The reason I might be wrong about Labour and Gordon
July 18th, 2006-
The last time a party elected a leader in the face of the polls
In August 2001 ICM carried out a poll to test the reactions of ordinary voters to the two remaining candidates in that year’s Tory leadership contest - Iain Duncan Smith and Ken Clarke. It will be recalled that these two had got to the final short-list after Michael Portillo had been squeezed out in the Tory MP part of the selection process.
When asked to compare the two of them these were how those surveyed rated Clarke over IDS:-
In the ballot of Tory members IDS won by an overwhelming majority.
-
The big difference between the Tories in 2001 and Labour in 2006-2007 is that five years ago the party was still coming to terms with its second devastating defeat and very few Tory MPs believed that their jobs were on the line if they got the leadership choice wrong.
When Labour eventually gets round to its election there will be dozen of MPs in English marginals who will be judging the contenders almost solely on the basis of which one would help them most to retain their seats and their parliamentary salaries.
When faced with the polls five years ago the IDS camp said that it would “all be different when Iain was actually in the job”. When elected he “would get much more exposure and his “ratings would be sure to improve”. Now where have I heard that recently?
At the end October 2003, after less than two years and two months in the job, IDS was ousted by his fellow MPs.
Ever since the polls started showing that the succession of Gordon Brown might increase the Tory margin I have taken the view that the leadership contest would be more open than received opinion and the betting might suggest. I cannot see how a party hungry to hold onto power would do anything that would make that task harder.
The story of IDS and the Tories, however, suggests that parties do not always do what is in their best electoral interest. The big risk in betting against Brown is that Labour might follow suit.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Come on - this is plain ridiculous. How can you compare a failed leader of a failed party with the most successful Chancellor that Britain has ever had?
I note the point that you are making about the polls but that is just a temporary aberration which has been fired up by a Tory media which is scared about Gordon and will stop at nothing in trying to undo him.
You bet against Gordon if you want but you’ll end up with empty pockets.
I think this is a false comparison, Mike.
Labour don’t have a Ken Clarke type figure who polls better with the general public than the party faithful.
Brown won’t split his party in two as Clarke assuredly would have done over Europe.
The final vote for the Tory leadership from the short list of two was left to their members.
The Labour party doesnt allow their ordinary members such power. I am sure Andrea will give us the details in all their complexity but dont the MPs have a third of the votes?
Perhaps Cameron should stand - He seems more popular with the voter at large than he is within some large parts of the Tory party. He has been unable to make the Tory party loved (Bromley) so perhaps he should follow his predecessor at Witney and try his luck in the Labour Party where he might feel more at home.
Re 1 “the most successful Chancellor that Britain has ever had?”.
The man that single handled destroyed the private pension provision for millions. For gods sake get a grip of yourself man.
3. The MPs have one third of the votes. Their votes are recorded and published. It is a single ballot paper with preference voting, so there is no opportunity for sneaky tactical votes to eliminate someone before it goes to the wider membership. A totally different dynamic from the Tory race.
Icarus 5. He’s listed in the betting - you can get 500/1 on Cameron being the next Labour leader.
I think it’s more than simply being a case of MPs/Party Members voting for Brown in spite of the polling evidence, its a combination of there being no one else of sufficent standing to run as an viable alternative candidate and the fact that for three or four years polls showed Brown as a “vote winner” for the Labour Party and despite recent polls this perception is hard to shake in the minds of MPs and Party Members, whats is more with no other real alternative, even considering Brown weak position in polling, there is every chance that he will win out in any leadership ballot.
Kevin at 2, I agree. Were there another obvious figure in the background, who could portray themself as an obvious successor or going in a much-needed different direction, then the comparison could work. As it is, Gordon is the obvious choice in a way that IDS never was - he had to fight his way through each round of the contest before finally coming through in the members ballot.
I think that GB is a racing certainty to win the succession, and I don’t know any MP who thinks otherwise - some would like to give him a run for his money, and some who support him think a contest would be helpful for him (more media coverage) but that’s all.
O/T: as Cynic noted on the previous post, my opponent is Anna Soubry, who stood in Gedling against Vernon Coaker last year. She was the obvious choice of the three short-listees (the others were from further away and less well-known in Nottingham). The Gedling campaign was quite lively - I remember a controversy when AS said she wasn’t proud of the area (high crime etc.) and VC criticised her for running it down. Most observers thought the exchange was probably helpful to her (certainly got her better-known), but unusually for 2005 the Tory vote share declined (by 0.8%), whereas in Broxtowe it rose by 0.5%.
BBC website: “Home prices ‘to rise 50% by 2011′”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5187398.stm
Does anybody believe a word of this any more?
I can see the “stop Clarke” argument for Tories (yes, he´ll win the next election, but he will force us to face reality on Europe”). I can´t see what the equivalent argument is against Brown.
I think AJ would potetially have more appeal for voters - but Labour members are gong to think that a) Brown deserves it b) that he will make life impossilbe if he doesn´t get it.
Can Ken Clarke stand for the Labour leadership?
(There is a look at Brown´s record as Chacellor here)
Yet Nick 10 - based on all the polling data you would certainly loose Broxtowe with GB at the helm. It must be quite hard for Labour MPs in English marginals.
My guess is that as soon as we know when Blair is going we will be inundated with polls showing the impact of different people in the job. The Scottish issue will be probed again and again. If the numbers are still bad for Gordon then, in your terms, there’s “a sporting chance” that a credible candidate will emerge.
The prospect of going off the Parliamentary pay-roll is quite an incentive to scrutinise polls carefully.
11 - of course, it must be true. It’s in the Express:-
http://express.inewspaper.co.uk/exp/login/loginnew.asp?wherefrom=0&valid=NotLoggedIn
Diana yesterday, house prices today, look for a front page on inheritance tax tomorrow then…
Back on topic, I can’t see anybody stopping GB being the next leader. Any “younger” candidates would be doing a practice run for after the next election should Labour lose. But would Benn / Millibland really run against Brown.
People such as Reid are likely to be junked by Brown on succession. However, if Reid runs, he may not be junked immediately, so could extend his ministerial career for another year or two by running and losing.
Labour has no Ken Clarke figure, and GB is far from being IDS. Have we seen any pollling figures comparing Cameron to Reid / Millibland / Hain in a GE fight. (I would think that if we did, they would poll worse than Brown.) There is only one possible rival to Brown in terms of a credible Labour leader at the next General Election. He is still relatively youthful (younger than Brown), very experienced and media savvy, and a good debater. His name is Tony Blair. Enough said; Brown is now looking like a certainty.
13 “My guess is that as soon as we know when Blair is going we will be inundated with polls showing the impact of different people in the job.” - which may solve my conundrum above. I cannot see Brown polling worse in these than any rival. With the Tories in 2001 and 2005, it was different as none of them were widely known by the public, except perhaps Portillo. Brown is widely known, and at least will have the advantage of being seen as experienced.
In 2005, for example, what percentage of the public could recognise a photo of Cameron / Fox / Davis? They were pretty much as unknown as the Lib Dem candidates. I even think Brown will get a bounce from being seen as the only credible candidate.
Agenda for the Tory party conference announced:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1823110,00.html
Sorry!
13. I’m desperately waiting to see if John McDonnell polls better.
6. Kevin, do you know how much will probably pass between the announcement of the leadership race and the closure of the nominations?
Though I find it almost inconceivable that anyone other than Gordon could win, I thought that about David Davis’s leadership bid too.
Certainly Mike is quite right to say that when Blair goes the media will be looking for a new angle - and Gordon has for so long been heir-presumptive his accession will be old news.
It seems to me more likely the Lib Dem leadership analogy will be closest: the favourite wins, but with a strong challenge from a previously little-known rival.
19. But the LD nomination system (as it worked) would almost allow a cow to stand in their leadership race (Mike Hancock would probably sign the nomination papers).
Here 44 nominations are needed. So a previously known rival probably needs a couple of polls showing doing well against DC to get enough support to stand. And little known people tend to poll not so well at the beginning of the campaign (because people don’t have a clue about who they’re).
That’s the reason of my question at 18.
“Though I find it almost inconceivable that anyone other than Gordon could win, I thought that about David Davis’s leadership bid too.” - the Tory race was always wide open, given that in 2005 the only candidate most people had ever heard of was Ken Clarke, who was unacceptable most Tories.
Most people have heard of Gordon Brown, and he is unacceptable to a minority of Labour members, but not to most.
We all forget the recognition factor for leading politicians. It is very low. I remember in about 2001, there was a question on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire on which party Charles Kennedy was leader of. There were 4 choices - I think, Green, SNP, LD and Tory. It was for about £64,000, and the guy had no idea, and banked his cash.
I doubt Cameron’s recognition factor from photos is more than about 50% now. Ming’s may be 30%. Most of the Shadow Cabinet will be under 50%, but Blair and Brown will be higher.
These polls on what difference x will make as, say, Labour leader mean nothing when x is unknown. Many people give an answer not knowing who x is, but do not want to appear stupid. Some will say it will make them less likely to vote Labour, when they would never vote Labour anyway, or never vote at all.
20 - not quite true, Andrea… IIRC, the LDs set an eligibility threshold that 10% of MPs must nominate a candidate before they could stand, hence Oaten’s falure - for Lab it’s 15%. (I know there was a weird anomaly that allowed for LD MPs to sign more than one nomination paper - but in the event that didn’t happen.)
Mike What you persistently miss is the probable calculation by Labour MPs that passing over Brown would split the Party. the Brownites are very strong at all levels of the Party and a successful Blairite challenge (Johnson,Milliband) would not be remotely conducive to uniting the Party in a way that gave them a credible chance of winning the election. I also think that most people, although not DC, are in danger of underestimating GB at the moment. At the election he was overestimated as someone who would sweep in and effortlessly reassert Labour political dominance. Now he’s a dour duffer who stands no chance. GB has been planning his moment for years and he will be a more formidable opponent both for the LDs and the Tories than you give him credit for. He certainly has weaknesses and he may end up a Callaghan Mark 2 but I wouldn’t count him out just yet.
21. I recall a Populus research where they showed Tory MPs photos (so I suppose it was during the leadership race, at the beginning, probably doing the summer) and asking to name them.
David Davis was cofused with Alan Duncan and Liam Fox with Alex Salmond.
Ah, when Dinky came out, some people confused him with Ian Duncan Smith. At the time the Sun did a piece asking people what they think about gay Duncan and well, from the replies it was clear that some people asked were referring to IDS!
18. I’m not sure Andrea, but I think it’s no more than a week or two. Last time there was two weeks of mourning for John Smith before anything happened officially. After that the whole thing was completed in eight weeks.
btw, I have heard that McDonnell’s announcement has encouraged some leftists to rejoin the party. I don’t know if this is just a local thing.
But Dinky’s hair is lovely!
22. Stephen. I said “as it worked” to indicicate the fact that with so fewer MPs than Labour the absolute number of signatures is quite low in the end. And there were 3 MPs (Hancock, Hemming and Rowen) willing to sign for everyone. So it would be like having 20 Labour MPs signing for everyone….it would be easier to stand, don’t you think?!
Nick was saying yesterday that 6 (Six!) had come back to Labour (voters rather than members) because of Hug a Hoodie and EPP, now the left wing are returning as well (Kevin at 25).
There hasn’t been a directive from Labour high command to put out stories of Labour supporters flooding back has there? Or would that be too cynical.
25. Thanks Kevin.
28. It sounds pretty desperate stuff, doesn’t it?
I see the BBC are giving billing to the tragedy that occurred on this day three years ago, one that still, to my mind, has not been properly investigated.
Tonight there’s the Hove conservative selection.
32. I wonder if they will pick as brilliant a candidate as last time?
“The reason I might be wrong about Gordon”-with two pictures of IDS has all the subtlety of Saatchi and Saatchi’s Demon Eyes!
…………..And as for the Juventus like attempt at 13. to knobble one of the judges……..
I think Mike is spot on. Sometimes -even though everyone knows it’s folly- political parties do stupid things. (IMO they are more likely to do electorally daft things when under pressure).
Picking IDS is a good example and so was Labour picking Michael Foot in 1979, I think sacking Kennedy and electing Menzies in his place will turn out to be another.
However there is always an explanation.
Right now there is a growing movement within Labour that says the best thing that can happen to the party is to lose an election narrowly next time, rather than win narrowly and go on the be obliterated the time after; in a kind of reverse of the Tories dilemmna in 1990.
Often these people have ambitions of their own, sometimes it is to wrestle the ideological heart of the party (back) to their side.
Either way Brown will be favourite with too many to lose the contest even if it does, in retrospect, seem like ‘political suicide’.
Those involved in the selection have an invidious task, to balance the needs of the party with the wish to extend their period in power. These, however, throw up two different answers and only by a degree of intellectual gymnastics can a decision be reached.
I would presume that most know that there are better candidates than Brown, those untainted, without the baggage that can easily be attacked, without the personal flaws and without the negative electoral impact. Against this though, to not choose Brown will split the party and power will be just as elusive, we’re in Major territory and a divided party is an electoral nightmare.
I don’t envy them having to make that choice.
What will happen is that they will choose Brown, the ruthlesness is not there and there appears to be no figure who can afford to set out the ’stop Brown’ argument. Money still to be made in finding a figure who will challenge Brown and betting accordingly but no more than that I feel.
33 Joker….. Irony ??
In fairness to young Bole he achieved a decent swing of over 3% in the context of the Lib Dems doubling their % share and the Greens adding over 1000 votes.
33. It seems Boles didn’t apply this time.
The shortlist is composed by:
Tariq Ahmad: he stood in Croydon North last time and he’s a councillor in Merton
http://www.tariqahmad.com/
Priti Patel: she stood in Nottingham North in 2005. He joined Referendum Party in late 90’s
Simon Walker: he was the Queen’s former press adviser
Mike Weatherley: he stood in Pavilion last year and he has been recently elected in Crawley Council
Especially for Rik W, Sean T, Marcus Wood, DC at al: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1823110,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704
37. Jack, well, if other parties did so well, maybe there’s a reason
Given that Antony Wells is reporting that Labour is now seen as more sleazy than the Tories were in 1997, and the Tories are still seen as more sleazy than Labour were then, I’d say that when Labour go out they’ll stay out for a long time, while showing the Tories how to do the headless chicken routine properly. The NuLab project was only saleable to the members and the Trade Unions on the back of four (count ‘em
four) election defeats - and to be fair, it has now delivered three victories.
If the regional poll is right, and the Tories are set to eat into the Lib Dems’ Wessex heartland, then Ming the Merciless may do well to follow a Northern Strategy next time, both to make up for losses in the south-west and to pick up the anti-sleaze vote, whether Guardianista or otherwise.
The idea that Labour want to lose the election is just Tory dreaming. Objectively all the polls point to another large Labour majority at the next election. If you doubt it see how far behind every previous government has been mid-term who then went on to win the General election. If the tories were going to win they’d be ten points up and climbing-not four points up and going south.
As for Brown…..all I can say is that nearly every Labour voter and center left voter I know-including many who voted for other parties last time- can’t wait for his coronation
42. Time to hang up my boots I think - no way I can post stuff as hilarious as that.
ColinW at 39. Might have been a bit funny if Icarus hadn’t beaten you to it.
41 IA. I think your last para is way off beam.
You don’t decide to follow a “Northern Strategy” because you’re 3 points down, a little over a year into the electoral cycle. The lesson that many posters haven’t learnt is that constituency battles are more important than pure national % share. In 05 the Tories picked up over 30 seats for under a 1% increase, whilst the Lib Dems saw a 4% increase for less than a dozen gains.
So it’s the local battle wot won it !!
Anthony Wells reports on a poll the day after Lord Levy is arrested that Labour are now seen as more sleazy than the Tories. Surprise surprise! Wait till the question is asked again say six months after Gordon becomes leader. Sometimes posting on here seems like an alternate universe where the Tories are loved and Cameron is the Messiah.
46 - “He’s not the Messiah, He’s a Very Naughty Boy”
(Apologies)
Marcus (44) and at least I said sorry!
45. Just to stir the pot a bit, the ‘Northern Strategy’ showed some signs of petering out in the recent locals in any case…so the option of offsetting losses in the SW & elsewhere by gains in the north may not even be on the table (an exception here may be Scotland).
42 - Now *that’s* what I was trying to point out yesterday regarding using figures in a wishy washy way. As Mike has now backtracked from the only use of figures I trusted (and made money from!), that polls always overstate labour, we may as well all admit that what we are doing is going with our hunches and using figures like the proverbial lamp post and the drunk, for support rather thn illumination.
45. Jack, the majority of Con gains came from Labour (who was down, so allowing the tories to gain seats with just 1% increase…in some cases like in Shipley with their % falling).
The Libdems increase was due to their performance against Labour. Overall in Con/LD seats, there has been a little swing to the tories, so not gaining many seats was actually “normal”.
Parties accounts published by the Electoral Commission:
http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/regulatory-issues/soayearend2002.cfm
51 - Talking of Shipley, any idea of what Chris Leslie is doing now - I thought he was a rather effective Minister both at the Despatch Box and once besting the ludicrously self-parodying Paxo. Didn’t he and little Dinkie-poos get on quite well too?
49 Fred. You are stiring a pot that’s empty ! There is no “Northern Strategy”. If anything the Lib Dems are looking to incorporate some of the Tories GE strategy and some ideas from the US.
51 Andrea. Correct. If anything in 05 the Lib Dems suffered an element of their 80’s disease of an inability to target their evenly spread increased support.
52. The Adam Lyals Witchery Tour Party has 2 members!
53. John, he’s now the director of a think tank, New Local Government Network
http://www.nlgn.org.uk/
I would never vote for Labour while Tony Blair is leader. His Foreign secretary “fully understands” why Israel should want and be within it’s within it’s rights to put Lebanon back twenty years. Enough said.
I was against Iraq but have always been a fan of Blairs and have always understood his position whether I could agree or not. I now see him as a very sleazy character indeed and can’t understand why I continued to support him and his integrity when so many things pointed in another direction. A lot of it was a Tory Party that was was always worse. For me reaching low point with Howard.
[45 et al] Well, I did say may - I fully accept that there are national, regional and local factors and, most of all, we are not yet in mid-term - despite all the spin (from all parties) the Government has a solid majority it obtained only last year… the parallel with Major in 1992-97 breaks down there.
I was simply speculating that if current apparent trends persist, such a strategy would make sense for the Lib Dems. It’s only the “losses to Tories offset by gains from Labour” story in a different pair of shoes, after all.
55 - Andrea, Thks, knew I could count on you :). Bet he’ll be back to the Palace of Varieties before too long.
I’m not sure Mike hasn’t got the analogy the wrong way round. Surely the “IDS option” for Labour would be to elect someone like Johnson or Benn – someone comparatively little known to the general public, as opposed to the better known front runner. On that basis, I would have thought that the example of IDS might make it more likely for Labour to elect Brown, not less.
Whatever the polls may be saying about the effect of Brown taking over on Labour support, there aren’t any other obvious candidates who would seem likely to do significantly better. As SBS says, Brown is at least known to the public. I doubt one person in ten would even recognise a photo of any of the other people who have been talked about, and electing any of them would be a huge gamble.
The South West regional poll is another in the consistent trend showing we are on the way to an overall majority at the next GE . Let’s put the changes into Baxter and see the good news - That can’t be correct it says Labour majority !!!??? Ok lets try Anthony Wells gadget - Oops another Labour majority .
OK This poll is obviously a ROGUE . Polls have a 3% MofE so Labour are really 19% Lib Dems 27% and we must be 47% and of course all polls overstate Labour so we can take off another 2/3% and add it to the Conservative figure which takes us to 50% . That looks more like Cameron is the Man .
58. John, it was a pleasure!
I think the Dinky/Leslie thing you referred was when Dinky from the dispatch box asked Leslie if he had read the latest issue of Gay Times and then went on a mini-rant about newsagents keeping it on the top shelf:
“May I invite the Minister to study page 53 of this week’s Gay Times? Perhaps he cannot normally reach the top shelf to see it.”
Is Leslie quite short too?
Re 23 I think that’s spot on.
I worry about GB’s seeming pathological desire to be PM and mistakes he’s made due to this. But he has got the big picture worked out and he is going re-unite and to some extent re-invigorate Lab. To take one example, I would expect the commitment to end child poverty to float higher up the agenda. Ultimately, it has to be mean more re-distribution. Is Cameron going to buy that? And if so, will his party? If not, there’s some clear red water. Fairly soon it should be ‘game on’ with three refreshed, committed sides. I’d be pleasantly surprised if Nick P can win again…but Lab largest party is not something I’d wager against.
In the meantime, Lab in doldrums, with lots of red blood on the floor next May.
58. I wonder how many other unseated Labour MPs are now enjoying similar sinecure jobs at the public expense?
[60] You’re a very naughty boy, Roger
re 64. it was not Roger.
61 - Ah yes…I guess he must be
60 - Gosh, that display of shining wit must have taken your hours to produce.
65. Who cares?
63. Are they paid by the public?
68. Directly or indirectly, yes.
Just to correct myself. I wouldn’t wager against Lab most seats, except with a view to closing this when it gets worse for Labour during the next 12 months.
Not sure if this is your strategy, Mike. But, if so, a sound tip - provided the market recognises some of the things you are saying.
69. All think tanks? Also the various centre-right ones like Policy Exchange
60 is very good! Jack perhaps?
72 - Maybe you’re not really Roger!
[72] I have another suspect in mind - it isn’t Jack - but I’ll keep it to myself.
74 - A Canterbury tale?
[75] If I had your e-mail, John, I’d say… anyway, I’m out now till early evening so I guess I’ll have to drop it…
Ming sounding very good on the Middle East on Sky News at the moment. This should be a time for him to really shine, maybe the chance to create the same sort of clear difference that Kennedy did so well with Iraq.
63 Fred. You mean like lose Bath 92 = Hong Kong Viceroy until 99 ??
You’re all at it, not just NuLab …. twas ever thus.
72 Roger. Not Guilty M’Lad.
78 - often wonder what would have happened if Patten had held Bath. David Owen to HK. Somebody to the Balkans - who? And Don Foster would be a teacher.
As to whether Brown will help Labour or not - I think he helped win the 2005 election. Note how Blair took him everywhere, like a human shield. I’m sure Brown’s high visibility blunted some of the fury people felt towards Blair regarding Iraq. They were reminded that Blair had said he was going, and here was the successor, and they voted on that basis.
I also think we are already seeing the effects of Brown’s succession, as Blair weakens. E.g. Brown has managed to kill ID cards by the simple expedient of cutting funds to the Home Office - and at a stroke a sore that festering has been staunched. All the fury that we saw over months and months over this has gone. I expect him to have a similar effect on other sores like Iraq, party funding etc. If the sores are healed, then why would the electorate turn away?
The Tories would have to be offering something quite wonderful, which they patently are not. Cameron seems to be a cock-up merchant when it comes to policies - annoying Scots, caving to the Czechs on the EPP timetable (can you imagine him standing up to Bush - he’d be weaker than Blair), having the poor judgement to make the EPP promise in the first place, his naive hoodie policy, his pledge for an “expensive” [his words] single transferable allowance for married couples where the wife stayed at home (taxes to rise to pay for it?). Who on earth would voluntarily go for that?
Patten didn’t lose Bath, he lost Cheltenham and we still haven’t got it back!
81, Sorry, Majestic Bongo Person, but Patten did lose Bath.
81 kingbongo. Wrong. Chris Patten did lose Bath in 92 ….. and many Tories cheered too !!
54 - Indeed - look at the list of Lab/LD marginals and it includes Watford, Oxford East, Norwich South and Islington South - hardly ‘Northern’.
82 John O. Spooky again !!
83. Jack W - I think Patten only started to get really unpopular among Tories after he had lost his seat, when he became closely associated with the ‘Europhile old fart’ faction of Howe, Heseltine et. al.
79. I think Foster could have been able to win it in 1997 (if reselected)
Bath Result 92 :
D Foster - Lib Dem .. 25,718.
C. Patten - Con ….. 21,950.
P Richard - Lab ….. 4,102.
Others - ………… 801
Maj 3,768 .. Turnout 82.5%
………………………..
86 Bathampton. Sorry to disagree, but there was ironic? cheering at CCO when Foster unseated Patten in Bath. And there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that Chairman Patten’s demise was a cause for celebration on the right of the party.
Cheltenham was the seat where the Tory’s chose a black candidate and some of their own members left the association if I remember and I think they even lost the seat. 1992?
89 - True - though the swing against the Tories in Cheltenham then was no worse than that in neighbouring seats. Cheltenham in 1992 was no longer the safe seat it was perceived as.
87 Andrea. Agreed. Foster would have won in 97. He achieved a 7% swing in 97 and increased his maj to 9,319.
89 Roger. John Taylor, later Lord Taylor lost to Nigel Jones by more than 2,000 in 92. The activities of some of the Tory members was shameful.
80 - “If the sores are healed, then why would the electorate turn away? ”
Because he never spoke out about this at the time. Why should we react to something merely designed to make him more electable when he supported Iraq/ID cards etc etc previously?
He will also be surrounded by reminders of why people turned away from labour, unless you change the whole parliamentary party Brown will be forever associated with Blair.
The only way for labour to break from the past is to really break from the past. Ironically this is best done when in opposition so I expect labour to elect Brown and wait to reorganise and reposition as and when he is defeated.
91 - I think it’s also a bit misleading to say that the members resigned because he was black. I think this was a bit like the Peter Law situation, where there was a falling out over whether to appoint the local candidate who’d waited his turn or the incomer from Birmingham.
81 - how the memory plays tricks - doh! at least I got the bit about not winning Cheltenham back yet right which as a teacher I know means I have scored a grade’A’ for my answer.
93 Cookie. Sorry Cookie but John Taylor’s own account of his treatment by some Cheltenham Tories Members is revealing. They cheered when he lost and his comments that he “only stays in the party to change attitudes” is revealing. Also the off camera comments by some members about “sambos and “wogs” not being suitable for Cheltenham spoke the truth for some.
Fortunately today, the racists in the Tory party are being marginalised as their beliefs are shown for what they are - rank bigotry of the most base kind. It has no place in a modern mainstream party and needs to be confronted and eliminated wheresoever it shows its ugly head.
93 - Partially, although the most prominent anti-Taylor activist, Bill Galbraith, was widely reported to have called Taylor a “bloody [N-word]“.
Ref 5 - The pensions issue was merely removing the tax credits on money paid into pension funds - which at a time when many companys were taking `pension holidays` seemd to be a prudent action . The trouble was it allowed fund managers /company finance officers to have a green light/excuse for reducing bonuses and in many cases stopping pensions all together - the UK pension industry was largely the result of the post-war consensus but don`t be swayed into believing that Brown ` singlehandly` wrecked pensions - he merely gave an excuse for the Industry to do it itself
95. ‘Amen’
Just a word for Charles Irving - the retiring Cheltenham MP when Taylor lost the seat. Irving was a very active local MP (also a local Councillor) and had an appreciable personal vote. But the reaction of some local party members was reminiscent of the Falmouth story leading up to the GE.
97 - grahamh
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this.
GB introduced effective “double-taxation” on pensions. The dividends from investments (which makes up most of the final pension fund) are taxed, and the pension is taxed again when it is paid out. GB knew precisely what he was doing when he did it; he knew full well that it would ultimately destroy the pensions industry. What is still unclear is WHY he wanted to do so. An answer to that would be interesting.
“What is still unclear is WHY he wanted to do so. An answer to that would be interesting. ” - because he did not think it would be noticed, and it meant that he could get away without increasing income tax to raise £5bn.
Pensions have been shafted by more than just this. Declining long term gilt yields, and increasing life expectancy have had a huge effect. The derisory performance of the stock market in recent years has also knackered pension funds. And finally for occupational schemes, short sightedness by firms in not stopping their contribution holiday earlier.
It would not be “prudent” for Tories to criticise pension policy. The ill thought out 1986 Financial Services Act led to rampant mis-selling of personal pensions. I could go on as this is a pet topic… but won’t.
Gordon’s raid did not help, but there are many reasons for the current position.
100: It was partially one of the few remants of the “stakeholder” argument from the Hutton school. The argument was that institutional appetite for dividends was one of the main reasons for the British record of under-investment. By reducing tax treatment, then the attractiveness of dividends would be reduced and there’d be ultimately more capital available for firms to invest.
It’s worth pointing out that the Treasury was moving in this direction for other reasons under the Conservative government. Dorrell advocated the move when he was Financial Secretary in 1993, and Clarke (and, I think, Lamont) also reduced the tax advantage during their time at the helm.
60 etc - I think it could be like 1931 next time!
Con 55%
The decline in final salary pensions is mainly due to three reasons, that each have a bigger effect than the tax on dividends imposed by GB.
They are - longer life expectancy, particulary for those born between 1930 - 1950.
The decline in interest rates.
New legislative requirements that made funding ongoing pension schemes more onerous.
100. Once-bitten - sorry, you are wrong. At the same time as abolishing ACT, Brown cut corporation tax. Cutting the corp tax-rate feeds directly to the bottom line, earnings per share increases, which the company can use to either distribute as an increased dividend or retain in the company for investment/expansion purposes. It’s a better way to increase the value of shares than the ACT.
You also claim that UK shares make up “most” of the investment in final salary schemes. Untrue. Most hold a mix of bonds, UK equities, International equities, property and other investments. The ACT thing applied to UK companies only. It never applied to international companies. As for bonds - pension funds still get tax relief on bond coupons. Also, as the profile of the pension fund ages, they switch into bonds, as the term to retirement decreases. Some pension funds like Boots switched their entire fund into bonds in 2001, locking in a FTSE level of 6600. They are laughing now - if everyone had responded to the ACT changes in the same way, the pension industry would be in rude health. Unfortunately most pension funds employ very poor investment managers, who charge exorbitant fees and then blame the government for their own poor management.
99 Peter P. Fair point. I think any candidate would have struggled to replace Irving. More so as the Lib Dems threw the kitchen sink at the seat in 92.
Credit where it is due, many of the senior and ordinary Conservatives in Cheltenham stuck resolutely with Taylor and worked tirelessly for him as did the National party where it could. Sadly for Taylor much of this effort was undermined by a few selfish local Tories who relished their fifteen minutes of political infamy.
103 Av it 06. “I think it could be like 1931 next time! … Con 55%”
You mean that 55% of the voters blame the Tories for the next Depression ??
Attention everyone, bet your mortgages on Blair to go within a week.
For those clever people at The Daily Mail have exclusively revealed the controversy that will bring Lucky Tony down.
“The omission of Liverpool’s Champions League winner Steven Gerrard from two successive honours lists remains as sensitive a subject for the Government as the cash-for-peerages scandal.”
Yes - “as sensitive”! He’s finished now for sure!
As we enter an uncertain world of rising unemployment, possibly falling house prices and Watford’s entry to the Premiership, the electorate will turn to Cameron and Osborne and the safety that they offer!
102. Yes, it reminds me of Keynes’ dictum about politicians being in thrall to the theories of defunct economists. Or in Hutton’s case, non-economists.
109. No, they’ll elect a grand coalition composed by Portillo and Abbott as joint PMs. They’ll have live weekly cabinet meeting on Andrew Neil’s sofa. And you can even vote who will be reshuffled
109 Your ‘aving a laugh.
From Today’s Express…
House prices rise by £3,000 a week
17/07/06
HOME OWNERS have seen their house value jump by as much as £12,000 in the past four weeks alone, the biggest rise for five years.
112 - a few people in Chelsea may have seen their houses go up £12,000 in four weeks.
Let us be clear - house prices are grossly overvalued, in the main they are not rising. Rising house prices are a bad thing for everyone except those who wish to trade down - first time buyers can’t afford them, people can’t trade up etc. The Express is irresponsible in constantly ramping house price rises.
The solution - interest rates up to 7%!
12 - One would presume that you are on the housing ladder. Think about all those whose despair at overvalued property prices is merely compounded by seeing greater and greater rises.
Icarus at 28: slightly wounded by your implication that I churn out some standard line - you’ve seen me around long enough to know that I’m what I say I am, a Labour MP who believes what he posts. My anecdotal reports are not remotely scientific though!
I defer to the forthcoming ICM poll, whatever it is.
I thought 60 was pretty funny.
Got to say though, this post looks somewhat like Mike talking up his book. Comparing Brown to IDS does smack of an attempt to goad the Labour party into dumping Brown - but they lack guts, as we can see by the fact Blair is still in office.
Party memebership figures from the accounts published on Electoral Commission website:
Labour 198,026
LD 72,031
BNP 6,008 (down from 2004)
Green 7,110 (up from 2004)
Scottish Greens: 913
Respect 5,674 (up from 2004)
SNP 10,995
and Tories?
115. Cognitive dissonance is a surprisingly common condition
118. Up, but they didn’t write down the exact figure in their account
I don’t address this to Nick as it’s obviously nothing to do with him or the rest of the party but anyone reading the transcript of Bush’s exchange with Blair in to-days Guardian will feel very uneasy. All that can be said is that it’s nice to know Gordon and Ming are in the wings. I’ve no reason to think Cameron would be better than Blair
sorry, but what is this thing?!
http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/files/dms/EndIsNigh_20654-15177__E__N__S__W__.PDF
22. Printz’s new party I think!
SSP soap episode 171.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5191056.stm
The crucial dialogues:
Sheridan asks Ann Colvin what she has seen when she opened the bedroom .
Mrs Colvin said: “I saw you. I saw you naked on a bed with another naked man and a woman engaged in sexual activity.
“Youse were so busy that no-one had noticed my head going into that room.”
Mr Sheridan: “Engaged in sexual activity?”
Mrs Colvin: “You know you were.”
Btw, SSP submitted the Electoral Commission draft and not audited accounts. I suppose they’re busy elsewhere!
105 - snowflake5
Sorry to disagree with you, but I’m afraid that I must.
It is true that pension funds hold a minority of their investments in equities, but that was not the case in 1997. They have successively cut their exposure to equities because of the overly onerous regulatory regime and the poor return in the years since.
24 - Sounds a lot more interesting than our constituency exec meetings!
117/118 The Conservatives do not give an actual figure but m/ship fees received were up from £ 466K to £ 484K . I believe the Lib Dem figure does not include Scotland as the Scottish Liberal Democrats is classed as a separate party .
All this talk is irrelevant - WAR IS COMING!
We’re all doomed!!
128/129 WoW. Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.
OT. Our Gordon’s new son named James Fraser. Ah
131 Mhhhhhh …. Private James Fraser ……. WoW @ 129 was correct .. “We’re all doomed … doomed !!”
131 The Tory blogs disgraced themselves with their coverage of the birth I’m sorry to say.
88 Jack W - Turnout of 82.5% in Bath in 1992. Was that viewed as particularly remarkable ? Don’t get close to that anywhere these days even Northern Ireland…..
134. Patten knew how to draw the crowds, didn’t he?
134 Paul M. Not really. The 87 election saw turnout in Bath at nearly 80%. The expected closeness of the 92 election and the high profile that Bath was given in the media helped push turnout up by around 5%.
133 Commentator. Sadly some comments were in poor taste.
Whilst a little gentle humour shouldn’t be condemned, I think it’s also right to reflect that whilst the birth of their latest child will bring the Brown’s much happiness, it will also be a source of reflection on the circumstance of the death of their first child.
We must surely wish the Brown family the greatest joy on their latest addition and I do so without reservation …….. OK perhaps not the nappies, sick and sleepless nights for the parents …… but the neighbours ??
James Brown - genius
99 and 106
The Tories lost because a) taylor was a very poor candidate. When you the policy questions there was little going on..except to say I am looking forward to meeting the people of Cheltenham. Having interviewed him, I can vouch for that. He was also difficult to contact when you wanted him for interviews.
B) the Lib Dems were well organised, and had worked hard for years. It was neck and neck on the night until they the box from the biggest council estate. It should have been typiucal Lab territory. Instead the box was full of LIB Dem votes, reflecting the work they’d done on the ground for years.
27 - I didn’t think the Tories actually had a national membership system, i.e. each constituency keeps its own records. The evidence from when the Liberal Party switched from this to a central membership system was that local parties had tended to not remove people from the membership lists (either deliberately or through a simple lack of organisation), even if they hadn’t actually paid their annual membership fee, so tended to overstate their “real” membership figures.
On the basis of this, I would suspect that comparing Tory membership numbers with Labour or Lib Dem probably isn’t really comparing like with like.
Andrea, do you know how many Conservative members voted in the leadership election? That would give us a guide to membership.
140 About 285,000 ballot papers were sent out, IIRC.
39 - the figures sent from individual associations to CCHQ will only include members who have paid the £15 minimum annual fee.
141 Sean. Cameron 134,446 beat Davis 64,398.
So almost 200,000 actually voted.
141 - I am right in thinking there was only 1 ballot paper between couples with joint membership though? If so that would be a reason for membership being a good deal higher than the number of ballot papers sent out.
144 - Yes that’s right, and as Ian Lindley says, those paying less than the minimum subscription weren’t entitled to vote.
Overall membership must be c.300,000.
The poster at 60 is obviously Mark Senior - no amateur at voodoo figures he.
146 - Rumbled LOL but happy to put a Conservative spin where you need one .
The three main parties are in a very dire financial position.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5190232.stm
48 - Which is a very good reason for resisting the spin from all sides that state funding is inevitable. Not if you’re going to take it out of my taxes it isn’t!
147 - Hilarious, Mark.
148. Don’t agree:
The Lib Dems are in quite a healthy situation (but why are they nearly breaking even in an election year? That’s when you should run a big deficit).
The Tories’ net liabilities relate almost entirely to last year’s losses / election expenses. If things were on an even keel in March/April 2005 after the 2001-5 parliament, they should be OK come 2009.
Labour is the one that really is in trouble. Declining membership, big overdraft, reduced union income, fewer assets and now rich potential donors will be far less likely to help out.
147 Mark speaking of voodoo figures, did you see the figures Iain dale quoted the other day?
141 - I am right in thinking there was only 1 ballot paper between couples with joint membership though? If so that would be a reason for membership being a good deal higher than the number of ballot papers sent out.
Couples with “joint membership” would have received one ballot paper only if their combined membership fee was less than the £15 minimum subscriptions. If both members had paid their subs, they both got a ballot paper.
151 the Lib Dems are still very short of money, judging by these figures.
Both the Conservatives and Labour have been profligate over the course of 2005.
Like UK Paul I would be disgusted to see this being used as a justification for more state funding.
154 “the Lib Dems are still very short of money”
this one is anyway…
131. Jack, Dad Gordon is also called James as first name (his full name is James Gordon Brown)
125 - An FT article a few weeks ago stated that the Royal Mial pension scheme (which I imagine would be a reasonably mature scheme) still had 81% in equities and a whooping great big deficit which the pension regulator has generously given then 17 years to make up. Obviously if interest rates rise and the stock market rallies that deficit will shrink much more quickly, but who will pick up the pieces if the reverse happens ? Bonds have certainly outperformed equities on a rolling 6 year basis (I think 6 years marked the top of the FTSE?) by some margin.
152 Sorry Peter no I missed those have you a link ?
147 - interesting how people read a sentence - when I read Iain’s piece I looked back at the current voting intention shares as on Anthony Wells site a year ago and now and sorry PP but Iain is right. Polls then showed Conservatives around 30%, polls now show them around 38%. He doesn’t say anything about a Tory lead he says they show a polling improvement of 8-10 points.
sorry meant 152 (comment figures truncated so only saw ref)
The big difference between the Labour leadership election and recent Tory and Lib Dem elections is that Labour are in Government, not Opposition.
Looking at all the post-war occasions when governments changed Prime Minister mid-term it seems that the next PM will be a “big beast”.
Anthony Eden was Foreign Secretary, Harold MacMillan was Chancell