politicalbetting.com

Universities are still hostile to the Tories

In the days of Sir Maurice Bowra, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien, it would have been hard to imagine Oxford as being anything other than a Conservative stronghold. Academics, students, and college servants were all overwhelmingly Conservative in their sympathies, and Conservatives dominated the City Council. Sadly, that has all changed. Mark Senior’s description of the Conservatives as a “minor party” in the City is all too true. The Conservatives don’t have a single councillor, and nor did they even come close to winning a seat on May 5th. They are the fifth party in Oxford, behind the Greens and something called the Independent Working Class Association.

In most areas dominated by universities, the situation is similar. There are no Conservative councillors in Cambridge, although they did manage to win 22% of the vote in May, and achieved close second places in two wards. In Manchester, there is not a single Conservative councillor. In Sheffield Hallam, Conservative until 1997, there are two out of twelve. Bristol West, once safely Conservative, is now dominated by Liberal Democrat councillors. In the student-dominated Headingley ward of Leeds, the Conservative vote is derisory.

There are a few shafts of sunlight for the Conservatives. They gained a seat in Pennsylvania ward, Exeter, and came a strong second in Duryard, both wards dominated by Exeter University. Across Bristol as a whole, they managed to come first in terms of vote share in May, although Clifton and Cotham wards were uncontested this year. But overall, it’s clear that the best way of killing off the Conservative vote in any area is to build a university there.

In a way this is puzzling, as Universities like Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge, and Exeter have large and active Conservative associations. Nor are students anything like as left-wing, in general, as they are often portrayed (most are not particularly interested in politics). But there is no doubt that academics, and university workers, who are much more likely to vote locally than undergraduates, are now well to the left of the population as a whole in their politics. The local elections in May suggest that the Conservatives have made no headway among this section of the population at all, or indeed, among “Guardian Man and Woman” voters generally, in places like Twickenham and Hornsey & Wood Green.

This is hardly an exclusively British phenomenon. In the United States, and Australia, areas dominated by universities are also very strongly left-wing in their political sympathies.

Last night saw three by-elections:-

Harrow LBC: Harrow Weald. Lib Dem 1,288; Conservative 1,088; Labour 295; Green 74. Lib Dem gain from Conservative. This is a very good result for the Lib Dems as it enables them to form a group on Harrow Council. Harrow Weald was for a long time, a Lib Dem stronghold, and it was perhaps surprising that the Conservatives should have taken all three seats in May.

Statford DC: Alcester. Conservative 798; Lib Dem 638; Labour 54. Conservative gain from Lib Dem. A very strong Conservative performance, in a council which the Lib Dems seemed set to capture before 2003.

Elmbridge DC: Walton Central. Resident 656; Conservative 482; Lib Dem 115; Labour 53. Resident Hold.

Sean Fear is a London Conservative activist and writes a weekly column on local elections.

The Tory leader’s strengths and weaknesses - Part 2

Following yesterday’s post on Cameron’s strengths today I look at some of the factors that are going to make David Cameron’s task that much harder.

1. The Shadow of Mrs Thatcher. For Cameron this is a double whammy. On one hand there are large sections of the electorate who might warm to the him but would never vote Tory because of continuing hostility caused by the Thatcher years. On the other hand there are those within the Tory fold who find it hard to support a leader who is not in Maggie’s image. To them the argument is simple - in the 80s the Tories enjoyed huge electoral success by following a particular policy agenda so what Cameron should be doing is to follow what she did and the voters will return.

Because unlike Labour, when the “glory days” were in the 1940s, the Thatcherite Tory view is very much in the living memory of Cameron’s critics within his party. It’s for this reason that changing the Tories is a bigger challenge than NuLab had. If Cameron pushes his party too far then there is the danger of public splits.

With NuLab, as well, there was always the belief that “Blair is just doing this to get elected and it will all be different once we are in power”. Cameron does not have that luxury.

2. ConservativeHome’s Tim Montgomerie. The site, run by Iain Duncan Smith’s former aide, has developed into a vehicle for internal opposition to the leadership. Non-Tory visitors are constantly amused by the delight that appears when things go wrong for Cameron. Mongomerie is rapidly taking the role that Arthur Scargill adopted in the early days of NuLab. Thus you could feel for him on Tuesday when that ICM 9% Tory lead had to be reported. If this had been any other party there would have been jubilation- instead Montgomerie’s headline was about the Lib Dem surge. Eh?

3. The lack of media backing. It’s hard to recall a Tory leader who has had so little media support even from what would be seen as natural friends. The Mirror, Guardian and Indy are, of course, solidly against while it’s hard to see the Murdoch press coming on side. Even worse the presence of the joyless but powerful figure of Simon Heffer at the Daily Telegraph has made the party’s “house journal” almost hostile. This could have serious consequences.

4. Cameron’s excess of confidence. That Etonian self-assuredness and self-belief leads him, I believe, to make up policy in real time without fully thinking through the implications. What was the purpose of the Chocolate Orange attack on WH Smith’s or the one against BHS? They got coverage but it all sounded a bit trivial for a party leader.

5. He’s quick to lose his temper. As we saw in the very first leadership debate with David Davis Cameron finds it hard to deal with a hostile response and he appears to get riled easily. He will be provoked again and again and he has to find a way of handling it.

What does all this add up to? I don’t have a conclusion except to state that oppositions don’t usually win elections - Governments lose them. The polls show reasonable Tory progress but Labour still seems hungry for power and the big question is how they will evolve in the post-Blair era. My guess is that Labour without Blair will lose a political edge and if that happens then Cameron’s Conservatives will be well placed provided he has managed Thatcher’s legacy.

Going on holiday. This is my last post until September 10th. I’m off to Nice where my son Robert is marrying Lucille next Friday. It’s Robert who handles the technical aspect of the site and was the person who persuaded me to launch Politicalbetting. He’s been a great inspiration. Lucille did the design.

Book Value (Philip Grant) is now in the hot seat.

Mike Smithson

Part 1 - the polished presenter with female appeal?

Before my main holiday I thought I’d pen out a couple of posts on THE political phenomenon of the past twelve months in British politics - David Cameron. Is the billing right that he’s the great saviour of his party or will the Cameron thing just fizzle out in a year or so and Labour will win their fourth term? My first part is on his strengths.

First a couple of anecdotes about Cameron which are quite revealing about the man who would be Prime Minister.

In her IoS column on Sunday Sarah Sands wrote of how a friend had been on the same plane as the Camerons as they were returning from their holiday in Corfu “. ..the plane had been on time and not too full. And sitting right there in economy were David Cameron and his family. Furthermore, the Conservative leader had spent much of the journey walking up and down the aisle with his baby. When I repeated this anecdote I got a mixed reaction. All women want a husband prepared to take the baby during the plane journey rather than peering sympathetically from the seat in front then returning to a newspaper and a gin and tonic. The men I mentioned this to, however, groaned and grumbled. What a nitwit. What a show off. I reckon that David Cameron’s dilemma is not between old Conservatives and new ones but between men and women.”

On a completely different tack one of the site’s regular contributors, Tyson, quoted an anecdote about Cameron’s search for a seat before the 2001 General Election. By the year before there weren’t many seats available and any vacancy in a constituency which was in any way safe was fought over bitterly. As the election got nearer Cameron must have almost given up until Shaun Woodward defected to Labour. Witney, in Oxfordshire, became vacant.

“When Cameron was selected as the Tory candidate for Witney he took some notes for his speech. He knew the ground rules that no notes were requested, so when reminded of this he elaborately tore them up and gave an impeccable speech. One of the selecting panellists told me that they had made the decision on this gesture alone. Cameron IMO entirely planned it for dramatic effect, and I think everything about Cameron’s politics since is planned, tested, rehearsed, coached, repeated for maximum impact”

For all we might scoff at the qualities featured in these two examples they are both proving to be highly effective and appear to swing votes. Certainly the ability to make brilliant apparently unprepared speeches has been the heart of Cameron’s ability to sweep all before him for, firstly, the Witney selection and then the Tory leadership.

You keep on hearing it being said that after falling for Blair ten years ago the electorate won’t go for the same type again. That’s like saying that a woman who always ends up with the wrong sort of man is going to choose better next time. We all know that it’s highly likely that she won’t.

Those Blairite qualities of “being an ordinary sort of guy”, the ability to make good sound bite, the way he looks, and the fact that for many his voice is easy on the ear all add up to a powerful combination.

Looking back over the past year the most telling phase was the way he handled the intense media questioning on whether he had taken cocaine. He stuck with his line about the private lives of politicians before entering public life and it eventually went away. A second Mr. Teflon had arrived.

His special appeal to women is most intriguing. While individual polls might show varying figures the overall trend is that Cameron has picked up more female support in the polls than male compared with last year’s General Election. The Labour “female bonus” that was won in 1997 appears to be almost exhausted.

But there are serious chinks in the Cameron armoury and those I will discuss in Part 2 tomorrow.

Anybody want to contribute a guest column? During my holiday Philip Grant (Book Valie) will once again be standing is as guest editor. Anybdy with ideas for guest slots should contact him by email.

Mike Smithson

ICM find that only 37% think he’s created Britain’s economic success

The Guardian publishes more data this morning from its August ICM poll and focuses on the Labour’s record generally, and Gordon Brown’s performance in particular, in running the economy for the past nine and a bit years.

In findings that might have an impact on the Labour succession the pollster records that those surveyed split by 37%-52% on whether they thought Brown had been responsible for Britain’s economic success.

The paper’s Richard Adams describes this as “a blow to supporters of the chancellor who argue that his reputation as the architect of growth will pave his way to No 10. Even among Labour voters fewer than two out of three are willing to give him credit…the findings suggest that Labour may be losing its reputation for economic competence as memories of Black Wednesday and the recession of the early 1990s under John Major fade.”

To another question asking whether respondent’s families are better off since Labour came to power, 55% agreed against 41% who didn’t. The latter included 67% of Labour supporters. Adams also reports that the poll shows that “more than three-quarters, 77%, think people have become more selfish under Labour, while 78% agree that the rich have become richer.”

By 49%-41% the sample agreed that Labour policies had been responsible for “some prosperity” since the party came to power in 1997.On the impact of Gordon Brown’s flagship policy on reducing poverty “only 36% said fewer people now lived in poverty, while 57% disagreed.”

Overall the poll is in line with other recent surveys. Before the General election last year ICM found that Labour had a lead of 24% on the question “Irrespective of how you yourself will vote at the next election, which political party do you think is putting forward the best policies on The economy generally?”.

Today’s data and the changing perceptions of Labour economic performance might partially explain yesterday’s voting intention figures from the survey that had the Tories on 40% - nine points ahead.

Mike Smithson

Will 10% poll margins be enough for the Democrats?

It is always election season in the United States. Every second November sees either a Presidential election or important midterm elections that determine control of Congress and other political offices across the country. Currently, the Republicans run both houses of Congress, but the outcome in November 2006 seems in doubt given the unpopularity both of President Bush and Congress. If the Democrats win one or both houses, the implications for the Bush administration are serious.

The Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives since 1994, but never with a comfortable majority. The Democrats currently need a net pick-up of 15 seats in a 435-member House to win control. On the face of it, this should be easy. President Bush’s approval ratings are in the tank, more or less everywhere.

In ‘generic’ polls as to which party voters would prefer to see in control, double-digit majorities are choosing the Democrats. The Democrats seem highly motivated and have recruited some strong candidates. But despite all this, most commentators think the chances of a change in control are only evens or worse.

There are remarkably few truly competitive House districts, so gaining a net 15 out of perhaps 25 vulnerable Republican seats would be a strong showing. There are several reasons for this. One is gerrymandering. In several large states – Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania – Republicans have drawn the boundaries for blatant party advantage. In others such as California there have been bipartisan ‘incumbent protection plans’ to minimise the number of marginal seats.

It is quite possible for the Democrats to poll more votes, as they have several times since 1994, but win fewer seats – they need a 5-7 per cent lead nationally to win control.

Winning the Senate, where the Republicans have 55-45 majority is perhaps even tougher. The Democrats need six net gains in order to win control. This is possible, but quite a stretch.

It would be surprising if the highly conservative (and homophobic) Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania survived against Democratic challenger Bob Casey. Conrad Burns of Montana is also very endangered by links with corrupt lobbyists and his own foot-in-mouth tendency.

Three other Republican Senators are lagging in the polls at the moment – John Chafee in Rhode Island (easily the most anti-Bush state – the net Presidential approval rating is -54), Jim Talent in Missouri and Mike DeWine in Ohio. The Republicans have narrow leads in a number of other races, including Nevada, Tennessee and now Virginia, where James Webb, once Reagan’s Navy Secretary, has been gaining ground on tarnished Republican golden boy George Allen. There are currently no Democratic incumbents behind in the polls, although the most endangered seats seem to be in Maryland, New Jersey and Michigan.

The picture may be complicated a little by Independents – Bernie Sanders of Vermont would vote with the Democrats, while if Joe Lieberman defeats the official Democrat Ned Lamont in Connecticut his voting behaviour would be less predictable. It might all come down to which side of the aisle Lieberman chooses.

It is tempting to follow the conventional wisdom and look for modest Democrat gains in both houses in November, without control switching in either. The Iowa electronic markets give the Democrats about a 50 per cent chance for the House but only about 20 per cent for the Senate.

But in the past midterm elections have often seen a strong trend, with most of the close races ending up on the same side and a change in the political atmosphere. In 1986 the Democrats gained the Senate surprisingly easily; in 1994 few anticipated the size of the Republican sweep; in 1998 the Democrats’ resilience delivered a verdict on the attempted impeachment of President Clinton. In 2002 the midterms gave encouragement to the Bush administration.

The 2006 results could be a long way from the conventional wisdom on either side. So far, 2006 looks like a Democratic year, and brave punters may find that there is good value in a bet on the Republicans losing both houses.

Lewis Baston is research officer of the Electoral Reform Society and co-author
of several books on elections.

Tories take record 9% lead with ICM

After a 24 hours which has seen biting criticism from inside his party at the plans to increase the number of women Tory MPs the ICM Guardian poll for August is out this morning and shows that his party in in a position where it could just have a working majority after the next election.

The headline figures with changes on last month are CON 40% (+1): LAB 31% (-4): LDEM 22% (+5). So the main driver of the change has been a big switch from Labour to the Lib Dems with the Tory share advancing one point. But that small increase takes Cameron’s party above the 40% mark for the first time in an ICM poll since 1992.

The new leader’s relationship with parts of his party is such that you almost think that the people who will be most upset by today’s numbers will be the hard-liners who daily vent their anger at ConservativeHome.

For David Cameron this survey, from the pollster which has traditionally shown lower Tory numbers, will provide reinforcement as he seeks to answer the growing band of critics of his change programme. They might not like the direction that Cameron is taking them but they cannot argue with the numbers.

Labour’s 31% share is, according to the paper, at a 19 year low and could not have come at a worse time for Tony Blair as he plans his return from his Caribbean holiday. Of all the monthly polls ICM is probably the one taken the most seriously and these figures will provide more ammunition for those who want a change at Number 10 now.

For Ming Campbell the poll movement to the Lib Dems will reinforce his position ahead of next month’s party conference. There’s little doubt that the Lebanon war has played a big part in shaping opinion and the Lib Dem leader’s surefootedness on this and other foreign policy issues is holding him in good stead.

A factor which will impact on left of centre politics over the next few weeks is that the Guardian takes its own poll as almost gospel and hardly ever acknowledges any other pollsters or even other surveys from ICM. Its coverage, especially on the Labour leadership, as we enter conference season is likely to be shaped by these figures.

All the UK political betting markets might be affected including the General Election ones, the Blair departure date and who will be Labour leader.

Mike Smithson