Tories take biggest ICM lead since 1992
June 20th, 2006
-
..and YouGov trend data gives Cameron more to smile about
Today’s June ICM poll in the Guardian has with comparisons on a month ago CON 37 (-1): LAB 32 (-2): LD 21 (+1) and underlines that the Tory position is becoming more robust.
Because of its methodology ICM tends to be much less volatile than Mori and the 5 point Tory margin is the biggest the party has enjoyed with the pollster’s Guardian since August 1992 - the month before the ERM crisis. Labour’s 32% is what it recorded in April and is the lowest rating for nearly twenty years.
The Lib Dem figure showing a small increase follows a month when it has managed to get good publicity for a number of policy statements and when Ming Campbell’s PMQ performances have shown a marked improvement.
The monthly ICM Guardian poll is the longest running poll series in the UK and is probably the most respected. Today’s figures will reinforce Labour jitters.
-
For the poll is the twelth in a row from four different pollsters showing clear water between Labour and the Tories and there is no sign yet of “the Cameron bubble bursting”.
In fact a new report from YouGov’s daily BrandIndex survey and made available to Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report suggests that there was a tipping point about the time of the local elections and Labour has not recovered.
On Cameron’s personal ratings, subject of much debate here, Anthony writes “.. YouGov trackers do indeed show that Cameron’s approval ratings were just beginning to decline prior to the local election when he was being faced with criticism about having his chauffeur follow his bike carrying his briefcase and attacked by Labour as a blue chameleon… but the local election results changed that..Cameron’s approval ratings and positive or negative perception rating both peaked after the Conservatives made the most gains in the local elections on May 4th and have been on a steadily upwards trend since then. The difference is presumably because Cameron is now seen as a ‘winner’, putting him in a positive light. The local elections came along at just to right time to give his image boost; it seems he has once again been very lucky indeed.
This is the first time that this YouGov data has been made available and Anthony’s report lists a number of caveats. Clearly it is better at monitoring trends than giving daily figures which could be distorted for all sorts of reasons.
In spite of all this apparent good news for the Tories it has to be said that a 5% ICM lead is not enough. Whichever of the seat calculators you use the shares still give Labour more seats albeit in a hung parliament situation. The Tories still have a long way to go.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
If I have my pollsters right though ICM is the least favourable to the Tories.
What were they predicting before the locals?
Fact is that Lab voters are demoralised and won’t come out. The Tories will win the next election with around twenty or so seats is my prediction
The story of the local elections was different in the North compared with London. It would be interesting to see whether we hardened northern folk have this same perception of Cameron as a ‘winner’.
If Camerongot boost from Local elections of 2006 then he will get lift off if 2007 Locals reflect cuurent poll tratings.Comapre dto last time most District Unitary’s contested ie 2003,Tories are +7%,Lab -10% amnd Lib no change a recipe for 500 plus Tory gains.
ROger H
re 1. Wrong. The least Tory friendly pollster, based on their current methodology, is Populus.
My back of an envelope calculation suggests that these latest ICM figures would have come out at CON 36: LAB 33: LD 20 if the Populus weightings had been applied.
This is because ICM’s past vote weighting formula is based on Labour having had a 6 point lead at the General election. The Populus numbers are closer to 9.
In the actual election last May Labour’s margin was just 3%. The firms don’t weight on the actual results to allow for a level of “mis-remembering”. Populus assumes that more people misremember voting Labour than ICM.
I am a novice when it comes to betting but havent the Betfair odds on the Lib Dems winning Bromley almost halved since before the weekend? Their campaign is attracting some interesting backers: http://www.ben4bromley.org.uk/photos/24.html
re 5. I would not attach too much importance to the Betfair odds because so little money has been bet. Currently the total amount that punters have been prepared to risk on the Lib Dems is just £537.
Betfair is an exchange and its odds reflect what other punters are prepared to accept. Where there is very low liquidity odds can move all over the place with very little money changing hands.
OK, thanks Mike.
Doesn’t matter though. Tories at +20 seats. If I bet at all, I’d bet on that.
A straw in the wind for Labour is the subtext of Anthony Well’s report: “Cameron’s approval ratings were just beginning to decline prior to the local election when he was being faced with criticism about having his chauffeur follow his bike carrying his briefcase and attacked by Labour as a blue chameleon…”
What this shows is that if they get their attacks on Cameron right, then it has an effect in the public mind. The good news for them is that he has proved capable of providing them with plenty of amunition, and I’m sure they’re keeping their powder dry for when they most need it.
QUOTE FROM THE INTRODUCTION
“In spite of all this apparent good news for the Tories it has to be said that a 5% ICM lead is not enough. Whichever of the seat calculators you use the shares still give Labour more seats albeit in a hung parliament situation.”
True, and yet a 5% lead for Labour would give them a large majority. I know that I keep saying this, but it is an indictment of the FPTP electoral system that this can happen. I don’t think that the general public has really thought about a fairer voting system very much, but I expect that a situation indicated by the ICM figures - where one party has a SIGNIFICANT lead in the votes but FEWER seats - will get people talking about it.
9 - No it isnt! It is a simple reflection that when people chose their most popular local candidate, in some areas candidates are more popular than others are in other locations. The cumulative effect does not negate the value of the system of chosing your most popular local representative.
The ICM poll does reinforce a consistent trend in the polls towards the Tories. If they are able to maintain this level into the next round of local elections, we could see a situation where the councillor numbers are Tories 9,500, Labour 5,000 and LD 4,000.
That would be a similar picture to the differences in 1995 with the Labour and Tory positions reversed.
Labour’s base is rapidly eroding.
Rik W
Agreed but since late 80’s there has been a bias (look at 1992 results where Major had a significant lead). We who defend FPTP as better representing local interests and stronger for the identification of MP and an area must also accept the need to look how this bias can be lessened. Perhaps a more “gerrymandering” approach to ensure that at least regionally the boundaries commission ensures a more representative outcome by taking into account past voting when organising boundaries?
What I find interesting in this poll is that Ming Campbell’s ratings are stable until the local elections, and then go suddenly downwards. I can see that the public was picking up on the muttering and was judging by ‘results’ (although in Lambeth, for example, the LD leadership wasn’t remotely an issue in the campaign, and despite the shambles at the top of Labour we lost 10 seats to a very dirty Labour campaign).
It’s also important to remember we were polling at up to 23%. Given that the local election results weren’t ascribable to Ming (I think that can be said pretty confidently) I think the good news is that his ratings are now likely to go up again as his actual work on improving the Lib Dems’ fundamentals starts to pay off, and the difference filters through to the media and ultimately the public.
Sorry, referring to the YouGov tracker of course, not ICM.
10. Your ideas of how the system works are out-of-date. People haven’t voted in the manner that you suggest since the Whigs and the Tories were in town! (I’m not talking about the so-called ‘personal vote’ here, BTW). People go into the polling booth and put their cross against the PARTY that they want to win the election. They have little or no idea of the qualities of the candidates presented them.
If candidates think that they are being elected on their own popularity, then they are more vain than I thought they were.
15 - Ah, yes, that nice Mr. Bell, the Conservative candidate for Tatton
[12] Yup, the definition of an appropriate electoral system is one that returns a Tory majority
- if you’re going to go in for Berlusconiana, why not instruct the Boundaries Commission to equalise the Council tax valuations of each seat - at least this is known information, whereas what you’re proposing is based on data (General Election turn-out at ward/polling district level) that doesn’t actually exist!
You are Norman Lamont and I claim my - er, no, on reflection, I don’t want to claim whatever the prize is…
16. And Tatton has reverted massively to the Conservatives has it not, after an exceptional election which saw an Independent elected during the highpoint of the public’s revulsion of Tory sleaze? (Kidderminster is, of course, another example. George Galloway is another). These are exceptions to the rule, though. There are only one or two every election. They are like the seat that the government miraculously holds when defending a tiny majority, when safer seats are lost - there are always a handful that buck the trend.
Overwhelmingly people vote for the party, not the local candidate. If personality has any influence at all, it is the personality of the party leader which is taken in to account. i.e. Which leader would make a better PM.
Let’s face it, there are safe seats where they would elect a complete idiot if it was wearing the right coloured rosette. (How else do you explain certain current MP’s being elected)
A 5% lead in a general election isn’t enough, but of course poll ratings can’t be applied raw to election outcomes anyway. All else being equal, we’d expect Labour support to continue to fall gradually for the next two years and then rise again when the election approaches.
Meanwhile the public will make its mind up on Cameron. If the local elections persuaded the public that Cameron is a winner, then there’ll be plenty more evidence on those lines, and they may carry on deciding he’s okay. The Lib Dems will presumably start to get on track - their new leaders always take a while to get going. And we have the unpredictable effects of the change of Labour leadership, which depend mostly on who takes over. How all that works out is anyone’s guess. Perhaps better than currectly for the Lib Dems, about the same for the Tories and therefore worse for Labour? Tories just short of a majority with an 8% lead or so? But of course that’s with a lot of uncertainty.
Admittedly I tend to believe whatever Mike tells us about who’s likely to be the next Labour leader but I do think Gordon Brown is way overvalued and has closer to a 50% chance. Your tip on Johnson is interesting. But why have David Milliband’s odd lengthened so far? He’s young, exceptionally bright, now in the middle of the Cabinet. Admittedly he’ll struggle with Defra which is supposed to be a dodgy department, but the environment is going to be ever more important with Cameron joining the Lib Dems in pushing it.
Interesting article.
re 13. I think that is spot on Valerie. The changes in the Lib Dem PR operation have been stunning and this is being shown day after day.
Today’s nuclear statement describing nuclear power as a “stealth tax” has the thumb prints of Chris Huhne all over it and gives the party a distinctive position.
On another matter did anybody listen to Alan Johnson on the Today programme? I loved the way he dealt with the Wayne Rooney point.
My bet on him to take over from Blair is looking better and better.
On the approval ratings for Cameron and Campbell, the don’t knows are important. It is easier for public perceptions of the leaders to change if people haven’t made their minds up yet - once they have opinions are sticky.
Cameron was very lucky - if his figures had continued to decline in May there would have fallen far more easily than when the same sort of questions are asked about him later in his career. At present, it seems as though people will continue to form their initial opinions of Cameron at a time when he is viewed positively, and those early positive reactions will be sticky.
On the other hand, Ming is still in the vital early opinion forming period (what people call the first 100 days, though obviously it doesn’t necessarily last 100 days) but is being seen very negatively. By the time he turns his image around, people may already have a settled negative perception of him which will be hard to shift. The good news for Ming is that those don’t knows are still very high - he still has time to turn it around.
Remembering how the tracker polls were slated at the last election , is this tracker of any use in measuring relatively small changes in popularity over a short period of time . The scale of the graph showing net approval for DC makes quite a small change ( within M of E ?? ) look impressive but is not this a bit like Lib Dem bar charts .
Re ICM poll , Yes it may be Labour’s worst rating since 1992 but if I were a Labour supporter I would not be that gloomy about it . We could well be returning to the situation in the 60’s , 70,s and 80’s when governments trailed very badly in mid term polls but recovered as the GE approached . In historical term a 5% deficit and swingometers showing they would still be the largest party are not that bad .
I agree with Gladstone.
And if you think people vote for a candidate rather than a party (and I also like the idea of members representing constituencies) why not go for STV or AV which although not strictly proportional is fairer than FPTP and still gives local representation.
Also with FPTP you get the ridiculous situation of people not voting for what they want but voting to stop someone else winning so you have no idea what the voter is actually voting for and the situation where the winner can have a very small percentage of the vote, but claims a mandate - bizarre.
I think the Lib Dems will be pretty satisfied with 21%. Looking at the ICM poll 12 months after a general election shows the following…
June 1998: 16%
June 2002: 20%
June 2006: 21%
Anthony, I had no idea Ming’s ratings were as bad as that. But if so, why is the party polling pretty much as it always does at this stage - a few per cent behind what it scored at the last general election?
Could there be an argument that if Ming’s ratings do improve, as Lib Dem leaders’ have tended to, that the Lib Dems will pick up relative to the other parties? Or do you think that people have made up their minds about Ming but simply don’t feel very strongly?
Why do third party leaders generally perform better in personal ratings than the big two? Could that be related to the way most people like their own MP? Harmless (because not in power and not likely to be), seems to work hard, we assume he (or she) says what he thinks, so we think of them much more benignly, almost patronisingly? We don’t need to feel threatened by anything we disagree with.
20.” 13. I think that is spot on Valerie. The changes in the Lib Dem PR operation have been stunning and this is being shown day after day.”
Do you really think it?
Considering the opinion of the last Labour rebel is more reported than LD policies, I would think their PR machine still needs to improve.
13.” (although in Lambeth, for example, the LD leadership wasn’t remotely an issue in the campaign, and despite the shambles at the top of Labour we lost 10 seats to a very dirty Labour campaign). ”
Valerie, Labour leader said they fought a positive campaign!
But maybe the Libdems still have a secret weapon in the area: the Fugitive is now a member of Vauxhall CLP and she always manages to create troubles!
26. The improvements will take time to have their full effect, but they’re there. The difference between now and 2-3 months ago is huge. Then, the Lib Dems appeared to be coasting with little to say, now things are much more active.
There is always room for improvement, but things are definitely moving in the right direction now.
28. but I wouldn’t call it a “PR improvement”, I would say it’s more a “direction” improvement.
The Libdems have now something to say…..the PR improvement would be effectively delivering the message and I think there’s still a good margin of improvement there for the Libdems.
In reply to 15:-
You are both wrong and right.
A great candidate can win an election for a popular local party in a close contest that could go either way. A poor one can’t.
That is an absolute fact.
Matt.
re 29. I’ve been a member of the Lib Dem’s since its foundation in 1987 and I’ve never known the party communicate so well as it’s been doing over the past few weeks. It’s not just the coverage but the ideas and the way they are expressed.
Yesterday’s comments by the Labour MP will be forgotten quickly. The description of “nuclear power as a stealth tax” will stick - and it hurts the Tories too.
It’s ideas and phrases like that which are at the heart of political persuasion.
31. Mike, if you’re happy, good for you.
If it’s the best you can do, that’s probably why you’re just the third party (actually being the third party didn’t help in getting attention).
I still think Kennedy (in his good days) was way better than old Ming.
31 - Yeah, like the near universal contempt that rightly greeted the weekend outpouring from Nick Clegg about the honour given to the senior Met officer.
32 - Right on (OK, in your case, Green On), Andrea!
33 Universal contempt from whom apart from Iain Dale and the other assorted Conservatives .
31. BTW, wasn’t the phrase “stealth tax” invented by the Tories anyway?
Can I make one simple point. Whatever the true state of Labour’s support at the moment, it will be at least a couple of percentage points higher by the time of the next general election.
It is hard to imagine a more favourable climate for the tories than what’s been going on for the last six months. I don’t dispute they have improved their long-term position. But, at 37% they are a long way short from being on course to win the next general election.
On the ICM poll :
This is a very decent poll for the Tories, although down one point, it is as Mike has said the best Con/Lab showing since the early days of the John Major government. One small fly in the ointment for the Tories is the narrowness of the gap. It appears enimently closeable, whereas the MORI figures looked daunting. For short term party morale, it’s got to be MORI …… but then MORI
An average number for Labour in their recent run of poor form, but they do seem to be pretty stable in the low thirties range. And one might wonder if World Cup progrees for England might provide a decent poll bounce over the next three weeks.
The Lib Dems will be pleased that ICM, normally their most accurate pollster, have them in the low twenties. Historically this is a good figure this early in the political cycle.
27 & 13. I saw some of the anti-lib dem literature being delivered in Lambeth and Southwark….was pretty appalling stuff saying Lib Dems would legalise Crack cocaine and heroin and had pictures of fat pigs in top hats with their snouts in their troughs wearing yellow rosettes. I’m a tory but I thought it was pretty tasteless.
20: ‘Today’s nuclear statement describing nuclear power as a “stealth tax” has the thumb prints of Chris Huhne all over it and gives the party a distinctive position.’
This luddite/opportunistic approach to nuclear energy has been Ming’s only serious misjudgement so far. If it is Huhne’s ‘brain child’ then thank the Lord he didn’t win the leadership. We’re in great danger of painting ourselves into a corner with this one – being reduced to advocating energy-saving light bulbs as the solution to one of the greatest crises to befall mankind. Already I can hear our opponents’ shrieks of mockery.
31 While I have never been a supporter of Ming , I too am impressed with the steady stream of new policy statements and contrast this with the Conservatives . One day they say they cannot make firm economic proposals because the state of the economy in 3/4 years time is unknown and the next day they announce plans to spend £ 15 Bn on more prisons with no indication of where the money will come from to pay for them .
27. He’s completely brazen. I find him far scarier than many at the top of the Labour Party.
Thanks for the intelligence!
There’s nothing “Luddite” about opposing Nuclear Power, which to my mind is a throwback to the 1950s and not cutting edge technology in any respect.
33: Agreed. I’d expect that sort of cheap shot from some rabble-rouser in Respect, not from a senior Liberal Democrat spokesman. I hope Ming has had a quiet word in his shell like.
43: The technology has moved on a bit since the my-first power stations of the 50s, you know.
41. Mark, no-one is saying that you’re not making announcements. The problem is always the same: the difficulty to get a proper airtime. It’s the problem of all parties (the big 2 apart). Gorgeous George usually manages to avoid it being controversial, but he could do it, because he goes down well with his audience, but you can’t do the same.
Look at where the “nuclear power as a stealth tax” news is reported on BBC website.
40. As I remember the Luddites were against machines that would save money, not ones that would be hopelessly inefficient.
I note that UK Polling Report mention the tipping point being reached around the time of the local elections.
I had posted that view on here some time ago.
I can see no way back for Labour.
32 Andrea, I agree with you about Charles Kennedy. He had many attractive qualities, almost an anti-politician. He was discarded in a callous way by the Lib Dems — apparently to elect someone nowhere near as appealing to the wider public.
I also think it may be wrong to argue that a 5 per cent lead is “not enough”.
It’s not enough based on the fiction of Baxter or uniform swing. But, the FPTP electoral system is, like the weather and many other dynamical systems, sensitively dependent on initial conditions. There are regimes in which small changes of voter percentages can give dramatic changes in numbers of seats. I wouldn’t care to predict what is enough.
49. I agree that the best quality of Charlie was the “anti-political” thing, the nice chap imagine, the imagine of a man who will you go to the pub to drink a beer (ok, we discovered that they were too much!) with.
I think it was a good asset in making inroads in some Labour heartlands.
Maybe it wasn’t so good against the tories in the South.
Re 40, Orange thinker, the problems with nuclear power are that the builders will require a garanteed price, and we still have no sensible way of hiding waste for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.
On the other hand renewables could make a very serious contribution. Solar water heating is now effective even in winter for example. So if the government is going to spend billions in either garanteeing prices or other ways of OUR money, I’d rather it was something with a positive future.
I can also say there is much concern over nuclear power in Conservative ranks because we do not entirerly trust them.
Morning all :). As a supporter of ICM and its polls, I always take its monthly offering as the most credible barometer of opinion while recognising, as we all must, that it throws up the odd outlier now and again.
It’s clear from ICM that Cameron was briefly in trouble just before the local elections but was rescued by the results and Labour’s catalogue of largely self-inflicted blunders. The March and April figures showed a retrest to 34% but since May the 37-38% has been regained. As others have correctly said, this is far from a winning position and there is a long way to go. It will be interesting to see, if, come the Autumn, we see any impact on the Tory position in the light of what I imagine will be a serious onslaught by Labour.
As for Labour, 32% marks a seriously low point - it’s as low as any ICM figure in the last 20 years and is for me the key figure in this poll. Once the Tories began to flatline in the mid-90s, it took them a decade to recover. Labour has to start regaining support before it begins to flatline too.
For the LDs, it’s progress of a sort. Historically, 21% is a good figure but with Labour so low, the only route seems to be to claw back into the Tory vote but how to do this ? Elements of Menzies’s proposals are clearly designed to be of interest to wavering Tories and what we don’t know is the strength and durability of the Tory recovery. Past recoveries by oppositions have flagged as elections have approached. IF the Tory figure begins to ease again, who will benefit, Labour or the LDs ?
It’s often forgotten that Labour enjoyed big poll leads in both the summer of 1986 and the spring of 1990 and still lost so Cameron can and must take nothing for granted as I’m sure he doesn’t.
Another angle on Mike’s conclusion in the intro, that these ICM poll figures point to a hung parliament.
Yes, it could be a hung UK parliament, but what about the situation in England. Conceivably the Tories could have a majority there. At the very least they should have the most seats and a considerably the most votes. This brings up the WLQ again. This is now more prominent on the radar, I see. The HofC Scottish Affairs Committee has said that the issue must be addressd urgently.
See DT report here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/20/nscot20.xml
49 Gwynfa. The Lib Dem were correct to rid themselves of Kennedy when they did. You cannot have an alcoholic as a major party leader, who then consistently lies to his senior colleagues and the media.
re 54, What like Pit the younger?
If the Tories support some replacement of the existing nuclear power stations with new ones the LDs have a chance to be distinctive on an issue where I’m sure more than their current poll share will support them. So it’s probably smart politics and frankly I’m not sure MC could get a pro nuclear policy through the policy making process. The problem is how to replace relatively soon to be decommissioned nuclear power stations with environmentally friendly power. You can’t pretend to be pro growth and jobs and yet argue that energy efficiency and solar,tidal and offshore wind (onshore is very unpopular in localities where the LDs are competing hard)will do the job. So-called clean coal is a possibility but fitting the pollution abatement equipment and introducing the necessary carbon capture on a practical basis is going to be challenging to say the least. Gas is cleaner but we don’t want to be beholden to the Russians; from memory we get a lot from Norway and perhaps we could get more but there’ll be lots of competition from memory. Carbon capture would be needed here as well.
The problem for the nuclear lobby is who’s going to pay for the ultimate decommissioning of new plants? The Government says it will have to be private investment but is that realistic? It would be reasonable to exempt nuclear from the climate change levy, though. No easy answers.
I’d be interested to know what is the error on the figures like CON 37, LAB 32, LD 21 and how it is calculated.
A measurement of any quantity is meaningless without an estimate of the error.
I’d reckon that each of these numbers has an error of +/- 2, at least.
54. Jack, I told my mother about Sarah Teather’s gaffe and she replied that Charlies at least had the justification of being drunk, while Teather as sober looks almost as out of her depth as him in his “wild” days.
She thinks she has the potential to reach Venerable Helen’s level when she gets old.
OK, I give in. Who is the Venerable Helen?
53 Gladstone. Westminster is the UK Parliament not Englands, so the question doesn’t arise.
55 Benedict. Not heard of that presumably Welsh MP ??
58 Andrea. Your mother is a very astute woman !
Jack,
If you don’t think the WLQ is going to be a major political issue in the next election you are dreaming
59 Commentator. Oh No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
61 - At my local, they speak of little else.
I notice that Keith Hill (PPS of Blair) has not speaken in any debate (and he’s not the only one) and he has not submitted any written question since 2005 GE
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/keith_hill/streatham
He didn’t really find anything to ask…not even a “will you give away?”!
At least he attended 90% of Commons divisions.
61 Commentator. You mean more than the Economy, the NHS, Education, Enviroment, Europe ………..
59. Commentator, The Venerable Helen is Helen Rosemary Brinton Clark, former MP for Peterborough.
http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/52648958.jpg?v=1&c=MS_GINS&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A6CA9105B014B6204659D55AD35CA51490
61. Jack W doesn’t believe anyone cares about the WLQ - so don’t bother replying to this as I don’t exist.
As bad as it would be for NuLab - it would equally be bad news for the LDs - hence he’s covering his ears and shouting “la la la”
54 “You cannot have an alcoholic as a major party leader, who then consistently lies to his senior colleagues and the media”.
My own impression is that politicians who “consistently lie to senior colleagues and the media” are normally extremely successful, vide Blair.
If Charles Kennedy was really doing this, then of course the Lib Dems should have kept him!
65 Don’t be sarcastic! Not “more than”, but “as well as” those issues (and well you know it). And it will become especially prominent after the election when there is no overall majority and all the parties are trying to sound ‘legitimate’.
Marcia! I see Kate Maclean is standing down in Dundee West.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/06/20/newsstory8461810t0.asp
Do you think it’ll help SNP prospect in the seat?
Five sources of electricity generation. Cost in pence per kilowatt per hour:
Nuclear 2.3p
Gas 3.4p
Coal 5.0p
Onshore wind power 5.4p
Offshore wind power 7.2p
Source: The Royal Academy of Engineering
I’m just very disappointed. With Ming’s election the leadership had a great opportunity to break with the party’s beards-and-lentils faction and embrace a radical nuclear energy program, but it appears this opportunity will not be taken.
Well, Blair will be stealing this thunder soon enough, so it’s probably too late now anyway. We’ll just be left looking like we’re pilfering our policies on energy from episodes of the ‘Good Life’
67 Jamie You haven’t heard me singing !!
The WLQ might exercise politicos, the loonies in the EDP and a cat called Boadicea, but for the rest of the nation the priorities are paying the mortgage or rent, bringing up healthy children and the standard of life for their loved ones.
Say to voters pay more taxpayers money for more politicians and the significance of the WLQ melts away like snow in the tropics.
68 Gwynfa. Excellent news for the electorate there ! Lie to Win .. NO THANK YOU.
For anyone who feels that Nuclear power is a good idea…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456957/html/nn3page1.stm
Not something that governments can control. Whatever helpful industry insiders might say to ministers.
The market is right to count the costs as too high.
72. Actually the best solution to the WLQ is for less £ on politicians. English MPs only would be allowed in English only policy votes.
So Scottish MPs would have more free time and would be due a pay cut. Simple eh - and a real vote winner.
69 Gladstone. See 72.
71 And the cost of long term disposal amd storage of the nuclear waste byproducts is - ????? where in your figures .
Ha ha, cutting the pay of Scottish MPs? Can really see Gordon going for that.
77. Why not - he’s all about “hard working families” paying less tax
74 Jamie. But Westminster isn’t an English only parliament. MP’s are elected to use their best judgement in the interests of their constituents and the wider nation, not just on “English” issues.
If the English want their own parliament, then they can pass a referendum on it and not usurp the UK parliament for their own means.
71 - As I understand it, the way those figures are normally worked out is on a strict operating cost basis which includes the rather central issue of commissioning and decommissioning costs, and ongoing waste management. That is why there is little private sector interest in investing in this sort of project without huge government support (hence Huhne’s “stealth tax” point).
I have no ideological objection to nuclear power but this looks a million miles from a market solution. It appears to be a centrally imposed and very costly solution. I suspect that you, as a reasonably clever troll, know that too.
79. A cross party agreement could make it happen - it is only fair after all isn’t it ? Who could possibly disagree ? Not many voters in Scotland or Wales. Perhaps only those with a vested interest in seeing the current unfair system continue ?
79 You’re right in theory, but you are pissing in the wind.
The Tory middle english think that Britain or the UK equals England. You’re never going to be able to change that. What song are the English team going to mumble before the match tonight?
An English parliament proabably would never work even if the English decided to vote for it. England is hardly a working political entity in its own right anyway. Far too polarised.
RE 71 orange thinker
Seriously, if this was the case then there is no way the nuclear lobby would be looking for price fixing as they could rake the cash in. I would also like to see wxactly where these figures come from and how they are calculated as well as the obvious waste issues.
Jack, On the whole, I agree with you that the WLQ per se will not feature prominently in the campaign unless the Conservatives choose to highlight the issue.
But the increase (upsurge is too strong)in ‘Englishness’ and concomitant irritation at the Scots’ perceived peevishness is also an undeniable factor. That background noise will unquestionally be louder when GB becomes PM, and will have some electoral impact, particularly if the campaign polls indicate a kind of WLQ outcome. I wonder whether this, at least in part, explains his declining popularity ratings.
82.”The Tory middle english think that Britain or the UK equals England”
In Italy it’s the same……tennis commentator sometimes refer to Murray as “the English player”…because Wales, Scotland and England is more or less the same thing in the view of some people here.
The situation is improving now though and Cathrine Zeta Jones is recognized as Welsh!
81 Jamie. Why stop at England ?? What about London only issues or Cornwall or East Anglia.
Scotland had to accept primary legislation voted by English MPs in the 80’s. As I’ve said Westminster is the UK parliament with one class of MP, not an adjunct to the sentiments of Little Englanders or a method for Tory MPs to rule outwith a majority UK Labour administration.
86. Hmm…how much parlimentary time is dedicated to Cornwall and how many votes have non Cornish MPs voting on Cornish issues ?
A thin counter argument…
Re 86, Point is Jack that WAS THEN and this IS NOW when Scots do not have to accept legislation on many things passed at Westminister.
75 Jack W - see 74
(BTW - You wouldn’t happen to be a Scottish Gentleman yourself, would you?)
Why should devolved powers (which are a good idea IMHO) only be applied to certain members of the UK, and not others. The constitution is asymetric and unfair. Where it comes in to play politically is that a major party of state - the Conservatives - are disadvantaged because of it since their power base is in England. This means that the WLQ will assume importance in a hung parliament, because it will be in the Tories interest to make a fuss about it. And boy will they ever! That’s when the tabloids will start making up facts about England subsidising Scotland and making spurious claims about how the government could cut income tax by 5 pence or whatever. As soon as the argument degenerates to that level (i.e. potential for personal financial gain) then Joe Public will get interested very quickly! As an example of how this sort of thing happens, look at the way that the tabloids whip up dislike for the EU, and are forever quoting how much ‘we’ -the UK - pay in to it every year.
I think that we should tackle the WLQ now in a calmer and rational manner, before it becomes a serious problem, before the tabloids have a chance get hold of it and distort the arguments like they do with the EU.
84 - I don’t see how the tories can campaign on this without yet again appearing as anti-scottish and anti-welsh. One thing that will certainly upset the scots and the welsh is any suggestion that their Westminster MP’s be made 2nd class MP’s.
Yes, perhaps the tories don’t have much more to lose in Scotland but I’m sure that’s not the way the scottish tories see it.
90. As a Scot I find the current situation very unfair - as do many other Scots - why should we lord it over England and decide their laws ?
86. Same old watered down Scots Nat tune from Jack W I see…such revanchiste sentiments won´t cut much ice with non-Scottish voters my friend (who in cas you hadn´t noticed are the overwhelming majority in the UK).
84 John O. I agree that the WLQ might be light background music, but I can’t believe it will play anything other than a minor role in a GE. Indeed if Gordon proves to be a popular PM, and it’s a biggish “if”, then this whole issue may become redundant.
If the English want a federal system, then that’s fine by me, but Westminster is not the place for a fantasy parliament for England.
71. Orange Thinker - I await the news of your official ‘defection’ with bated breath
Article about Selby and Ainsty selection from the Yorkshire Post:
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1575270
Adams’ win described as “convincing” which, I suppose, means by a good margin.
89 “The constitution is asymetric and unfair.” True… However it can remain asymetric without being unfair.
Since devolution brings with it another layer of bureaucracy and associated costs and the Scottish and Welsh have voted for it - fine as long as paying for it comes out of the money that would have been used for eg Scottish services otherwise. Unfortunately the perception at least is that this is not how the finances are working…
90 - I rather agree but the party could justifiably campaign on further reducing the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster - as was the case in Northern Ireland during the Stormnont era - because both have their own Parliament/Assembly. The last reduction of seats in Scotland, that took effect in 2003, only broadly equalised their constituency electorates with those in England.
Personally, I would cut Scottish representation by a further 20-25% but not alter Westminster’s structure/voting etc.
89 - But for hundreds of years we have had an unfair political system, and one that has been biased in favour of the tories. I refer of course to the House of Lords. The tories have been quite happy to have our laws voted on by people with no more qualification to be there than their descent from Nell Gwynn.
Until the tories campaign for a fully democratic House of Lords I can’t take seriously any tory protests about the WLQ.
IMO petty arguments about the WLQ is exactly the worst sort of political debate. It is only a small part of the “fair votes” debate, but one that has nasty nationalist overtones.
There is more that is good in the present system than bad. It is definitely fairer than what went before.
I am English. I am glad that Scots get a say on my affairs. In part it counteracts inbalances in the flawed English electoral system.
I suppose the WLQ might be raised as a very minor issue in England at an election, but who would it benefit? As far as I can see, the only solutions to the WLQ are
1 – Independence for Scotland and Wales
2 – Complete abolition of the Scottish Parliament / Welsh Assembly
3 – A separate English Parliament
4 – Regional English Assemblies with at least the same powers as the Welsh Assembly
5 – Only allowing English MPs to vote on English-only matters
None of the major parties in England are going to seriously consider “1”. There’s virtually no chance of even the Tories proposing “2”. “3” would be just about the most unpopular thing any party could propose – can you imagine the reaction of the tabloids to the suggestion that the best use of taxpayers money would be to pay for an entirely new set of politicians and civil servants, in addition to what we’ve got already? The same would also apply to “4” – remember the vote on the North-East Assembly a couple of years ago?
“5” would make some sense, but what would happen if the opposition had a majority of English MPs? Do we then have to set up a separate English government in addition to the UK government? It’s one thing having a Scottish government covering a small minority of the UK, it’s another to suggest a second government covering 85% of the UK population. It might be perfectly logical, but I can’t believe the general public would see it as anything other than “bureaucracy gone mad”.
I don’t really see how the Tories could raise this as an issue unless they are actually proposing a solution. Given that all the possible solutions are likely to be highly unpopular vote losers I can’t really imagine they’d touch it with a bargepole.
A couple of interesting asides from the ipsos/mori poll for the Observer on sunday.
http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/mpm060612.shtml
1) when asked if certain political figures were a strength or weakness for their party. For labour, blair and prescott’s “strength” rating has gone through the floor, whereas brown’s has actually increased slightly since April 1997 (if down on his May 2001 rating).
2) cameron is rated slightly behind john major as a strength! although major has a bigger weakness rating as well. He is also running way, way behind blair’s ratings in 1997 and 2001.
This would suggest that Brown has managed to keep his reputation largely in tact during the recent governmental “troubles”, and as such still has a good potential for restoring Labour’s national vote share.
ON another matter, these yougov polls of party members, I am a lab party member, I am on yougov, but not recognised as a party member and there is no option on the personal profile page to register as being a member. So, how did yougov “find” these party members for their polls?
RE dan at 24
I think the Lib Dems will be pretty satisfied with 21%. Looking at the ICM poll 12 months after a general election shows the following…
June 1998: 16%
June 2002: 20%
June 2006: 21%
by Dan June 20th, 2006 at 9:21 am
The problem for the Lib demsis that the current figure is -2% on the previous GE whereas in 2002 it was +2.
Roger H
95. I see Adams was the warm-up speaker for Michael Howard’s 2005 election speech on immigration…
88 Benedict. Westminster is the supreme parliament and may overide the Scottish parliament at any point. Indeed Westminster could abolish it !!
89 Gladstone. No … I’m not a Scottish Gentleman ….. but a Scottish noble !!
It’s almost as if you are arguing that because the Tories have become an almost entirely English party that the constitution should be changed ?!
92 County. “…. watered down SNP tune ..”
I never water anything down !!
97 John O. Wouldn’t disagree too much with that John.
94: I won’t be defecting anywhere. With one or two exceptions, I’m delighted with the direction the party is now taking.
95,
Andrea,
Thanks for that, I for one coudn`t believe John grogan held on in Selby for Labour.
Think it even suprised Michael Howard, as they day before 05 election, held a big rally in the constuency.
The selby seat with all its outling country areas was always Tory except 1945 I believe upto 1997.
Think must have changed a lot over the years, to make this a marginal.
104 - Thanks. What commends that proposals is its essential ‘Britishness’: it doesn’t directly address the principle, but significantly modifies the ‘problem’. Constitutional pragmatism used to be an asset
100. AFAIK, the Conservative official party line is option 5 in your list. I don’t know what the LibDem one is. I understand that the SNP behave honourably, and abstain.
Which bring us to option 6 to add to your list.
6. SNP obtain a majority in Scotland in favour of independence, and the rest of the UK MUST respect it. In some ways the neatest solution. (Maybe not likely, at least right now, but for completeness we should add it to the list.)
97 / 104 - Isn’t this what Gladstone proposed when advocating home rule for Ireland? But reducing the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster won’t solve the problem of Scottish and Welsh MPs having a say on English only matters and introduces a problem of having these countries under-represented, and further dominated by England, on UK matters of legitimate interest to them.
jonathan@73
ah, and there was me thinking that perhaps the reactors that we might build would not be fatally flawed designs with large positive void coefficients, have only partial containment, and that we would not allow operating staff to run dangerous and unauthorised experimental procedures. Perhaps we’re also considering air cooled reactors (a la Windscale) whilst we’re at it.
108. If Conservative official party line is “Only allowing English MPs to vote on English-only matters”, why has Mundell voted on “Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill — Clause 1 — Dates on which new valuation lists must be compiled for England” which is an England issue (I suppose):
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-12-01&number=113&mpn=David_Mundell&mpc=Dumfriesshire%2C+Clydesdale+%26amp%3B+Tweeddale
They don’t seem to settle the best example.
104. My Noble Lord Jack …
No, I don’t want the constitution changed because the Conservatives are so English - far from it. What I was trying to say (badly as usual) is that the juxtaposition of
a) a hung parliament,
b) the WLQ, and
c) the distribution of seats and votes across the UK,
it gives a potential Tory opposition a stick to beat the government with. And I cannot imagine the Conservative Party ever going soft on it’s opponents. :-).
The trouble is, that once the genie is out of the bottle, it won’t easily go back. As soon as it becomes a populist issue (ie tabloids get involved) then it makes it more and more difficult to get a rational and calm solution to any problem.
I’m pleading for us to fix it before it gets that far, that’s all.
108 Gladstone. The SNP might become the largest party in the Scottish Parliament, but not IMO the majority party under PR, let alone win a referendum on independence.
107 John O. I’m afraid pragmatic is a word too often missing in the adverserial political system. It tends to be a close bed fellow of coalition, and accordingly is often seen in leper status only.
I see David Cameron was on the GMTV sofa this morning.
Saying Tax credits for families with children was a good idea but badly implemented.
Also stating he has asked the policy review to look at giving Tax allowances to all people Rich or Poor for child care, and giving greater help to single parents.
Very different tone to old style conservatism regarding single parents.
The wealthy with nannys will certainly be pleased, if implemented.
108 - The official Lib Dem line is presumably still in favour of regional assemblies, but given that it’s the sort of constitutional issue on which there would have to be a referendum, I don’t really see this as a live political issue.
If there was an SNP overall majority in the Scottish parliament, and a majority voted for independence in a referendum, I entirely agree that the rest of the UK would have to accept it. But there’s absolutely no reason to think that that is ever likely to happen (and even less likely in Wales)
112 Gladstone. “My Noble Lord Jack…”
Kind of you … but I don’t use the title !!
I ackowledge the potential difficulties. However should the Tories go nuclear on this issue the potential for disaster for the Tories is huge. Whilst there is a small constituency for the WLQ, I believe there is a stronger grouping of English voters who see Great Britain as greater than the sum of its’ parts and any attempt to break or damage the Union and undermine the nation would be met very badly, not least than in a significant part of the Tory party itself.
The argument against devolution was always that once you started down this route there would be growing momentum from the English to dissolve the United Kingdom and that the losers in that event would -in fact- be Scotland.
As an Englishman who has always done a lot of business north of the border I have noticed a growing concern there about the increase in English nationalism.
I have come to the view that the current system in hopelessly biased, the Scots not only recieve way more than a fair cash settlement but are over represented per head in Parliament and have their own parliament.
It might take 20 years but the pressure to cut loose from the Scots will grow and grow in England unless something is done.
109 - Sure. But wot yer gains on the swings…. All sides won’t be entirely happy, but that’s exactly the point in a way. Actually, My hunch is that most Scots and Welsh would be reasonably content.
And thinking of losers and winners, what if say, Scotland/Wales shed another 15 or so MPs…. ;). But be assured no such ignoble musings crossed my mind. Oh no.
dez@114
I’m sure they will be. But not nearly as pleased as the less well-off who might now be able to afford childcare (without the omnipresent threat of clawback), nor the providers of such child care who would now have an expanded market for it (and hence more employment opportunity for those working in child care).
IF it costs less in total to give a benefit to all than it would to give the benefit to only a few through means-testing, then the only rational explaination for sticking with the means-tested benefit is that it is ideological in it’s base.
117 - “the Scots not only recieve way more than a fair cash settlement”. We often hear this point but I wonder whether the same might not be said about Torbay and indeed much of the country outside London and the South East? I am not sure what the answer is, although I can guess (I am not from the SE by the way).
117. Yes. Good points. The Conservatives have always been overtly a “Unionist” Party.
You know, its a funny thing - but if there is serious trouble over our strange constitutional arrangements post-1998 Devolution, it may come from more traditional quarters. The Conservatives may win an overall majority at the next GE after all, but have very little support in Scotland. This could well rekindle Scottish resentment of control from Westminster - a resentment that I can empathise with given past form.
Well, lets hope that does not happen.
117 “It might take 20 years but the pressure to cut loose from the Scots will grow and grow in England unless something is done.”… and all the while North Sea Oil will be running out… Does anyone think it might all come down to money in the end?
BTW Are the Scots over-represented per head? I know that the Welsh boundary comission for various bizarre reasons is aiming for constiuencies with about 55,000 voters rather than 70,000 as in England (and I thought Scotland)…
117 Marcus. The Union isn’t just about cash and nor should it ever be measured thus. Should Scotland count the cost in blood of the country’s vast over-represetation in military cemeteries in the 20th century - over twice per head of population than England. No.
I say again the Union is stronger than the sum of its’ parts.
117 Should refer to 116
112 - I still don’t see how it would be to the Tories (or indeed the tabloids) benefit to campaign in favour of something which would inevitably involve more politicians and more bureaucracy. Given the choice between the current (slightly illogical) situation, and setting up and paying for what is effectively an entirely new layer of government, I’m pretty sure I can guess what most voters would choose.
120 Exactly.
Where people draw the line is down to their prejudices. Perhaps the City of London should get out of the UK, it must have a really bad deal.
122. Anna, the average electorate of the Scottish constituencies is 65,324.
127 Thanks do you know what the English average will be after the new boundaries… Somehow I think the 70,000 must have been rounded…
116 - Is there any research to support this Jack? I’ve heard few Englishmen in the past eight years expressing devotion to the union, but a fair few expressing antipathy of hostility to it. I’m sure both are relatively small and the English in general are broadly indifferent to it - but it’s indifference based on the old assumption that England = Britain, and it’s disappearing.
Sorry, that should have been antipathy OR hostility.
117.” the Scots not only recieve way more than a fair cash settlement” This argument really annoys me. I live in the North of Scotland in a rural area with a very scattered population, we still need roads, hospitals, schools and other services that are within an acceptable/safe distance. It does not surprise me that it costs more per head of the population to give many parts of Scotland the same services as other more urban areas.
Anna at 122. The Scottish constituencies have about 55,000 voters against the English average (approaching 75,000). So, yes, they are over represented and would lose -I think- about 35 MP’s (Andrea?) if their constituencies were aligned with England.
JackW at 123. I agree this is not about money.
The point I make is that for the years leading up to the nats debate in the late 1970’s it was the English worried about losing Scotland. Since devolution the mood music has been the other way round, the Scots worrying that the English are going cold on the Union.
The fact remains that like all this governments constitutional reform devolution is half-baked and as such is the worst of all worlds.
Let’s get real about the West Lothian Question. The only reason this is being raised is to get at Gordon Brown. The Tories are starting to get scared of what Labour’s core proposition will be once Blair has moved on to the US lecture circuit and the Chancellor takes over.
They can’t touch him on the economy so they are finding peripheral issues - like this one
This is all too pathetic. Gordon watches a football match on TV and wants the UK team to win and what happens - the right wing press has a go at him.
What would they say if he wasn’t supporting England? He gets it whichever way he goes.
The sooner Blair gets out the better.
129 Cookie. I’m unaware of any specific polling on the issue. Anyone ??
However IMO the potential catastrophic disruption involving the break up of the Union and any association with it of a non SNP party would be perilous.
Chris,
The main point is that England is a Tory country. Scotland a Labour one. Right now England has a Labour will imposed on it solely by the virtus of Scots MPs voting on English matters.
That’s what rankles. The wrongness of the settlement preserves Scottish rights to choose socialism but denies English rights to choose low-tax, low-spend Toryism.
You can run but you can’t hide. It’s basic social justice. Treat all UK citzens the same.
Chris D - There is no problem with Scottish rural areas getting extra help per head, any more than any other UK area.
What causes a problem with English voters is that -on top of that- Scotland gets over-represented in Government, extra seats in the UK Parliament, its own parliamant and scottish MP’s voting on English only issues.
Add to that the widely held perception that Scots are hoping *any* football team wins the world cup other than England and you have to see why there is growing disenchantment south of the border!!
Can’t touch him on the economy?
Bwahahahaaaaaaaa!
Seen the NHS lately mate? Notice our GDP is below that of Ireland? Read the 85 tax rises listed in the Telegraph, did you? 20% of the employed in the public sector?
Our economy is in the tank and the public knows it.
132. Marcus, it’s around 65,000 now in Scottish constituencies
Aberdeen North 65.714
Aberdeen South 67.012
Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine 65.548
Airdrie and Shotts 61.955
Angus 63.093
Argyll and Bute 67.325
Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock 73.448
Ayrshire Central 68.643
Ayrshire North and Arran 73.737
Banff and Buchan 65.570
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk 71.702
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross 46.837
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 67.385
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch 64.748
Dumfries and Galloway 74.273
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale 66.045
Dunbartonshire East 64.763
Dunbartonshire West 67.805
Dundee East 63.335
Dundee West 65.8