When he goes will Labour lose Tony’s personal vote?
June 28th, 2006
-
Could 1 in 25 Labour supporters switch if there is no Blair?
With Tony Blair reported this morning to be ready to announce the date when he will stand down it is worth asking whether this will be all good for the party in the polls.
-
For a close look at detailed findings from this week’s YouGov poll suggests that the Prime Minister has a small but significant personal vote which will not be there when he is gone.
These are electors who will only vote Labour if he is the leader. It has long been suggested that this group exists but until this survey, I believe, it has not been possible to make a reasonable guess at the numbers of Labour voters involved.
-
So this seems to suggest that Tony does indeed have a personal vote with about one in 25 Labour voters prepared to switch when he steps down.
This question was, of course, artificial and was forced. There were no options to indicate support for other parties but it is interesting nethertheless.
The great consolation for Gordon Brown is from the responses of Lib Dem voters to the two questions. With Blair named as Labour leader the Lib Dems split LAB 40% - CON 33%. When the Chancellor’s name is substituted for Blair the numbers were LAB 48%: CON 28%. The reason, of course, that these shares do not add up to 100% is because of the “don’t knows”.
It has long been known that when Tony Blair led Labour to the landslide victory in 1997 he attracted a significant number of Tory voters who had never before contemplated voting Labour. At the 2005 election the big move was from Labour to the Lib Dems and clearly some of these will return when Tony moves on.
I find it extraordinary that after all his trials and tribulations Tony still has what appears to be a significant personal vote.
Remember to enter the PBC by-elections competition. This closes this evening at 7pm. Get your predictions recorded here by that time. For latest by-election betting click here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Whilst it’s conceivable that Blair retains some small positive vote carried forward from the mid 1990s, surely that is outweighed many times by his anti vote. Indeed that’s why his face appears on Tory and Lib Dem leaflets and not on Labour ones these days: they all lnow he’s a big net liability for Labour.
Isn’t a better interpretation of this data *not* that Blair has a positive personal vote but rather that Brown has *even more* of a negative vote than him!
Blair was the reason I left Labour; Brown wouldn’t make me come back (if anything he’s worse).
Johnson might be more interesting but the problem with being in power 9 years is too many people tarnished with the Blair-Brown imprint.
I disagree Oxonian - 1. For once I have to back Mike’s interpretation. The point is that people switch directly over from Labour to the Tories when Blair’s name is not there. If they were just opposed to Brown they would have recorded at don’t know.
The positive news is that Gordon’s figures go up sharply when all responses of all people from all the parties is taken into account and he has a big lead over Blair.
Surely, for any party, when it changes leaders - for whatever reason - it loses some supporters and gains others. At least, that’s what YouGov seems to be telling us - makes sense to me. Not to mention our old (Russian) friends Marginov Error and Liekly Tuvot…
I must admit I would have thought Blair’s ‘personal vote’ was bigger than this analysis suggests. I always got the impression that a great many younger middle class voters were tipped toward Labour by Blair, on the basis he was some kind of watered down Tory. This may of course now be an out of date view post Iraq etc.
Re. the Lib Dems, does the poll appears to suggest Lib Dem voters are generally left-inclined? or just so vehemently anti-Blair that many would rather vote Tory if he were Labour leader?
I am not affiliated to any Party, and have largely abandoned the habit of voting until recently. I could conceivably vote for any of the three largest parties, but none of the minor parties. I am just one person, of course, and I cannot claim to be a ‘typical’ voter, but I have talked over some of the issues raised here with friends.
The general view is that Blair did once have a personal vote, but that this has now metamorphosed into a personal “anti” vote. Reid, Johnson, Benn are all quite well regarded. Hewitt and Blears lose votes every time they appear on television.
In my circle, Brown is even more of a liability to Labour than Blair (Pensions robber, taxman, too dour etc). I could vote for a Johnson led Labour Party quite easily, but if Gordon Brown becomes leader I will consider emigrating! I find his the intensity of his moral rectitude absolutely terrifying.
(Incidentaly, despite some of the views expressed in threads on this site, Ming Campbell is well liked and respected. David Cameron is also well liked, but I personally am not sure about him.)
The power of this site is such that our host (MS) is right even when he is wrong. Which is why his support for anybody—dimissively and inaccurately called ‘ramping’—improves that person’s standing and chances. It is probably true that for LD political influence in the UK, MS and grandpa Ming are level-pegging.
Why is this? There are many other political blogs all of which have far less impact. It is because of the ‘betting’ in the title. Most politicians and newspaper columnists who read PB.com have an odd attitude to gambling. Both groups feel superior as they don’t bet themselves (they actually feel superior much of the time…..). But they have a grudging admiration and respect for anyone who regularly makes money out of betting. Hence the power and clout of MS.
Curious, as such tiny volumes are actually bet on politics in this country.
I remember reading some research where the support for Gov and Opposition was worked out with core votes and plus or minus events ( Falklands, Recession etc). The striking thing about the study was that Blair was shown to be the only politician of modern times to have an effect (+ 1.6%) that was consistent over time. This was written pre -Iraq though !
5. My guess (re. Lib Dem supporters) would be that it means they trust Gordon Brown more than David Cameron, and David Cameron more than Tony Blair. Issues of trust are likely to be more important than left-right perceptions.
Come on David 7 - much as I disagree with him most of the time Mike has more influence than Ming.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that there is some evidence for Blair’s personal vote. At an anecdotal level, I know a lot of ‘natural’ Tories who (still) think Blair is wonderful, but can’t stand Brown or Labour in general. These are crucial voters, especially as increasingly it’s Cameron, rather than the Lib Dems, who poses the threat to Labour.
Labour are in a great dilemma over their successor, since there appears to be no candidate available who will be able to do what Blair did in his first two elections, namely wooing Tories without causing the left to defect.
As a longstanding supporter of TB I still wouldn’t say that I knew of a huge number of constituents who say quite explicitly ‘I vote Labour only because of Tony Blair’. We aren’t quite that presidential, even now. It’s more subtle than that - I know quite a lot who say ‘I wouldn’t have voted for Labour in the past but under Tony Blair you’ve changed to the point that I do vote for your lot’ - a longstanding Tory party member in Nottingham (not Broxtowe) privately told me that last week (he remains a party member for social reasons and because his sister would never forgive him if he left!).
The question is how far this group will continue to vote Labour under a new leader, and the emphasis that GB is making on continuity of reform (which cheeses off Clare Short and others) is clearly designed to try to address this. I think the jury is still out on that and people in this group will want to see the new leader in action for a bit before they decide (which is a counter-argument to my usual view that the new leader should aim for an election soon after taking over - fresh mandate etc.).
Conversely I think there is a chunk of voters (which is certainly more vocal) who switched to the LDs but have always said they’d return if GB were leader. They too may or may not actually do so, though I think in marginal seats most of them will.
The last poll I saw suggested that LDs split Labour over Tory by about 3:2 if asked for a second preference, which feels about right at the moment (it used to be higher). I’ve not met many voters who are as vehemently anti-GB as Gladstone and some of the Tory posters here but the truth is that none of us really know how the public will respond to a change till it’s happened and they’ve seen whatever else changes as a result.
Gordon Brown isn’t being held responsible at the moment for the things about which people are most angry, though. I think we’ve definitely seen the rise of dissatisfaction with the NHS as a major issue, but managerialism etc. in the NHS is seen as a Blair thing rather than a Brown thing. If and when Brown does become leader, though, I don’t think it’ll take long before responsibility in the public mind for that and other emerging problems is transferred to him.
13 Many people — arms dealers, munitions manufacturers, venture capitalists pillaging Iraq — have every reason to be very grateful to TB.
So, I am not too surprised TB has a small personal vote. Everyone, from Lord Sutch to Nick Palmer, has.
Sorry, that last comment is rather obvious, but it needed saying.
Mike hits on an important aspect of the next election. With the indications of a hung parliament stronger than the 92 election and the small margins needed to form governments or not, the ability of Brown to hold onto the “Blair Tories” is important.
I’ve always thought that the main reason that Gordon has failed to wield the assasins knife is the necessity to keep as many of the Blair Tories on-side as possible. As one of the 97 and 01 Blair Tories I now remain open to persuasion to the three main parties. Time and policies will tell.
Now … Brown’s Liberal Democrats ?!? …. there’s an interesting mob.
12 As a Labour voter who switched to Lib Dems in 2005, I did have more time for Brown until it became clear that he intends to continue in the path of Blairism (i.e. ID cards, Iraq, over complicated tax credit system, obsession with management consultants). So Labour will have to do more to win my vote back.
As I live in safe Tory land however my vote will have no impact anyway.
Interesting article. I agree with a lot of sentiment here that it will loose labour some votes and gain others. As Nick Palmer points out at 12 it is very difficult to tell until it has happened.
The question for me is, how ighly will TB feature in the 2009 campaign. Will Brown make the same mistake as Al Gore and puch Blair to the sidelines?
I reckon not. I expect Blair to feature very highly and to look like he’s enjoying himself for once.
19 But Clinton would have won in 2000, if he had been allowed to stand.
Milburn had to let Brown back into the campaign in 2005 to help Blair out.
OT. The House of Lords vote today by STV for the post of HoL Speaker. As is usual with STV the result will not be known for yonks … probably until November 2008 !! …… In reality 4th June.
Clearly, as Scots are so shockingly under-represented in positions of influence the only viable candidate is the redoubtable Countess of Mar :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5123164.stm
RE 7, Interesting points that david kendrick makes. This site seems to affect political outcomes, rather than the blogs that discuss politics because we “don’t do politics” we look at outcomes. I know frequently it does not work out like that but it is interesting when we do that people take notice.
12. You’re right Nick - I am particularly vehemently anti-Brown (stems from a Newsnight interview/profile I saw of him), but I am not anti-Labour. The last time that I actually voted in a GE was for Labour in fact. (Feel myself more a libertarian centerist at heart, though).
Brown just scares me. He really believes that Government should be performing social engineering on a massive scale, rather than the measured and careful way that it has traditionaly been done in the UK, with some fair degree of success.
Why don’t you stand, Nick? You are one of the acceptable faces of New Labour.
12. Nick, considering you’re in favour of a snap election, how long after getting elected should the new leader go to the polls in your opinion?
24. ops, Nick, another question (sorry!). Is it today the MP vote for MPs/MEPs section of the NEC, right?
What Blair won on the swings he lost on the Roundabouts. The centre right swing vote seems to be flirting with Cameron hence Blair has lost his USP.
Whether His going is a net loss or gain takes us back to that eternal argument -whether the majority who vote ( in the right constituencies) tend to be Centre left or Centre right.
Liam Byrne etc continue to argue that lab should stick with the Centre right as that is where the haemorage is occuring to Cameron. Whereas Toynbee, Compass etc back Brown but want him to edge back to the centre Left.
Who knows ?
24/25 Andrea. Enough of questions to Nick !! ….. our campaign today is to get the Crossbencher Countess of Mar elected as HoL speaker.
BTW the fact that the formidable Countess is also the 11th Duchess of Mar in the Jacobite peerage is immaterial.
27. Jack, but the NEC vote is counted immediately (unlike the Lord one) and ballot bozxes would be left unattended overnight (as it happened in the past).
Do you think they’re not trusting themself?
26 You can do both at the same time, if you are clever.
The trick is to move the debate forward faster than your opponent.
23/24/25: Gladstone - don’t you think critics of my loyalist approach would call me the “stalking sheep” candidate?
andrea - yes, today is the NEC. Tough choice - Angela Eagle (done terrific job of keeping colleagues informed, much the hardest-working at that), Janet Anderson (solid, intelligent non-boat-rocker), Michael Cashman (also good at keeping MPs posted but as an MEP less well-rooted in MP’s affections), and Dennis Skinner (who nearly all of us like and who spans the ideological issues by being both left-wing and loyalist when it counts). We can vote for any 3. I’ve promised Angela a vote and am agonising over the others.
I think that about 6 months after a changeover would be optimal for a honeymoon election, but if the change is in 2007 then we’ll probably need to wait a bit longer.
28 Andrea. Remind me, who are we supporting in the NEC race ?
Another reason this site may get disproportionate influence is because of the way many journalists (particularly broadcast) report politics . It’s a cliche that’s so ingrained its practically a law that they must report ” who is the favourite ? “.
The majority of the population watching at home are unlikely to be aware of the various caveats on that ‘fact’ .
That this site from time to time becomes part of the loop is not suprisng - politics isnt purely objective.
The classic example of the above was the LD leadership election and manipulation of Huhne’s position through betting. Personally I wouldnt have been aware of what happend if it wasnt for the comments of people on this sight( + Guido).
Still, mentioning PB’s influence is a bit of jinx.
how about “The first law of PB is you dont mention PB !”
Anderson (solid, intelligent non-boat-rocker),
2 out of three ain’t bad. I wouldn’t know if she could rock an intelligent non-boat. Most people I know think she still cannot believe anyone with such little talent or ability could even be elected as a ppc, but then they haven’t met the massed sheep of Bacup. Angela Eagle is a reasonably ‘good egg’.
Nick (12) is “a party member for social reasons” a socialist?
I do not see Gordon making much difference unless the economy goes pear shaped, when he will be in the Charles Clarke situation (pre sacking) of saying I understand the problem and I am determined to sort it out.
Gordon has been at the heart of government, he is as responsible for most of the policies as is Tony. The only exception may be Iraq, but what he would have done about Iraq if he had been PM at the time we will never know. It perhaps matters more what he will do about Iran.
I think sometimes that the idea Iraq counts against Blair is terribly overblown.
Yes, for sure, left and Liberals jointly despise Blair for taking us to war and that has damaged his support from his own side.
But never under estimate the power of the silent middle England types -mostly Tory voters- who think he is brave and decisive for doing it - especially in the teeth of such opposition.
They feel at heart he is ‘one of them’ and the only reason he hasn’t achieved more on things like crime and radical public service reform is because of the party he leads is holding him back.
These people *have* voted for Blair personally and much to our surprise did so again in 2005.
That is why Camerons ‘heir to Blair’ strategy is so powerful - why have a fake tory prime minister permanently held back by the party he leads (roadblock to reform) when you can now vote for Cameron and get the real thing?
30. Thanks Nick
31. Jack, I dislike Janet Anderson, so we’re supporting the other 3.
Nick, what is the NEC for?
Brown-backing lib dems - simple portfolio effect I would have thought. People who can´t stand Blair vote for other parties. When Brown becomes leader some may go that way, and some others will move away.
Still I think that the net effect will be positive for Labour. Brown (or whoever else) will reshpae the government, announce some policy changes and people will cheer up for a while.
I wonder how much influence this site has really. Niehter Mike´s views notr the betting markets affected materially the result of the lib dem leadership contest. OTOH they did affect reporting of it.
37. National Executive Committee
36 Andrea. Sounds fine by me !!
35 I agree iwth the first part of that, Marcus. (This is so rare that I thought I should say so).I have always argued that there was a pro-Iraq move from white working class voters (eg in Hartlepool). I don´t think it converted many - but it helped Labour keep turnout up.
But Blair’s heir is imo entirely the wrong way to sell the challenge.
Blair reached an accomodation with parts of the Thatcherite consensus. He did not try to ape her style.
There will be a lot of churn next time from people who did or did not back various leaders. Some of Howard’s support with drain off to the far right, Blair’s will go to Cameron, LibDems may go to Brown, LibDems may go to Cameron, Blair may go to Brown … it’s all over the place and far too complex to simplify in headline figures/
LDs now 3.2 on Befair. UKIP 200.
A true relfection of the odds ?
40. Jack. Janet Anderson was a Tribunite, now an ultra-Blairite (IIRC she even wrote Tony to urge him to stay as long as he can). She’s the partner of Jim Dowd (the one who attacked BMA in the Commons lobby).
)
Dennis is Dennis: no need of explanation. Angela Eagle sometimes has the tendency to start debates on some controversial issues (top up fees and education bill) as a critic, but then back the government in the end. It can be irritating, but I suppose it could be appealing to some MPs: she can be critical without being rebellious. Michael Cashman has done a great work for equal rights for gay people in UK….and he was a soap star (isn’t it the new political trend?
Can I ask (re the by-election contest), could someone be so kind as to average all the entries?
43 - No one can possibly know what the odds actually are on the result of a by-election at this stage.
All this change in odds can tell you is that a few more poeple have decided to put money on the Lib Dems winning.
This could be down to any manner of reasons: feel on the ground, postal vote rumours, other rumours, optimisim, stupidity.
I’m sticking to my view that the longer odds avialable earlier in the campaign underestimated the Lib Dem chances and were worth a small punt (from my Dunfermline winnings!). I’m not putting money on now that the odds have shortened this much.
BG betting is much more intersting but perhaps too close to call to bet ?
11 etc re Blair Tories. Even if Blair had a net negative personal vote, the Blair Tories would still be a problem. The next election will be determined by whether the Conservatives can get over 40% of the vote, and Blair tories switching can help them get there. Anti Blair Labour voters will still vote against the Conservatives, especially if (unlike 2005) there is an expectation that the overall election could be tight. There was a feeling put about by the LibDems, the Independent and others that in 2005 Labour voters upset by Iraq could vote LibDem and not risk a Tory governmnet. That is unlikely to be the case next time.
The “Times” has a dig at the Tories efforts in the Bromley by-election :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2246610,00.html
49 - Yes - it seems barmy to me that Cameron would let a parliamentary by-election to be run by the locals who seem to be making a hash of it.
I would have thought he would have wanted to use it as an opportunity to demonstrate further momentum.
Andrea - on the basis that an “Executive” actually execute something then there is probably a case for a challenge to the NEC under the Human Rights Act (Trades Descriptions section)
My question to Nick was based on my view that the Labour Party has allowed its governing body to become so emasculated by No 10 that they might as well stop meeting. A similar case could be made for the conference - The Labour party is being overtaken by the Tories as far as internal democracy is concerned - a stitch up to crown Gordon will reinforce this view.
21. At the risk of being pendantic, the Lords will strictly speaking be using the Alternative Vote system as there is just one position to fill rather than 2 or more.
51 - That was the price that had to be paid for Labour’s electability. The memories of the violent tugs of war that used to take place between the NEC and Cabinet in the 1970s helped to kill off the idea of real party input.
50 Park Town Boy. This was a tricky one for Tory High Command. Local Conservative associations are robustly independent and I think Cameron took the view that the lesser of two evils was to largely let the locals get on with it and cross his fingers that they didn’t make a dog’s breakfast of the campaign. Having said that our Rik is helping at the margin, so who knows what the Tory campaign would be like without him !!
Off topic but for those of you betting on the World Cup the bookies are divided on who should be favourite to go through in the Germany Argentina game - you can currently get evens on both. Might be one to keep an eye on for you arbritageurs out there..
54 Here’s hoping his admirable self-confidence leads to as accurate a prediction as his pre-election postings last year
49: Jack, is it your mission in the life to plough the net for vaguely unflattering stories about David Cameron links to which you then post on the website?
49. That Times story is a really lazy cut and paste job.
55 Paul M. Good spot. Have to say I’m well up on the World Cup so far. The only negative was Spain outright, but I clawed it all back in running as the Spanish defence against France was ropey from the kickoff.
Two other decent bets to me are the Evens or slighty better available on England against Portugal and the 4/1 available on France against Brazil.
Plug for Mike. If possible place your account bets through the links on the right side bar. Mike gets a small commission that helps run the site.
51 - Sadly, the problem is that internal democracy seems to be seen as some sort of sign of weakness by most of the general public (and largely also by the press). It rather annoys me that whenever we Lib Dems have a serious debate on controversial policy issues at Conference (and we’re the only major party that actually do any longer) it tends to get reported as “party in turmoil”, “weak leadership” etc.
57 - To be fair, as missions in life go I’ve come across worse!
The change of leader will be one factor in voter churn. It’s not controversial to say that Blair’s departure will mean some voters will leave Labour, but also that other voters will come back to Labour. So, the key question as we are all intersted in electoral outcomes, is what is net impact of the churn?
It’s hard to say, although my hunch is that Labour’s national vote share will increase when blair goes.
For example, academics Evans and Andersen looked at the “leadership effects” at the 2005 general election they estimated that blair’s personal unpopularity has lost Labour about 3.5-4.0% of national vote share.
(full paper here: http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/EPOP%202005/Papers/Evans%20%20Andersen%20EPOP%202005.pdf)
Not saying it’s possible to put such definite numbers on the impact of leaders, but I cannot see a scenario where things get worse, or even stay the same, for Labour once blair goes.
57 Camerlot. The “Times” is hardly a “plough the net” job !!
You’ll note that there’s a link to the story on ConservativeHome too. Really, sometimes you Tories are touchy.
62 -No ploughing at all in fact. Our old friend Sage posted it last night.
You must be slowing down in your old age Jack!
Well, I’m no Tory, but I’d say Cameron’s called this one right. The Tory candidate in Bromley is going to get elected anyway - if handsomely, Cameron can say his hands-off approach worked; if not-so-handsomely he can say to the next local Association faced with a by-election “see what happened when I left it to the locals in Bromley, we’d better do this one properly, i.e. my way.”
It’s called management - i.e. knowing the answer before you ask the question (or so I was told once…)
63 Max.
Well, I am 103 after all !
I see Ed Vaizey is now having a whinge about the Lib Dem campaign in Bromley:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1807713,00.html
He conveniently fails to mention the Tory campaign in Cheadle!
what a bad PMQ’s so far!
How the hell does Blair get away with asking questions about Tory policy. It’s PMQs not Cameron questions. What a useless speaker.
Ming was ok…serious questions and not cheap points making questions. And he didn’t look like an excited school boy (like DC and TB)
Corbyn not wearing a red jacket!
Harry, re competition entries for the Tories and Lib Dems in Bromley
Average Tory share is 51.7% (Median is 51%) average Lib Dem share is 26.7% (Median is 26.9%)
No one expects the tories to lose. The range for them is 38 - 65%
Lib Dem range is 15 -40%. The closest is fot a 41% Tory, 38% Lib Dem split
66. He also conveniently forgets to mention that GLA members draw a salary of £47,000 a year - a bit more than a councillor…
66. The Lib Dem campaign in Bromley is a new low in the highly personal attack style of politics in which some Lib Dems have come to specialise.
Clearly some in the media are at last waking up to the facile and hypocritical nature of some of this stuff and hopefully the candidate will end up with egg all over his face when it becomes clear that there are more than a few Lib Dem MP’s with ‘two jobs’, including their leader, deputy leader and would-be leader.
73. So the Lib Dems are attacking Bob Neill because he’d continue to draw a £47,000 salary as a GLA member, and wouldn’t even be able to turn up to PMQs today because the Mayor’s questions are on at the same time.
Would you like to defend him?
72 - A better example would have been to point to Jim Wallace and Donald Gorrie both of whom remained as MP’s despite also being MSP’s after 1999.
62: ‘Camerlot. The “Times” is hardly a “plough the net” job’
Okay, maybe not. But, Jack, you do seem to possess a somewhat morbid keenness to draw our attention to any number of MSM duds with a ‘Tories in disarray’ spin. Yesterday it was old Ken on Dave’s bill of rights and a few months back – if memory serves – what’s-her-name Jackson on Dave and the environment – all stories of zilcho significance as it turned out. Don’t get me wrong, I love your fruits of your internet trawling, if only because they highlight the paucity of the ammunition in the hands of Dave’s opponents.
73 - It cannot hit the low that the Conservatives achieved in Cheadle last year . They are still scurrying around in the sewers there .
73 - I take it you didn’t visit the Cheadle by-election campaign and see your own party’s output then?
http://by-elections.co.uk/cheadle/Conservative.html
The Tories not only ran every bit as hard on the issue of Mark Hunter not being local (he lived a lot nearer to Cheadle than Bob Neill does to Bromley!) but also put out the disgraceful leaflet with the headline ‘Mark Hunter’s Criminal Record’ next to a newspaper headline about a rape case. Then there was the newspaper in the last few days about the bus passes which was complete fiction.
In contrast to the Tory campaign in Cheadle, have the Lib Dems said anything that is actually untrue in Bromley Marcus?
73. Marcus - they have been ploughing this furrow a long time. Back in the 1980s they attacked our local MP Jim Spicer for having ‘two jobs’ as well (he was an MEP too at the time). Not satisfied with that, they started a smear campaign claiming he had been engaged in corrupt local property deals. Plus ca change I’m afraid.
76. As for ‘ploughing the net’ I’m afraid I get the impression a lot of the broadsheet journalists now do this. The standard of political coverage in all of them is IMHO pretty poor - one of the reasons I read this site instead.
78. That’s the sort of thing which qualifies as ‘personal attacks.’ Not having a go at someone because he’s going to continue to receive £47,000 of public money to do a job he won’t be able to give his best shot.
78 - It’s not the truthfulness or otherwise of the statements it’s just the very obvious hypocrisy involved. I.e. attacking Bob Neill for not being local when your own candidate isn’t.
And I quite agree that elements of the Cheadle campaign were appalling but I don’t see how that detracts from the fact that the Lib Dems are running a negative and hypocritical campaign.
80 - will he actually be paid his Assembly salary in full though? Don’t Northern Ireland MPs who are also Assembly members receive only 1/3rd of the full AM pay (notwithstanding the fact that they’ve not exactly been doing much work in Stormont recently)? Does this not also apply to London Assembly members? It definitely should…
77, 78. I know Stephen Day quite well; but even I agree his campaign went over the top. But you can hardly criticise Cheadle Conservatives for apeing a campaign style pioneered with great success by the Lib Dems.
To attack Bob Niel for being already elected to the GLA when the Lib Dem candidate is also already elected to the council is just unbelievable, frankly.
Valerie, would *you* care to defend *him*?
81 But Ed Vaizey’s argument was that the Lib Dems are significantly worse than the other parties. It was this view that I was contending by pointing out that the Lib Dem campaign in Bromley is not worse than Tory by-election campaigning. In fact I contend that it is better.
And the Lib Dem candidate is much more local than the Tory candidate.
Which is the more onerous job - GLA member or councillor? What does a GLA member do?
84.
PMQs
I always find Cameron too aggressive and OTT and today it was the same.
Seeeing Blair tring to avoid the trident vote question was almost embarassing and when he started to ask for tory policy, he seemed out of his depth.
Ming was a bit dull (as usual), but his questions were serious and he didn’t look like an over-excited boy under the effect of something. In the end I prefered him to the other 2: I’m starting to get tired of point making exchanges of the 2 leaders (especially when they’re no funny).
Last week it has been said that Labour women always read their questions. Today it was different and some of them (Lynne Jones and Joan Humble for ex) did not read them.
Andrew Pelling still retains his Assembly seat without undue controversy. I think Bob Neill could have made the retention of his Assembly place, especially as his salary will be reduced, as demonstrating his commitment to local isssues within the borough.
73: Sadly, I have to agree with Marcus Wood. As a Lib Dem who thinks politics should contain people with experience of the universe those who elect them inhabit instead of being some sort of graduate scheme for characters hermetically sealed from reality, I think these taunts of ‘two jobs’ etc. are puerile. They certainly damage our reputation as the serious party that the likes of Ming Campbell and Vince Cable are trying hard to establish. I hope such barbs are coming from some tea boy in his first suit who’ll soon be back ordering the paper clips.
84. But it’s all so small-minded. ‘My candidate’s more local than your candidate’ - it’s just facile and childish. No wonder people are turned of politics.
Surely Ed Vaisey’s point is that the Lib Dems complain bitterly about not being taken seriously and then fight a campaign like this.
What do you expect?
78. The cheadle stuff is pretty indefensible….as a tory not particularly impressed by it and I think the result showed that it wasn’t effective. I think that the criticisms of Bromley By-election is that the campaign is negative by the Lib Dems and personal. The venom which political parties spit at eachother, whilst seen as good sport by some is generally a turn off for most of the public. Parties can look pretty childish all too often and that applies to all parties.
Ignor all this talk about the Tories doing badly in Bromley - Their share of the vote will go up, it should get over 60% if they are doing as well as the opinion polls say.
83 What rot! A GLA seat is a fully time job with a 43 grand salary. Abbotts is a back bench opposition councillor which he does part time alongside his current full time job.
The key difference is that Neill has said that he will not give up his GLA job if elected.
Abbotts has said he will give up his full time job if elected.
It is therefore quite legitimate for the Lib Dem campaign to highlight this difference.
Tory price creeping longer in B&C and John Hemming has been on to me asking for odds…. any feedback?
92 - And if we don’t get 60% no doubt that will be conclusive proof that the polls are wrong and the 300 council seats gained were a figment of veryone’s imagination?
90 - No Ed’s point was that the Lib Dems are significantly worse than the other two parties, which isn’t true. All three parties fight very hard by-election campaigns and all three use whichevere arguments they beleive will give them the advantage in the particular circumstances.
Personally I draw the line at the truth. I have no objection to the Tories attacking Mark Hunter for not living in the constituency. They had the right to highlight that fact - it was true. The electorate looked at the facts and realised that he was actually local enough and voted for him.
Where the Tories went over the line in Cheadle was the ‘Criminal Record’ leaflet - which was utterly disgraceful by its nature - and making up the bus pass story.
O/T Guido is reporting that LibDem’s betting odds have been cut in Bromley, news from the Postal Vote count coming in?
LD now out to 6.2 - not much fluidity - one bet can change all. Cons now back to 1.13
96. That is the key distinction. The electorate may look at Bob Neill and decide they’d just love an MP who will also be trying to do a supposedly full-time GLA job. Or they may decide they want someone who’s going to be able to put more energy into his MP role. It’s up to them…
87 - Andrea, Yep, agree with you…DC not on great form (and who can blame Blair for the taunts on the ex, no-more, Kuddly Ken :(). How coincidental that Janet Anderson should make an appearance and was excrutiatingly, toe-curlingly awful - maybe Nick P will give her a sympathy vote
99. and is better at filling in forms
98 - Sadly I still think it’s an election which could be a good deal closer than many people thought, never underestimate aggressive (negative is the wrong word - we’re talking about politics after all
) by-election campaigns, which the LibDem are past masters at after all… well we’ll see Thursday evening I suppose.
87 PMQs
Think Blair got this one with the lack of Policy attack on Tories. It looked a bit desperate on our (tory) benches when he pulled out Ken’s comments. However, trident will obviously not go away and will be used by the tories to stir trouble in Labour.
Ming again asked about foreign affairs which some say is statesmanlike, however, I think he does this cos like Cameron’s questions on World Trade talks Blair cant attack you for being concerned about such important issues whoch is Probably why Cameron used WTO talks after being attacked by Blair. Saying this i do accept the situation in Israel as being pretty exceptional so fair enough to Ming.
Dull PMQs but Blair pulled a good performance in a tough week (e.g. Charles Clarke)
98. I think you mean liquidity, Jamie. But you are right - the total amount matched is only 17k, so very small sums will move this market now. Ripe territory for ramping.
To All Party Political Hacks :
Re By-elections.
You are all as bad as each other and if you think you can get away with something you will. This is politics and it can be and often is a dirty business.
……………………………….
76 Camerlot. As I agree with our Ken over the fiasco that Cameron has got himself in over the HRA, it’s not a surprise I commented on the subject.
I make no bones about my frustration with Cameron. As a social and economic liberal I applaud the shift to the left on social issues but I am hugely frustrated that the Tories have largely accepted the Blair/Brown consensus on the economy, taxes and public services and effectively dumped the Thatcherite liberal economic model that transformed the economy in the 80’s and will be needed again for Britain to earn its way in the world in the future.
Bromley - 60% plus would be absolutely gobsmacking for a by-election. Firstly, outside of a Conservative club (and often not even there) I can’t imagine anywhere where you could collect a bunch of people together and 60% of them would be Conservative voters. Bromley may be such a place, but a rare place it is if so. Secondly, look at the number of candidates there are. The English Democrats won’t get many votes, but they’ll get a few, and all these ‘others’ will add up, especially in a seat where it isn’t seen as neck and neck. I reckon the others (including UKIP) will be getting 15-20% of the vote. Thirdly it’s a by-election with no obvious challenger, leaving the frivolous to vote for who they like - there’s no government of the country at stake. I imagine many people in Bromley would prefer a Conservative government to a Labour one; significantly fewer will be enthusiastic Conservatives above all else. Fourthly, people are stupefyingly difficult to get through to - by-elections are notoriously susceptible to ignorance and apathy. The Conservatives (as the largest party in the area) will be disproportionately hit by the loss of the “Tory, I suppose” vote.
Under the circumstances I’m amazed that anyone is talking as high as 60%. My prediction is about 45%. Which’ll still be comfortable, because the remainder will be spread so widely.
“I wonder if the LibDems personal attacks on Bromley Tory Candidate Bob Neill are beginning to backfire. Campaign insiders tell me thet are finding increasing evidence that the Liberals’ negative and personalised attack on Bob are paying dividends for the Conservatives.” From Iain Dale
One wonders why the Tories did not use Bromley to launch their new policies. It would have been a good oportunity to test them in the market - They sound really attractive: keep Labour taxes in place for at least four years, raise tuition fees, ask some lawyers to come up with a bill of rights, err thats it.
As it is, they seem to have an unreconstructed local party and candidate who is flying the flag for Michael Howards Conservatives.
I still think with Lib Dems in third place last time, the labour vote collapsing the Toryshare should be over 60%
Well Councillor the noble Lord Tope (London Assembly Member) has a good few jobs and he doesnt seem keen to give any of them up. Of course teer isnt a by election in Liberal Democrat Sutton at present.
Then of course is Baroness Ludford MEP who serves the people of London in the Lords and Brussels/Strasbourg.
Can anyone mention what Messrs Huhne and Clegg actually did before they were declared elected? Huhne, in particular, appears to have enough homes which must be a job in itself to visit them.
Bromley and Chislehurst is a nasty campaign, organised by peopel who should know better. The MP for Fife NE (part time lawyer) ought to have something to say about it.
105. Jack W - the problem is that the Thatcherite model was only ever adopted because the economy was in a chaotic, even terminal state in the late 1970s. As a result the voters were desperate for change and willing to take a risk. The current economic picture is so different that making the case for radical free market policies is very difficult. ‘Hasn’t the flat tax worked well in Slovakia?’ isn’t going to interest too many people on the doorstep, even if you and I might be enthusiastic.
107. Icarus, you’re forgetting loads. Pull out of the EPP if we think we can still get anyone to join us. All fathers to be present at babies’ births.
07 - Then why did you put them at 50% for the competition which is close to what I think should and will happen?
It is unfortunate when various parties make inflated claims for each other, you all come across as a bunch of calculating mountebanks.
The collected wisdom of the results thread would seem to give a much more impartial and spin free version of the likely results.
Jack W “the Tories have largely accepted the Blair/Brown consensus on the economy, taxes and public services and effectively dumped the Thatcherite liberal economic model that transformed the economy in the 80’s”
I don’t think that is strictly true. What we have said is that blunt tax cuts/spending cuts as a first-term policy are a non-starter, because we aren’t sure what state the public finances are going to be in.
But we have also consistantly said that the current tax take is stifling the economy.
Mrs Thatcher didn’t actually cut overall taxes until well after the second half of the 1980’s, by which time the economy and the public fincances were under control.
112. She took over slightly more of a basket case, though…I’m not a fan of Gordon Brown but he’s not quite giving us 70s Britain, even come election time.
109 Fred. The nettle will have to be grasped eventually. The present levels of public and private debt and public spending is unsustainable. Eventually the buffers will be hit and if the Tories are in government at the time, they’ll pay again big time. It might be a good idea to lose the next election !!
100. John, DC should control better his voice. I was told that the noises in House is very high, so he needs to shout, but he needs to work out a method to shout without sounding aggressive.
106 - If Cameron’s Tories really have any momentum they should expect to be able to get a swing their way in every parliamentary by-election that turns up. Particularly in a seat like Bromley, in outer London and accessible from the south east, they should have piles of activists turning up to help and be able to out-campaign all-comers.
116 - By-elections are hardly indicitive of momentum nationally. If they were following Dunfermline the Lib Dems wouldn’t have done so poorly in the locals and would be polling rather better than they are now.
107. dont imagine Thatcher when your W***ing
112 Marcus. The mood music from the Tories isn’t exactly radical at the moment. It’s too much tinkering at the edges and trimming here and there, better management and administration.
I understand that Cameron doesn’t want to frighten the horses but heck he’s barely entered the stable yard yet !!
117 - After Dunfermline the Lib Dems did much better than most folk were expecting before Dunfermline.
112. That’s true Marcus, but the 1979 manifesto did give the voters a pretty clear idea where a Tory government’s priorities lay -
It argued that ‘the State takes too much of the nation’s income; its share must be steadily reduced’ and that ‘any future government which sets out honestly to reduce….taxation will have to make substantial economies, and there should be no doubt about our intention to do so’. It went on to state ‘We shall cut income tax at all levels’.
The finance for this was seen as ‘cutting waste’ (sound familiar?) and raising VAT. Now to be fair income tax at the time was at very high levels (the manifesto talked of cutting it to the ‘European average’!) but the public finances were in poor shape too and that could easily have been used as a cover for not promising anything.
mountebank \MOUN-tuh-bank\, noun:
1. A peddler of quack medicine, who stands on a platform to appeal to the audience.
2. A charlatan; a boastful pretender to knowledge or a skill.
Yep Mountebank sounds about right.
119 - Jack if we put forward a radical platform now we will lose the next election - people do not believe that tax cuts are possible without damaging services.
As much as I would like to win the next election I think there is every chance we will go down the road of our Canadian counterparts (who themselves ditched a lot of radical Reform era policies) which was to run a responsible minority governmnet in order to regain publice trust. Only once we regain the trust we lost will people countenance more radical measures.
114. Actually Jack W I think you are quite wrong. The present levels of taxation and borrowing are sustainable for a very long time indeed - just look at some of our Continental neighbours if you want evidence for that. The problem is that they will have adverse consequences over time, chiefly a slower rate of economic growth.
But Valerie is right - this is not 1970s Britain. These consequences will take many years to feed through, and will do so only gradually. Germany is a good example of this problem - there is still no consensus for proper economic reform there despite its appalling growth record since the early 1990s. Ultra-slow motion crises don’t feed public desire for change.
124. ? The comment about it not being 70s Britain was meant as a counter to this endless Tory ‘ah, well, we’ll have to see what the public finances are like in 2009′ mystification…
Marcus - not true that you are waiting to see the books. DC is committed to spending as much as Labour on Health and Education (and presumably Defence, though not said yet). You cannot, so DC says, cut taxes until the economy has grown and then you will split the extra money half and half between tax cuts and expenditure on your beloved public services.
Interesting that the Czechs got a flat tax through at the election at a time of healthy (although prob. unsustainable) economic growth, though. (The tax has now been agreed on by the proposed blue-black-green coalition at a higher rate of 20%). Czechs are slightly more aware of things like public debt levels, though.
111 - UkPaul - Tories should get over 60% - there is however some evidence that they have managed to choose an old Tory candidate and have not supported him with a professional campaign team.
The test will be the result - I will measure it against 60%, which is what they should get.
127. Also they are less likely to conflate economic well being with house prices…and more seriously have the examples in neighbouring countries of successful tax reforms.
123/124 Max/Fred. I think you underestimate the readiness of the public for significant change. The voters appreciate the extra cash that Labour has poured into the public services, but also understand that value for money hasn’t been the by-word of this government. And this is IMO across the whole range on the public services.
Which brings me to our Ken. One of the few Tories trusted on economic issues. Difficult though he is, infuriating to many Tories, he remains a blue chip asset to the Tories, that they squander at their peril. During the Tory leadership election our Ken rightly stated that the GDP/Public spending ratio of around 42% was far too high. He’s spot on.
If Cameron had that radical edge he move the ineffective Boy George and make our Ken Shadow Chancellor and Deputy Leader with a remit to rampage through the land - every pub
club, market and media outlet to spread the word - economic liberalism is back and so is Ken !!!!
130 I agree KC would be an asset as Shadow Chancellor, except it would allow Labour to bring up the record of the major government.
IMHO if Ken had been Tory leader in 2005. Labour would not have had a majority. Oh well.
129. Although people are buying (new) houses left right and centre now mortgages are finally accessible! Neighbouring country examples are a big issue; people worried about being outstripped by Slovakia.
126 Icarus you are partly right, Osborne talks of ’splitting the proceeds of growth’ which is code for cutting the percentage of money the Government takes in tax, as the economy grows, and therefore preserving in cash terms the money spent on the public services.
He is being cautious though, because if the economy is shrinking the opposite happens -the percentage tax take will rise, even if services are cut, as happened in the 1981/2 period.
Jack W is impatient for more radical stuff which I fear won’t happen, even Mrs T didn’t really get a grip on the GDP% spent by the Government -it stayed persistantly above 40% for most of the 1980’s and only fell markedly towards the very end of the Major Government.
Britain is nearly as hooked on the drug that is Government expenditure as most of the rest of Europe.
49 / 50 and 54 - It would be barmy if it were true. Almost every aspect of that Times story is complete baloney!
134 - What’s your take on the situation in B&C at the moment Rik?
133. Our trouble is we’re so used to having ourselves painted by Labour/the media as a haven of economic sanity compared to our basketcase French and German neighbours…
“Icarus you are partly right” Thank you Marcus
I am sending this to China to have it embroidered onto the finest polyester and mounted in a frame!
From Jack at 54, to save scrolling all that way back:
“Having said that our Rik is helping at the margin, so who knows what the Tory campaign would be like without him”
Times facts seem fine - just dont think you like the conclusions they have drawn Rik.
Couldn’t find a competition entry from you Rik - what do you think the vote shares will be?
Over the past few days, Rik has been playing down the size of the Tory vote like nobody´s business. Since he is on the staff of the Tory campaign in Bromley, he presumably knows what their canvassing returns are looking like.
At the start of the campaign there, people on this site were talking about a 60% Tory vote. It may be supposed, therefore, that the Tory campaign in Bromley is not going as well as expected. Following the Times story, this would seem to be the fault of the local Tories and the campaign team they have got together.
Personally, I would attribute it rather more to the Tories´lack of policies.
93 - Park Town Boy - a GLA seat is NOT a full time job. It is notionally two days per week and in many ways is a glorified Councillor role, except that GLA members have a lot less power than most Lead Cllrs from a governing party.
Bob Neill has NOT said he will not give up his GLA seat if elected. He HAS said he will not force an expensive by-election and will run to the end of his natural term, continuing to represent local people.
108 - It is typical Lib Dem rank hypocrisy to attack Bob. Here in Sutton the Noble Lord Cllr Graham Tope AM, has FIVE jobs (that we know of). He sits on the London Assembly as leader of the Lib Dem group, on the Metropolitan Police Authority, in the House of Lords, is a Lead member on Sutton Borough COuncil and is First Vice Chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the EU Committee of the Regions.
99 - the GLA is NOT a full time job.
106 - Cookie I think you are about right.
128 - what “evidence” Icarus?? It isnt true.
please could we put this faux outrage (from both sides) away?
Those “attacks” are typical by-election attacks…they always happen and they’ve been done by all parties. It’s part of the game.
I don’t really think we’ve reaching a tipping point in Bromley.
The proof of the election will be in the counting. How were the postals?
Icarus
I say they will get 40% - I will judge them against that.
So there.
J
135 / 138 - the Times has made a series of statements in its article that are simply complete rubbish. I know the individuals running the by-election and the idea that the locals have shut out CCHQ and are running the show themselves is laughable. So Icarus how on earth would you know that “the Times facts [are] fine”? I can tell you that they are not.
My take Max is that our vote is holding up well but that since it is a by-election with all the peripheral candidates all the talk of big increases in the SHARE of the vote are unrealistic. I would expect our share to be in the 45-50% range.
139 - Sage - I do not know what the detailed canvass figures are showing and that will be kept to those running the show I would suspect. however I do know many people who have been there helping and canvassing. It is not a case of “playing down” - it is an attempt to inject some reality into a debate that seems to revolve around Lib Dem supporters trying to ‘predict’ ever higher Tory shares of the vote so that they can then declare a disaster if Bob doesnt reach them.
133 “Britain is nearly as hooked on the drug that is Government expenditure as most of the rest of Europe”
(a) Are you advocating less public expenditure overall including say defence, law and order, prisons, education, and old age pensions?
(b) Or just less expenditure on the things that you happen to disagree with?
If it̵