they are of Blair.
He is no John Major, who had, at least, only come to the front benches a couple of years before 1990, so thus could disassociate himself from the early years of Thatcher (miners’ strikes etc.)
Is this a case of Labourites wanting GB to be a good potential leader so much that they are starting to believe it? Heads in the sand, I’m afraid.
The way that the British perceive themselves is strange:
1) Polls consistently show that right-of-centre policies are supported by most of the electorate.
2) Most voters claim to hold views of the Centre, or slightly right-of-centre.
3) Left-of-centre Parties consistently get more votes than right-of-centre Parties.
Clearly, there is something very strange about how the British electorate views itself. I.e. it believes in one thing, but votes another. It’s no wonder that predicting election results is so hit-or-miss.
The important thing is that Blair promised that he would go if he became an electoral liability. While the troubles of Prescott, Jowell, Hewitt and others could be used to explain away the poor performance in the council elections, if two thirds of the party at large want him to go, that sends a powerful message.
He’s done great service to our party - continuing the work started by Neil Kinnock and John Smith to make us electable again. The Labour government has achieved great things in the past nine years - although his legacy is likely to be bound up in the Iraq disaster rather than the genuine achievements in health, education, poverty and the economy at home. Tony has one more service to render to the party and that is to go without triggering self-destructive internal conflict.
14 - Marcus I never had you down as one of the traitors! I speak as one who was gutted when Maggie was betrayed. Remember it was John Major who led us through the disaster years.
I think if Maggie had stayed we would have had an Autumn 1991 election and the result would have been close. With hindsight many have argued that 1992 was a good election to have lost.
This is an interesting little diversion by the Brownites. But diversion it is. In the final analysis unless Gordon decides to strike the assassins blow then Tony will retain the upper hand.
Further, IMO Gordon, will not force Tony out for fear of the consequences of losing the “Blair Tories” and that substantial block of Labour voters that remain dogged loyal to Blair and most of his works.
Thatcher would have lost in 1991/2. In hindsight, it would have been (in the long run) good for the Party, but five years of Kinnock would have been disastrous for the country!
Blackadder at 16: I don’t think your first point is correct. Note the recent poll which had 67% agreeing to the proposition that (quoting from memory): “Labour has good policies but is pooor at implementing them”. Naturally I don’t agree with the latter but most people support a range of policies which most commentators would put left of centre (some of them too left for us, such as renationalising the railways). There are limits to the usefulness of the left-right paradigm, though.
To respond to Flash Gordon - I don’t do factionalism but most people say I’m a Blairite MP because I think TB and the Government objectively do a very good job most of the time: the media are bored with us so successes are downplayed and mistakes magnified. (I know lots of you disagree - let’s not waste time arguing about it.) I agree there’s a clear current problem with the perception this coverage creates, but I don’t think it helps the party to agonise on about the exact date of a change which is happening anyway within a couple of years. Nobody thinks it will happen before 2007 or after 2008, and most MPs are not willing to comment further at the moment, which is why the press has to focus on Michael Wills, who is a nice guy but no more of a household name (or indeed currently “one of Gordon Brown’s closest advisers”) than I am.
The problem is this: as soon as a date is announced, everyone will focus on the succession instead of whatever else we do, so it’ll need to happen quickly. Then there will (IMO) then be a honeymoon period, but political honeymoons only last 6-12 months, after which the press grind you down. We could be well-advised to ask for a new mandate in that period, and if the handover is too soon it will be probably too soon to have another election (voters are thought to dislike being asked too often). That, in my view, is why the Tories are so keen to see an early switch, and why we should not be assisting them.
14.”Obviously it is different to Thatcher, not least because he well remembers (and is haunted by) the spectre of Thatcher’s fall”
Marcus, I think Blair will manage to leave Downing Street without crying and he won’t make it look like a third rate pathetic soap opera episode
Nick Palmer
When Tory policies are presented to voters without the association with the Tories, they are consistently well supported. (When the same policies are presented with the Tory brand attached, the support collapses.)
So, I’m afraid your comment about the public supporting Labour policies simply doesn’t wash. The public seems to want right-of-centre, non-Tory policies, which is what TB has given them, and which have won 3 GEs for New Labour.
Put another way, the electorate seems to want right-of-centre policies from a left-of-centre Party.
Marcus [14] - imagine that Michael Heseltine’s heart had failed him in 1988, and you might have been desperate all the way to 1992 and who knows where now…
As Napoleon said of generals, “is he lucky?” and Blair, love him or loathe him, passes that test with flying colours. Imagine Robin Cook popping up every other week on whatever the NuLab equivalent of the rubber chicken circuit is…
22. But I’m not sure what the dear Cherie could do though!
Btw, Michael Meacher said he’s afraid Labour will lose next time:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=895282006
16 - Simple really, the votes *do* go to right of centre parties, they are called the labour and conservative parties (and, increasingly so, the lib dems are in that area too).
16/21:
Generally speaking people will tend to place themselves at the centre of a left-right spectrum. However, on economic left-right or liberal/authoritarian left-right scales people tend to be leftish on economic questions but pretty right wing on social issues.
The BES at the last election asked people to place themselves on a 0-10 scale for “cut taxes and spend much less on health
and social services” to “taxes and spend much more on health and social services” and on another 0-10 scale for “reducing crime is more important than protecting the rights of people accused of committing crimes” to “protecting the rights of accused people is more important than reducing crime”. On the economic scale people tended to be slightly left of centre - on average they put themselves at 6.05 (Labour were seen as being 6.07, the Lib Dems at 6.06 and the Tories at 5.00). On the crime/human rights question people put themselves firmly on the right at 3.65 (the Tories were at 4.1, the Lib Dems at 4.98 and Labour at 5.14 - and yes, it appears that, despite David Blunkett et al, the public still see Labour as being to the left of the Lib Dems on this).
In short, the answer to Blackadders question is that the public do tend to be around the centre overall, but on questions of public spending and taxataion they tend to be to the left, and on questions of crime, law and order and so on they tend to be to the right. Presumably the former influences voting behaviour more than the latter.
7 - Yes they did. But they did so by splitting their votes between Labour and the Alliance/Lib Dems, letting the Tories in.
[27] Just to add that, as far as protecting the rights of those accused of crime is concerned, people do a strange flip-flop as soon as they get anywhere near a jury-box…
[28] That old chestnut… please explain to me, Sam, why voters couldn’t get the hang of tactical voting in 1983-92, but have managed it since then…
Labour is faced with 2 problems. First a decline in popularity in the voting population and secondly a crumbling in its activist base with Membership halved since 97.
Tackling both of these to put the party in a winnable position before the next election is not going to be fixed overnight. Of the two problems the need to re-build its base needs several years of effort.
As long as Tony remains the renewal of the party will not begin and instead will just get worse. What is puzzling is that Gordon put his finger on the solution which is “party renewal” straight after the local elections. He clearly understands what needs to be done but is incapable of action. To give himself the time to renew the party before 2009/10 he has to take over in 2006 not 2007.
30. IA, maybe because they didn’t want to tactical vote for the other party!
[32] I think so too…
32 - And a lot of Alliance voters were far closer to the Conservatives than Labour at the time. They disagreed with aspects of what Thatcher was doing but agreed with others and certainly didn’t want a left wing alternative. To pick a deliberately controversial example, a lot of Alliance people liked Thatcher’s broadly pro-European approach and didn’t want Labour isolationism.
22. Well the PM´s wife has done a decent job of impersonating a third rate soap opera character so no need for the PM himself to muck in.
TORIES HAIL DEFECTION OF THIRD LIB DEM ELECTION CANDIDATE
By Andrew Woodcock, PA Chief Political Correspondent
Conservatives were today hailing the decision of a former Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate to switch to David Cameron’s party.
Rene Kinzett is a member of Swansea County Council and stood for the Liberal Democrats in the Swansea West constituency in last May’s General Election, coming second to Labour’s Alan Williams.
Mr Kinzett, 31, is the third former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate to join the Tories this year following Mr Cameron’s election as leader.
Tory chairman Francis Maude said: “Many Liberal Democrats have been attracted by the prospect of a new, re-energised, modern Conservative Party in Government and I am delighted that Rene has decided to join us.
“We are leading the way on major challenges such as climate change and global poverty and are committed to decentralisation and defending civil liberties. The Conservative Party is the new home for Liberal Democrat voters and others who want a new, energetic government at the next election.”
Mr Kinzett said: “It is only David Cameron’s modern compassionate Conservative Party that offers a realistic and progressive alternative to this tired, worn-down Labour Government.
“I know that I will be campaigning hard for a party which is serious about changing itself so it can change Britain for good.”
21 “Labour has good policies but is poor at implementing them.”
You have refered to this poll before Nick. First that poll doesn’t mean those questioned thought all Labour policies were good. It certainly means they think Labour is incompetent.
It doesn’t mean 67% agree with Iraq war or the awful new policies that are being rushed though for the sake of Blair’s legacy. I doubt they are popular policies. I doubt most voters even know and understand most of the recent and forthcoming legislation. I also doubt voters are in favour of Home buyers packs, ID cards, the big brother legislation, police state, the privatisation of schools and hospitals etc, the Euro, tuition fees, 100 new taxes and Blair’s buddy Bush.
What this poll could suggest is that a majority generally agree with Labour’s core traditional policies such as wealth distribution, tackling poverty, hospital investment etc, the things Labour stood for, what people think of when they think Labour, but they realise that in office Labour has been overwhelmingly incompetent moving from one crisis to another of its own making.
37 Printz. Are you still intent on defecting to the Tories and joining Rene @ 36 above ??
I don’t think I’d ever considered David Owen’s SDP as being left of centre.
I don’t think it’s possible to see the Centre-Left vote as being split between Labour and Alliance in the 1980s. IIRC, people thought of the Conservatives as Right, Alliance as Centre, and Labour as Left.
Had there been a straight fight between Labour and the Conservatives, the Conservatives would have won hands-down.
35. Notts County, you could have continued to read and reach post number 25.
30 - partly because in the days of the Alliance it was not at all clear which non-Tory party was the challenger in most seats.
Partly because the anti-Tory vote had also not hardened as much at that stage.
Partly because many Alliance voters saw Labour as far too left wing.
Rik W at 18 “Marcus I never had you down as one of the traitors! I speak as one who was gutted when Maggie was betrayed. Remember it was John Major who led us through the disaster years.”
One of the reasons I was so frustrated with her in the late 80’s Rik was that I believed the best way of securing her legacy was for her to have stood down then to avoid the pro-EMU cluster of Clarke, Hurd, Howe and others taking control by a coup.
It is easy to forget how the whole European question dominated the party at the time, unfortunately.
Also I am honest enough to admit that at the time I was sure Mrs Thatcher was wrong about the EU, and especially the European Monetory System even though of course time and again she was proven to be absolutely right.
40 - I didn’t say they were ‘centre-left’ - I was answering the point at 7 about voters saying they were willing to pay higher taxes but then not vote for them.
The facts are that in ‘83, ‘87 and ‘92 the majority of voters voted for parties that they beleived would raise taxes for better services.
That is different to saying that they voted that way because they saw themselves as ‘centre’left’ which a majority have never done.
21 - I don’t see how a nationalised railway service is ‘left wing’. The USA has a nationalised railway, I don’t see anyone describing it has a left wing policy there and in fact at least 90% of all railway services on this planet are nationalised, so I don’t see how it would be ‘too left’. The problem is that the railway service is always going to need state subsidies and the only result of privatisation has been a big increase in fare prices, which has made them the highest in Europe without a corresponding increase in service or much else. This was an area where if the service had been nationalised, increasing amounts of money could have made a difference, but Labour chose to do nothing and the current situation is close to nationalised in any case.
If Michael Wills seat is marginal, then it would probably explain the reason why he’s speaking out and perhaps he is trying to get Blair out but I’m unsure. Michael Wills isn’t the first MP to be speaking out to the detriment of Labour, a host of MPs with marginal seats have been doing the same, especially during the Prescott affair and the fear of losing their seats is the primary motivation. I’m sure Nick Palmer doesn’t worry too much about the opinion polls but if his majority was 200 votes (and he wasn’t in a government position) instead of what he enjoys now, perhaps he would be more likely to speak out and be less ‘on message’!
45. Wills and Palmer seats have more or less the same majority. According to Anthony Wells’ figures (after boundary changes), Wills will be ousted in a 1.83% swing and Nick in a 2.35% swing.
It’s the sense of corruption at the top that will force Blair out earlier than planned. What it requires is for cash for peerages to come crashing in again or another similar scenario. I’ve heard rumour there is ammunition and the Brownites have it but they aren’t firing. Considering the run of apparent complete hashes Labour’s support amongst the wider voting public isn’t going to go much lower.
Amongst Labour members, including those who are ambivalent about Blair I wonder if there is a feeling that there is no one better than Blair to turn it around, 3 election wins and all that. Corruption however would bring the house crashing down within the party.
One question for everyone, can you see Blair leaving No.10 in an orderly, smling fashion or with his tail between his legs and a serious mess hanging over him? I think things have gone too far for the former. Despite many wise sages taking punts on Blair to make it to 2008 or late 2007. I’ve always felt that he’d be out by the end 2006 and took the odds when the balance of betting was elsewhere. Mug punter? I got 6 months to find out
46 - I was thinking of other MPs who’ve been vocal in their critism besides Wills. Point taken though.
45. I agree. I am probably one of the most right wing regulars here having framed pictures of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Condi by my bed. Yet, I consider rail to be a privitisation too far. It only make sense as a state owned monoply. Having said that, the Byers architected renationalisation of Railtrack was a disgraceful Mugabe-lite operation.
So most people are leftish on the economy and rightish on social issues. As I am rightish on the economy and leftish on social issues I think it explains my predicament very well!
38 - Jack W, I still reserve judgement of Cameron’s compassionate Conservatives. However, as a socialist, it looks more inviting than New Labour led by an extremist. I may end up as a Respectful Green Tory.
50. Join my new political party. It proselytizes extreme laissez-faire capitalism with an ultra-progressive social agenda. It will be called simply ‘!’ which will be pronounced ‘bang’ when spoken aloud.
51 Printz. You are indeed an enigma !
[52] Actually pro-capitalist and progressive on social issues is pretty much where the Lib Dems are headed, seems to me…
Some where in the recesses of my mind lurks a memory of a massive political poll done by the University of Sheffield political dept. This poll was done over a number of years, using thousands of voters. It showed conclusively that most people in this country are marginally left of centre.
The reason why Conservative Governments won most of the elections from 45 to 97 was due to 3 things: the first past the post system at that time favoured the Tories, The trade union link with labour, this was seen as a labour negative, Fear of the Soviet Union, Tories were seen as strong on defence.
The first past the post system, now favours Labour (?)
The Trade Unions are all but castrated
The Soviet Union is no more.
If any one from Sheffield has knowledge of this, is it on line???
52 Simon. I’d be interested in putting some cash in if a Crosby song was our party anthem :
The Bung Bing Bang Party !
51. A socialist in the Conservatives…tis a strange political climate at the moment!
re main thread; Yes, but it won’t do Brown any good.
Its not how quickly Brown takes over that matters, it is the manner in which he does so (ie; not too ugly and through a leadership contest which he comfortably wins), and what he does after he has taken over.
He needs to make a clear brake with Blair, which will be hard to do except through holding an election, which he might lose, or end up with no majority or an ungovernable one.
56. We only accept donations denominated in World of Warcraft gold pieces to circumvent Electoral Commission rules. The slogan of the party is simply ‘Vote!’ How cool is that?
The apparent defection in Swansea is good for the Conservatives, although one suspects there is not that much to bite on for the Conservatives in Swansea over the next few years. Probably Rene will be looking elsewhere for a favourable seat.
Bromley, am I reading Betfair correctly, LDs now at 9-2, from 8- 1 last week, must be a few bets on them, but Cons at 8-1 on are still so far ahead as to indicate a landslide.
The general straws in the wind are still overwhelmingly Conservative.
50,52 Can I join too? Think of the slogan we could have : “The Party that goes with a Bang”
52. I know but their Europhilia is only slightly less revolting than paedophilia to me. As soon as they go europhobe I’ll join the party, paint my house orange and make myself a comedy Ming wig from latex.
58 Simon. “The slogan of the party is simply ‘Vote’! How cool is that?”
Sounds like a Cameron front organization !! ….. and what with Printz seemingly “On the road to Witney” ….. politics is becoming a little odd.
59. David(s). It’s an interesting defection. He was a candidate in a potential target seat….did he know the Libdems would have not reselected him? Or did he not think the Libdems would have gained Swansea West? Or was he genuinely charmed by DC?
Looks like Tories in marginal Selby + Ainsty have ignored the A list and selected a local candidate
http://www.selbyconservatives.com
64. yes, Maddy, he defeated Mark Menzies (2005 Selby candidate), Ann McIntosh (MP for the abolished Vale of York) and Julie Moody.
Andrea
Sorry to expolit your research role with this site but can you please explain the significance of the Italian constitutional vote in July, what Berlusconi intentions are, and if there are any indications of which way the poll will go?
Many thanks in anticipation
He is on the local Council, may have had problems within the ruling co-alition, but suspect the third. Perhaps after recent LIB DEM policy initiatives the Liberal Democrats appear to much to the right!. LD supporters who refute or refuse to accept that the Cons are rising are deluding themselves. I do not think it is DC, it is the natural reaction to the Government, and the Lib Dems under CK, losing their way for a crucial period last Autumn, when they should have had the other parties by the b…s. My own view is that any Cons new leader would have reaped much the same bonus.
However what events lay before us, nobody knows.
I am actually suprised the LD vote is holding up to the extent it is.
But what is critical is Labour and their vote north of the Trent.
One day the Cons and LD posters on this site will stop squabbling amongst themselves and perhaps focus on where the real interest will be.
67. “One day the Cons and LD posters on this site will stop squabbling amongst themselves and perhaps focus on where the real interest will be.”
Maybe if the electoral system represented the real strengths of the parties more accurately then you would not have to worry about this! FPTP leads to a situation where you can worry about a minority Tory or Labour (err - is there much difference these days) Government being elected with an absolute HofC majority.
Make the voting system fairer and you won’t need to worry about it.
And under PR the new “Bang” party will stand a better chance of taking off.
Wonders will never cease!
“As a Conservative who was *desperate* to be rid of Mrs Thatcher by about 1988 I can fully sympathise with the Brownites. By then Mrs Thatcher had become impossible- overbearing, unreasonable and out of touch. And unpopular.”
I never thought to see these words expressed by Marcus. This was my appreciation of her too, though I came to this conclusion much sooner.
It is my appreciation of Chameron too, but I suppose we shall have to allow Marcus and Rik a little more time to see the light.
66. PJ.
yes, we’re going to the polls again….according to John O and Anna we should be bored, because between national and local elections (first round and run offs) it’s a month of elections every week-end!
The referendum will take place on 25th and 26th June….not that you care, but I’ve been drafted to the polling station for the elections days and the count (so I’ll finally earn some money!).
Berlusconi’s tactic is to urge voters to give a bloody nose to the government voting yes. CL is naturally replying it’s not a referendum about the government and all. The usual tactics used by government and opposition when referendums and local elections take place.
There has been polls, but I wouldn’t take them in much consideration. it’s likely the turnout will be low, so that will make polls even more unreliable.
Now we’re all busy with football cup and the Savoia in prison anyway!
Thanks Andrea (again). Little wonder the Italian public spending is so high, funding so many elections. It is clear that the CR is trying a destabalisation approach from day one with Prodi.
I’m not sure if anyone has noticed but the Mori results are up now.
Con - 41 (-)
Labour 34 +3
Lib Dem 18 (-)
http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/mpm060612.shtml
72 - this is very good for the Tories and shows some constitency from MORI. But still it IS MORI!
53/ Blair is a Thatcherite through and through plus a bit more, but with more compassion for the needy thrown in plus he’s an authoritarian. So the left right distinctions are no structured by political party loyalties.
If Cameron is a match or less than a match for Blair’s Thatcherism, plus greener and not as authoritarian, then a compassionate Conservative I could become. Respect has its role, but at the end of the day it is about what is best for individuals, society and the planet.
If Conservatives will fight for justice and the freedoms that we are losing under Blair, for a fairer society and a society that puts victims above criminals and they put the environment at the top of the agenda, I would certainly support the Tories.
73 - Rik I agree (both that the poll is good but and that I’d rather it was another pollster) although it would be churlish not to point out that these figures are also a good improvement for Labour.
55. David - the research would almost certainly have been undertaken by Pat Seyd and Paul Whiteley. Pat is still in Sheffield though Whiteley is now at Essex. They’ve undertaken a range on interesting studies over the last 20 years together around political parties and the views of members etc.
Try putting Paul or Pat’s name in Amazon and you’ll see the long list of work and it could be among there. If you were desperate (!) email pat.seyd@sheff.ac.uk
Sorry not more help.
72. Max, thanks. 64% replied that Labour should be returned at the next GE. And Prezza’s ratings are a disaster!
71. PJ, yes, they’re aiming at a destabalisation strategy. Probably helped by a not convincing start by the government (they managed to nominate 103 between ministers and under-secretaries!)
I am currently preparing for an A Level induction day for next academic year’s Government & Politics students. One of the activities we do is to place well-known political figures on a left-right political spectrum and then the pupils justify their answers. Interestingly I have just had to update my supply of pictures.
Last year I had:
Tony Blair – still there
John Prescott – still there but without a job
Michael Howard - gone
Charles Kennedy - gone
David Davis – lost the Tory Leadership but still there
George Galloway – still there in body if not mind
Robert Kilroy-Silk - gone
Charles Clarke - gone
Michael Ancram - gone
Simon Hughes – still there, lost a leadership contest plus some revelations.
How political fortunes rise and fall in a short space of time. This year I’ve added Cameron, Osbourne, Campbell, Livingstone, Reid and Cable.
The question is, out of 20 16-year-olds who claim to have an interest in politics, how many of those people will be recognised and how many can be ideologically placed?
78. I’m totally shocked by the fact you missed a crucial name!
79 - the venerable helen?
79 Andrea. The Rutland Miniature ??
80. Henry G, I suppose the Venerable Helen is the “gone” category.
I was thinking about Hunky Dunky (Alan Duncan)
81. Naturally, Jack, and in his infamous calendar photo for Antony’s student.
79 Wot no Gordon?
82 Andrea. Remember Andrea, the picture is for impressionable teenagers, something more decorous perhaps ??
83. Actually you’re right. The exclusion of Gordon is serious……..Michael Ancram and Simon Hughes over Gordon is a a big thing!
Afternoon all :). Fascinating to look at the detail of the Mori poll. I didn’t realise that the 7% Tory lead is ONLY from the 56% of the sample who are “absolutely certain to vote”. Amongst all voters, Labour retains a 1% lead.
Once again, the evidence, as May’s local elections showed, that the core Tory vote is active and will turn out ensuring Tory success at low-turnout elections. In a GE, with turnout possibly rising back toward 70%, the outcome is far less certain.
I tell you waht - I just had a shock then.
I turned my television on the SKY NEWS and it had Gordon Brown talking some autere setting with the caption:
“Brown says formation of government must be met by November deadline”
For a second I thought either:
a: Blair has resigned and he had given himself a few months to create his government or
b: He has decided to tell Blair to go by November.
But after a quick look at the top of the screen I noticed he was in Stormont! Shock over….
Wow what bad spelling, that will be the shock!
84. but,Jack, I think he had a picture of Maggie covering all what should have been covered!
And to show I’m not always anti- LD, I signal this Libdem petition:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/campaigns/stop-homophobic-bullying.html
87 James M. Just two years early there James !
89 Andrea. Well quite Andrea !! …..the thought of the Lady covering Hunky’s naughty bits would be enough to send the “blue rinse” and Rik into apoplexy !
No, I left Brown out in favour of Charles Clarke because (a) he is our local MP and (b) he was more prominent in the news at the time. However in response to pb.c I have now added him - using the pic of him watching the England match!
92. and what was the justification not to have him this time?
You added Livingstone, is Ken more known in Norwich than Gordon?
64% replied that Labour should be returned at the next GE
Far be it from me Andrea to clarify one of your posts but to save Nick Palmer getting too excited this is 64% of LABOUR voters who want the party to win the next GE and 23% want them to be kicked out and reflect on what went wrong.
In other words even their own supporters don’t think they should lead the country, with or without Gordo in charge.
94. That’s what happens when I read questions too fast
sorry 
I now go to hide in a dark room……
I added Ken because the London Mayoral nominations will be big news soon (especially given the new Tory policy towards selection). Plus Ken appears a lot on the ‘A’ Level syllabus (surprisingly).
94. Far be it for me to claify one of your posts ……….
64% means that a majority of their supporters do want Labour to win the next election.
Antony Little, will you report us the main results once your student did the test?
Indeed, Thursday Period 4. Look forward to it!
96 Cllr Antony. Frankly it’s an utter disgrace and a shocking disregard for the body politic that Our Viscount hasn’t been included !
OK just for you Jack I’ll add him in - you can suggest a photo too if you wish. I’m currently betting on Cable scoring lowest but Our Viscount may just beat him to it!
100. Jack, you always obtain everything!
101 - I think you should add Voldemort… ‘in touch with the youth etc.’ - ‘now I recognise him… but where from?’
101 Cllr Antony. Cheek !!
Your young shavers should have a fine knowledge of the cultivation of upper lip hair ….. and that includes the girls hurling team !!
http://www.lmu.ac.uk/lis/imgtserv/confs/xicongress/thurso.jpg
104. Jack, how many will answer “Poirot”?
Anyway, I’m very disappointed by tha fact that the Viscount has been included and Dinky not….
OK, in goes Dinky but to be fair I need to offer a Labour and LibDem annonymous frontbencher…
106. Antony, ok, you could leave out…this last minute offer saved you from entering my “black” book!
Seriously speaking (for a moment), you could offer one of the Labour female Cabinet ministers.
105 Andrea. I’m waiting for Lord Rennard to send an e-mail out to drum up support and the odd bar chart for our Viscount.
Also it’s important that English pupils recognise fine Scottish aristocracy for the future ….. and Dinky is only small Midlands squirearchy.
108. Jack, seriously, I’m very interested in discovering who they’re really able to recognize and who not.
106/109 Antony/Andrea. Perhaps Antony could plug the site ….. we need an injection of younger blood !!
Jack W is 103.
pb.com is on the reading list over the summer holidays! If anybody has any other good neutral sites like this one they would be gratefully recieved. I also need some partisan ones - but not for individuals but rather “collective” websites. conservativehome is good for the Tories, does anybody have similar ones for other parties?
The guy who just scored for Switzerland rejoices in the Christian name of ‘Tranquillo.’
Is that or is that not the best name ever?
111 - http://www.liberalreview.com is pretty good for articles and blogs, but unusual to get an in-depth discussion going unlike here.
Thurso will probably get mistaken for Robert Winston. Good to see another teachere here anyway!
AOL Poll:
Should there be a full public inquiry?
Yes 5062 votes 90%
No 572 votes 10%
Printz Questions: Mr Palmer, why won’t your colleagues allow a public inquiry? What have they got to hide? And when will a public inquiry be held into the sexing up of Iraq WMD intelligence? (No we have not had one yet.)
15/ That poll was about an inquiry about 7/7!
Luke M at 45: as andrea says, I have a marginal seat (both sides thought the Tories would take it last year), but I’ve been a party member for 35 years and my view doesn’t wax and wan with my career prospects - it’s one of the more irritating habits of people interested in politics that they assume anyone they disagree with must have ulterior motives. I never post anything here (or anywhere else) that I don’t believe, though I’m sometimes reticent if I think a comment will be used against us.
The point I was making, though, is that a swift changeover followed by years of press attrition against the new leader is against the party’s interest. Who are these hosts of Labour MPs in marginal seats who you say are “speaking out to the detriment of Labour”? A host sounds a goodly number. Can you name, say, four, outside the ranks of the usual suspects who’ve been doing it for years?
To end on a less combative note, I agree with you about railways!
Antony: Harry’s Place at http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/ is usually a good unpredictable read, though likely to raise printz’s blood pressure (most contributors tend to be both left-wing and pro-Iraq war).
Does anyone think the Conservatives will have a great opportunity to make huge political capital out of the Labour leadership election?
33% of the votes will be cast by the Trades Unions. That’s a significant amount.
The Tories will be able to say “In the 21st Century the Prime Minister of the UK is being selected directly by the Trades Unions. That doesn’t sound very New Labour does it? etc etc etc”.
This is likely to go down very badly amongst “Middle England” swing voters. The Consevatives could have a field day over this. Yet so far the media don’t seem to have picked up on it.
One more post before returning to real work…the MORI site shows Labour has recovered its lead over the Tories among ‘all indicating a preference’. By contrast, as reported here, the Tories have a 7% lead among ‘absolutely certain to vote’, with both the other main parties down. In other words, what we’re seeing is high Tory morale compared with the other parties. Morale is important, but arguably a less good long-term guide than underlying allegiance.
There’s also a clearer picture of why 23% of Labour voters say they think it would be good if the party lost so it had the chance to rethink its vision. The poll only offered one alternative option to this: that the party should be re-elected because it already has a very clear vision. As Mike has said, the question is loaded: I suspect that most Labour voters have a fuzzier view than either alternative (’clear in parts’, ‘could be clearer’, etc.).
More defections to enjoy!
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=130448
Well people I never thought I’d say it, I never thought I’d do it, but I am definitely voting Labour from now on.
If the Tories have a real chance of winning, this is one former LibDem voter who will be holding his nose and voting for the least worst option.
112 - I always though Danny Invincibile (the spelling is Italian) takes some beating. I believe he plays (or at leat used to) for Kilmarnock.
Out of interest can anyone tell me if the poll took place before or after the Lib Dem’s tax proposals were released?
123 - He’s still at Kilmarnock. Rugby Park is well worth a visit even if it is just for the excellent pies!
19 - you seem to forget that we don’t live in a period where unions are seen as attempting to usurp government, as they did in times past.
You also forget that although Tory boys may not be, millions of people are trade union members and don’t perhaps the same prejudiced, small minded attitude toward them that you display toward them…
22 - Can’t say that you’ve ever seemed the slightest bit liberal so it’s no loss, or surprise, to have you voting for the most authoritarian party instead.
111 - http://www.liberator.org.uk is always worth a look. Mostly Lib Dem but often extremely critical of the leadership. The articles are variable, but the “Commentary” and “Radical Bulletin” sections are good for inside news often not found anywhere else.
122,
If its real close in the polls at the next election, many might think that way on either side, the squeeze will be realy on.
No luxury free votes, for the committed, to stop their worst option.
112. Commentator, why do you like the name “tranquillo”?
Rik @ 121, there’s a mistake in that article, it is actually four 2005 Liberal Democrat Parliamentary candidates who have now defected to the Conservative Party.
7 & 44. At lunch today we came up with the concept of voluntary higher taxes for people who don’t think they pay enough. That would make everyone happy.
59. What a sucker.
130 Cllr Antony. All these Lib Dems joining the Conservatives …. I smell a rat …. or at least 4 ?!?! …. at this rate the Lib Dems will be the official opposition in 2157 :
“Winning Here Next Century”
129 School Latin suggests it must mean ‘Tranquil’ or ‘Calm’. Imagine calling your child ‘Tranquil’ - and then he ends up a footballer!
I love the idea of calling a boy “Calm”.
129 School Latin suggests it must mean ‘Tranquil’ or ‘Calm’. Imagine calling your child ‘Tranquil’ - and then he ends up a footballer!
I love the idea of calling a boy “Calm”.
133/134. You love it so much you posted it twice :
Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
133. yes, commentator, he does mean that.
I wouldn’t have liked to be named that way, to be honest!
135. Oh, Jack, don’t be rude, you just confused Councillor Iain for Councillor Antony at 132!
I know Councillor Antony is one of your favourites now, because he has added the Viscount to his list!
If you haven’t played Tory Diary’s Mystery Person game yet, I strongly recommend you do so…
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/06/who_said_the_fo.html#comments
138. but they immediately tell you the answer! I was going to try to guess, but I saw the solution!
125. I made no comment at all about unions - so how this is interpreted as prejudiced and small minded I don’t know.
There are many fine organisations which people belong to in the UK. But people would not expect the members of such organisations to be in the privileged position of selecting the next PM, whilst everyone else has no say.
The point stands. This will go down very badly with the crucial Middle England swing voters.
139. Sorry, I forgot to warn people not to scroll down too fast…
140. actually the same thing could be said if just Labour (or tory or Libdem) members vote to select a leader who will immediately become PM: the members of an organization (a party is an organization afterall) selected the next PM.
120 - Being level on “all naming a party” in a Mori poll are awful figures for Labour by the standards of the last 15 years.
137 Andrea.
I plead deprivation of tea and honey this afternoon.
142. Agreed. But the point is that one special interest group in addition to Party members / MPs are going to have a direct say.
Of course I realise that unions have a far better reputation than they did in the 70s and 80s. Even so people will think it very strange that any special interest group has a direct say.
It certainly does not feel very “New Labour”. And it will remind people of the Labour Party in the 70s and 80s.
145 Mike L: Wonder if you saw this on the BBC a few weeks ago… http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5043430.stm . Call me a cynic but the arguments Ms Blears uses to justify the unions continued involvement in the Labour party’s structure ju