Tory members vote on “Built To Last”
September 5th, 2006How much will the result mean?
Late September will see the result of the ballot of Conservative members on the party’s “Built To Last” mission statement. The process of a new, reforming leader having the party ratify his vision bears some resemblance to Tony Blair’s reform of the Labour constitution in 1995, exemplified by removing the Clause 4 commitment to state socialism.
So is this Cameron’s Clause 4 moment? Not exactly. It’s not so much that “Built To Last” is insubstantial; it varies, with environmental policies such as a target for carbon reductions being a significant change for the Tories, whilst other elements such as “a constructive Unionist response to the West Lothian Question” look more like placeholders for future policy.
But unlike Clause 4, opposition to the document doesn’t seem to be totemic for any significant mass of Tory members. The criticisms of the right of the party have been couched more as faint praise. Lord Tebbit, for example, seeing his leader get on his bike and look for votes, described the document as “clever marketing” without actually opposing it.
Last week we had some discussion from Tory commenters on the site about the results of the ballot. Estimates of the opposition ranged from 8% to 25–30%. So even if you could bet on the document being passed, the odds would be pretty poor.
Will the result in itself have wider significance? It probably won’t be noticed all that widely outside the party, or be a great triumph for Cameron, who’ll stand or fall by what he has done and does in future, rather than the result of an intra-party ballot. Nonetheless, predicting the numbers is an interesting exercise and it would be good to hear posters’ latest guesses.
Poll update:
As usual, base your gambling, gloating or gloom on the figures as much or as little as you see fit.
Populus for The Times, 5 September:
Main poll: Con 36 (unc), Lab 32 (-2), LD 20 (+1).
With Brown as Labour leader: Con 42, Lab 33, LD 16.
With Reid as Labour leader: Con 40, Lab 32, LD 15.
Philip Grant
Guest editor
Mike Smithson returns on 10th September.
MessageSpace Advertising
Very interesting poll figures. Trying not to spin here, but clearly the figures are bad for Labour, with both Brown and Reid polling even worse than Blair at present. I guess Lib Dem posters will be rather unhappy with the loss of around 1/4 of their support when Blair goes. (anti-Iraq soft Tories, I wonder?)
I am sceptical about voting intention figures for potential leaders, as it is the experience of a leader in post that motivates voters rather than the expectation of what they will be like; that said, I’ll take these figures quite happily!
I have no doubt we will hear from Labour supporters that the Tories should be 25 points ahead, etc, etc. I’ve been mulling this over, and wonder if the changes to polling methodology since the 80’s and early 90’s (ie adjustments by certainty to vote and past vote recall) mean that such wild swings are now much less likely. If the large Labour opinion poll leads in the early 90’s (and opposition parties in previous decades too) were composed of a lot of “swing” voters who were not likley to vote, this could account for the large leads then (which were not translated into the ballot box as Labour were not 25+ points ahead in 1997) and explain the solid but less dramtic leads now. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
There is a point to Built to Last. There will not be largescale opposition to it within the party (10-15% I’d say). A positive vote is not a Clause4 moment, but will enable the Party and DC to clearly demonstrate 2 votes for change within a year, the latter on a set of principles that underpin future policy.
Importantly, it also helps neutralise any criticism over DC’s involvement with the 2005 manifesto. He has changed, and the party is changing and has voted overwhelming to confirm this. When the policy commissions report, I expect to see the lead over a Brown premiership increase further. The down-side of this is that he will then presumably wait out the full parliament before going to the country.
1 - Brown/Reid are not polling worse than Blair. That is not a conclusion that can be drawn.
I’d like to see a poll with Blair as leader to analyse properly the differential when DC’s name is mentioned. You could divide the sample into two and ask one half the vote intention, the second a Blair-Cameron-Campbell question.
It would be good to prove to the doubters in the party the magical effect of Brand Cameron.
The conventional explanation on here is that the Conservatives get a boost whenever Cameron’s name is mentioned. I wonder if the explanation isn’t slightly different, and the real explanation is that a significant proportion of LibDem voters interpret the leader question as a de-facto “who would you prefer out of Brown/Reid/Blair vs Cameron PM?” question. (even though Ming’s name is mentioned as well)
Of course this is still encouraging for the Tories as it gives a pointer to a move on tactical voting in their favour.
4 - it’s been done.
4. Commentator. Populus did it last month. The mainline figures were Con 36, Lab 34, LD 19. When Blair/DC/Ming were mentioned, it became Con 38, Lab 31, LD 17
3 - Alex.
The Conservative lead over Brown or Reid increases to 9 and 8 points respectively. Whether those votes come directly from the Lib Dems to Conservative, or there is a degree of churn between Labour & Lib Dem (which I suspect there is) is not material. Under Brown or Reid, the Conservative lead is larger than under Blair. That is a conslusion you can draw.
It is also something which should be worrying Brown/Reid, and will be seized upon by Blair as further proof (as if he needed it!) that a change in leadership would not be in the interests of the Party.
8. Robin. they’re not directly comparable, because as showed last month, even when Blair name is mentioned, the figures change from the mainline one (and that makes all those questions quite weird)
Take it for what it is (The Mirror):
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17684874&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive–how-blair-will-go-name_page.html
Btw, I haven’t never thought that a day I would have seen Sion Simon and Chris Bryant becoming the main plotters against Blair….
9 - OK I take the point. What you can conlude though is that Brown & Reid are polling worse than the “mainline” Labour position at present (which is presumably Blair’s position, but I accept that if you don’t mention his name you may get a different result to when you do).
Either way, I like to see either Brown or Reid spin this one as a good result for them. They can’t even use the “margin of error” excuse which is often put forward.
10. Andrea. Assuiming it is true, you just couldn’t make it up, could you!
“As TB enters his final phase he needs to be focusing way beyond the finishing line, not looking at it. He needs to go with the crowds wanting more. He should be the star who won’t even play that last encore. In moving towards the end he must focus on the future.”
He and his team are seriously unhinged. The whole tenor of his term in office has been about personal agrandisement, not about the dignity and gravity of his role. Blairites further demonstrate this, by treating the role of PM like that of a rock-star and the celebrity that surrounds it - “His genuine legacy is not the delivery, …but…the triumph of Blairism”
A line to be ashamed of.
10. ‘Rats’ and ’sinking ship’ come to mind, Andrea.
12. “… the triumph of Blairism”. The hollowness of this comment is exposed when you try to identify what Blairism actually is. Even if that’s possible (and I remain to be convinced that his government has had a coherent set of ideological principals that has driven the agenda), it is very far from being one that has embedded itself in the political psyche of the nation.
If Guido gets his wish one of the high profile appearances will be with Inspector Yates at the Yard…
12. yes, Robin, it’s difficult to think something like it. But maybe he wants to become the new star of Saturday night variety TV shows (not sure what you’ve on Saturday night though) and that would be his test
13. The Blairites spinned that it’s sour grapes because they never achieved what they wanted.
Sorry not sure if this hs been commented on but has anyone seen the poll in the Scotsman. It’s by TNS System 3 who have a habit of understating Tory and Lib Dem support and overstating SNP & Labour but by their calculations:
Labour - 49 (-1)
SNP - 24 (-3)
Lib Dem - 23 (+6)
Tory - 20 (+2)
Greens - 9 (+2)
SSP - 1 (-5)
As I say it was done by System 3 so it may be bollocks!!
16. “The Blairites spinned that it’s sour grapes because they never achieved what they wanted” - and they had the largest majority in the House for decades through eight whole years? It will take mass hypnosis rather than spin to pull that one off.
17. well, if they’re over-estimating SNP again, it means SNP is in trouble.
Did they over-estimate or not the Greens last time?
Iain Dale had ” Good news in Times poll for John Reid ” . Anthony Wells has ” Populus - Reid would do no better than Brown ” . Opposite thoughts on the same figures .
It was amusing last night to read the Conservative glee when they thought Populus had them 9% ahead , shame the real figures still show Labour as the largest party .
Those System 3 figures look totally weird , Max .
18. I meant that they hinted that Simon and Bryant didn’t achieved what they wanted (aka a government position)
I think everyone is making too much of the leader. I’m sure the leader plays only a small part in attracting votes. Obviously not in determining policy which is the real vote winner/loser.
Cameron seems to be personally popular but dragging the Tories into a winning position as I’ve said before is more than a three year re branding exercise.
36% is nowhere near enough but that isn’t the point. It’s becoming clear that there is a glass ceiling of people who will vote Tory whatever the policy and whoever the leader.
The name Tory sends a shudder down too many spines-and mine included-and it’ll take at least a change of name to alter this
20 - Mark. Any view on the Lib dem position in the poll? Particularly the voting intention question showing a 1/4 drop in LibDem support after a Labour leader change?
21. Ahh. I misread what was meant by ‘they’.
Mark they do seem a bit crazy. They’ve done them over the last three months and their haven’t been huge fluctuations. The Herald has a PDF showing the results.
The Tories are at 12% and 11% so I don’t know if when John Curtice calculated the results he factored in that they usually miss out 1 in 5 Tory voters – hence the number of seats going up.
I’m very surprised it shows the SNP down. Speaking to friends in all parties who canvass fairly regularly they reckoned they were up but certainly weren’t making huge strides and that Labour were down but not as massively as was speculated.
IIRC they don’t adjust for turnout which is why in a low turnout election like Holyrood you get such wide disparities in actual results.
24 - Does anyone know whether there is a version of something like Electoral Calculus that deals with the Scottish system of list and FPTP seats?
I agree that the figures from the Scotsman are striking but also note that, unlike the previous polls, they are asking about the regional vote as well, hence their conclusions.
23 - Not really figures are exactly the same as in the July Populus poll to the same question . Just as significant or meaningless as you want to interpret or spin them .
17 Max , from the few voting intention figures in the Scotsman report , I cannot see how the projection for number of seats for the SNP can be correct . Vote in FPTP up from 24 to 28% and in list from 21 to 27% cannot lead to a loss of seats . The poll may or may not be right but the interpretation is certainly wrong .
20 - Mark. Assuming Brown is next Leader, then putting the 42/33/16 figures into ElectoralCalculus gives a Tory majority of 40. Now I don’t for a minute think this is accurate (Lib Dems won’t be reduced to 9, much as we would like it).
However, it only takes a very small anti-Labour tactical vote, to produce a result with the Tories as the largest party, using the 36/32/20 mainline poll figures.
22 Roger - I think unfortunately policy is becoming increasingly irrelevant and leadership more so. That is certainly one explanation for the polling figures in 2005 showing Tory policies much more popular than the party. I wouldn’t cling to the glass ceiling (mixed metaphor!) theory too strongly. Remember the turnaround in Labour fortunes between 1983 and 1992/7. Just because you can’t countenance voting Tory ever, doesn’t mean the rest of the electorate feel the same.
Mark S and roger it is worth the confusion just to see you postings this morning, of Tory “glass ceilings” and “Labour as the largest party”. A year ago you were parrotting the “Tory box” theory of 30-33% as being our permanent inevitable range, then I seem to remember “the end of Cameron’s honeymoon” was the theme.
Since Brown is still the most likely opponent at the next GE I am quite content with todays poll findings. I am optimistic though that our gradual climb will continue and I look forward to more teeth gnashing from you guys!
Someone’s just claimed this on ConsHome:
“David Milibland has said he expects Blair to go within 12 months”
Is this true?
Morning all :). I recall the polls back in 1990 which, having for ages shown Heseltine as the only Tory able to overcome the Labour poll lead, suddenly showed Major able to do the same thing.
I don’t take these “alternative leader” polls too seriously. After all, if David Davis were Conservative leader, would the party now be 15% ahead? Who knows? Who cares?
36-32-20 isn’t really good news for anyone in the three main parties. For Labour, the fact that they still have 32% support, despite everything, must be some cause for comfort. As 36% still voted Labour in the 1979 GE, it may well be that the Labour vote in Government is more resilient than we think (and the folk memory of the “nasty” Tories harder to shift).
I’m sure the Tory apologists on here will tell me how wonderful they are doing but 36%, after this Government’s last 6 months in the middle of its third-term. No, it’s not good enough and they know it’s not good enough. On these figures, they might not even be the largest party in the next HoC.
I’ve always suspected Blair would go in May 2007 and had a small investment accordingly but on these figures he seems much more of an asset (to the LDs at any rate) than either Brown or Reid. There may well be a small “bounce” if and when there is a changeover but the question is whether the electorate will be convinced, as they were in 1990 but not in 1976, that there had been a change of Government. Although he had been both Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, John Major was largely unknown in November 1990 and his style was so markedly different from his predecessor that the electorate believed there had been a change of Government. Neither Brown nor Reid will be able to pull off the same trick to the same degree unless they, for example, make a radical change in foreign policy.
For the LDs, there is some hope but not much more than that. We’ve discussed CK on here ad nauseam but the fact remains we have largely wasted what could have been (and still is, I think) a historic opportunity through our own internal machinations.
29 Rik , I have never ” parrotted the Tory box theory of 30-33% as the permanent range of your support ” . Believe what selective figures you need to convince yourself that the strawman is the man to lead you to the promised land . The trend for your party remains at best static in the polls and as in the London poll published yesterday the figures are down on the aggregate fifures from May to August .
30. Julian, he said:
“The conventional wisdom is that the prime minister sees himself carrying on for about another 12 months. It seems to me that that conventional wisdom is reasonable.”
24 - I’m afraid not that I know of Stephen. You can buy some (fairly inexpensive) software from UK Elect that calculates Scottish results. But I don’t think there is anything on the web.
29.”I am optimistic though that our gradual climb will continue”
I agree
by Neil Kinnock, November 1989
35 – Andrea, in answer to your previous question they got the Green vote pretty much stop on IIRC.
The Scottish Politics web-site has a history from 1998 onwards of System 3 polls.
18. ‘Spinned’? surely ’span’?
Good post Stodge. Two questions though - firstly (and excuse me if this has been covered before and I’ve missed it), can you elucidate on your last paragraph? Secondly - why do you think the LD vote falls considerably with Brown/Reid as Labour leader?
I remember there was a theory a while ago that without Blair as PM the LDs would lose anti-Blair (/anti-War) votes back to Labour, but Labour would lose the same amount of centrist votes to the Tories. Thus Tories up, Labour the same, LDs down.
Robin. I’m trying to be objective. Yesterday Cameron’s policy unit under Letwin committed the party to growing public services year on year under a Tory government. It sounded very strange coming from a Tory policy unit whatever the historical facts. The Tories deliberately wanted-and succeeded- in sounding Labour.
I should have been pleased. I am seriously out of sorts with this Labour government. I’m beginning to find them objectionable. But the Tories just can’t persuade me that they’re different. I just don’t believe it. To really persuade me they’d have to change their name. Labour did and after 18 years it worked.
35 - Andrea, you never cease to amaze me; but the speed of that response was either made up, or your best ever!
36. Thanks Max
40. Robin, which one?
39. Roger - when will you realise you are not, in fact, the centre of the Universe?
30 Roger. I don’t quite follow. A series on long policy commissions developing detailed policy committments, backed up by everything the leader says, won’t convince you that the Conservatives are adpating to 21stC Britain (and we do have a track record of successfully changing over the years), but appending the name “New” or “Compassionate” to the party name would? That really would be seen as spin for spin’s sake.
41 Andrea - spotting the Neil Kinnock quote.
Julian. In answer to ‘why the Lib Dem vote falls with Reid/Brown as leader’? It’s because respondents see the question as one of leaders not of parties. ie ‘Who would you vote for, Reid Cameron or Ming’? It’s a silly question that gets a meaningless anwer. I bet if you replaced Brown/Reid with Blair you’d get an even bigger Tory lead!
44. Robin, nah, I duped you. I just cut and paste Rik’s quote and said Kinnock would have agreed with him in 1989.
It was meant as a joke, but I didn’t succeed
45. But surely the entire country now instinctively associates this Labour government with Blair, so asking how will you vote - Nu Lab/Con/LD? - should, I am sure, make people automatically think Blair/Con/LD, if not Blair/Cameron/Ming.
47. Julian, as I said earlier, last month Populus asked the normal question and then a question with Blair/DC/Ming. They showed 2 different results.
45 - Andrrea already posted the answer to that Question, Roger and you are right:
“opulus did it last month. The mainline figures were Con 36, Lab 34, LD 19. When Blair/DC/Ming were mentioned, it became Con 38, Lab 31, LD 17 ”
46 Andrea - your legendary Googling skills and general political knowledge, mean that a joke like that is doomed to failure
48. Thanks, I missed that.
Presumably the explanation for the net Tory gain and LibDem loss is, as Robin suggested, churn - Blairite Tories and anti-Blair Labour supporters “going home”.
[30] It’s on the BBC website, if that’s the same as truth
- presumably the argument is that, assuming a four-year Parliament as “normal”, May next year marks the beginning of the “second half” and the Holyrood/WA results will be dreadul for Labour.
Back to “Built to last” - Cameron very resolute on no tax cuts this morning on Today programme. Which leaves Ming on his own.
Redwood starting to lead a ground swell of grassroots tories against him by proposing Tax cuts as No. 1 priority. Watch this space.
Julian - I instinctively agree with you, but got hung on an exchange with Alex at the top of the thread, when Andrea produced polls to the contrary.
28 Robin - If the Conservative policies at the last GE were so popular but it was the Conservative party that was unpopular - why is the strawman ditching most of them ?
42. ‘Questioner’. Why do you always use silly names to insult posters? It just makes you a troll. Why not use your regular ‘username’ and be judged like everyone else?
52. Ming isn’t proposing tax cuts - he’s just shuffling his fantasy budget around.
54. Is that the strawman that is ahead in another straw poll ?
49. Robin, it was doomed to fail, because it wasn’t funny afterall!
I still don’t believe that Blair will go earlier than Christmas 2007. He has said he will serve ‘ a full third term’. Also, regardless of what they say, politicians are vain and prize highly their place in history, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he tried to stay on to pass Thatcher’s longevity as prime minister. he has nothing to gain by going any earlier.
The system 3 Scottish poll that Max quotes:
Labour - 49 (-1)
SNP - 24 (-3)
Lib Dem - 23 (+6)
Tory - 20 (+2)
Greens - 9 (+2)
SSP - 1 (-5)
this looks pretty good for Labour and very good for the Lib Dems (who are in with a shout of becoming the second party). Good/OK for the Tories and Greens and the end of the looney tunes (hooray!).
It is, though, exceptionally bad for the SNP. Given the list system, the regional split is pretty important. Don’t think that Salmond will be able to win Gordon constituency, so the moot point will be what the North East list vote looks like. I would also be very curious to see the Lothians split- Labour look to be in very bad shape in Edinburgh, even while they continue to pile up votes at the western end of the central belt. Nevertheless, I suspect that SNP HQ will be the gloomiest right now.
17 So there will be 9% up for grabs from the Green voters in the FPTP vote.
60. I think that 9 is the number of seats predicted.
61 Ah, should have spotted those numbers didn’t sum to 100, thanks.
So what does the poll imply from a betting perspective? Not a lot really.
This far out from a GE it would be unwise to punt heavily on the basis of anything but the most extreme trend in the polls. We have three years to go, a prospective change in PM (probably to Brown but possibly not) and every likelihood of major developments in Iraq and related matters. In these circumstances it is best to look at the fundamentals.
The most influential long term factors are the present majority and the built in bias towards Labour in the electoral system. To say that the Conservatines have to ‘…knock ‘em out to draw’ would be overegging it a bit but there is some truth in it. The Economic forecast remains fairly benign and if it stays that way, it’s bound to be a big factor at decision time for the voters.
Betfair are showing Labour at 2.26 for most seats and 3.7 for an overall majority. If I had to speculate now (and I’m not inclined to ) I should say the next election is likely to be a close run thing but for the time being I would keep my money in my pocket. This isn’t just natural caution. It’s more that a decent run of good polls for the Conservatives is very likely over the next year or so - largely because of Iraq and the Leadership uncertainties. This should cause the Labour price to drift further. If that happens, the opportunity will be there to invest as the price goes up and close out at it returns towards parity.
I staked a small amount on Labour a couple of months back when the price went just above evens. I am moderately tempted at the current Betfair price to dip in again but there’s no rush. Nothing on the political horizon suggests that the price will contract suddenly. My plan is to invest modestly with the drift but to watch it carefully. Those polls could get to the point where a Labour recovery becomes extremely unlikely and I could get stranded with a heavy commitment which would be expensive to lay off.
Putting aside my betting hat for a moment, how would I feel if I were a supporter of any of the three main parties?
As a Conservative, I would be happy but not complacent. The Party continues to shape up like a credible opposition and prospective Government.
As a Labour supporter, I would be concerned but not panicky. Three years (to the next GE) is a long time and there’s still everything to play for.
As a LibDem, I would remain confused as to the Party’s direction but happy that rcent setacks have proved far from catastrophic.
Happy punting everybody!
59 - Cicero they are in trouble in Edinburgh. So far as I know they have pretty much given up on Edinburgh South and Pentlands. I’m still very surprised by the complete lack of activity in Edinburgh Central though.
The local paper is extremely hostile particularly over the issue of relocating government jobs out of Edinburgh. McConnell gave an extraordinary interview claiming this would be good for Edinburgh as it would allow the private sector to grow. Of al the places in Scotland that need private sector growth I would think Edinburgh is the last place to start. Of course for us Tories our aim has to be to implicate the Lib Dems in this unpopular executive policy!
64 - Max, surely you know by now that anything good to come out of Holyrood is due to the Lib Dems influence… anything bad is because Labour are in charge…
64 Max. This TNS S3 poll and its implications for Labour does as you so elegantly said @ 17 look like “bollocks”.
I just can’t see Labour escaping with a net loss of one !! The politics of the poll are however quite interesting. The Lib Dems will be spinning like a top in the second place stakes as the SNP undertake damage limitation.
Your comment about Edinburgh chimes with what I’m hearing, in that Labour are AWOL, which of course means that Labour will, according to TNS, pick up elsewhere ….
If on the other hand the poll is accurate then the coalition will be returned comfortably, but with the Lib Dems strengthened. I just don’t see Labour effectively retaining almost 50 seats. IMO this is a voodoo poll. Have you see any technical info on the poll.
What’s most interesting is that the anti-Blair campaign, ever since Lebanon, has started to gain momentum of sort which is very unusual during a recess. Labour MPs who were previously loyal, or who were prepared to remain quietly and privately supportive of a change of leadership at some unspecified time in the near future, are agitating for Blair to be forced. The pressure is outside Brownite control and it’s difficult to see anything Blair could do to stop it: his “permission to persuade” as far as Labour is concerned is now negative. Even if Blair does receive a boost in terms of good news (a breakthrough in the Middle East, better poll numbers), this will be ignored or discounted by the people who want him out.
Mike Smithson (slightly OT), I just read that you are in Villefranche-sur-Mer, is that right?
If you are interested in spiritual vortices (and who isn’t?) the first floor of the Hotel Welcome (right out on the seafront) is where Jean Cocteau saw God.
Who knows, He may still be there.
63,
Peter good to read a man who is putting money on possible outcomes.
Makes more sense than a lot of partisan spin from all sides.
68. Observer, I think you need to be very careful to distinguish genuine discontent from media contrivance. Journalists are likely to ring round potential malcontents and report only those that have something ‘interesting’ to say. I understand that Nck P was questioned recently by the Sunday Times. His response was considered too dull to report.
My own intuitive assessment is that whatever the level of discontent it is kept in check by the potentially awesome consequences of internecine warfare in the Labour party.
Here’s a strange story from the BBC website with the headline, “Cameron minibus ‘injures woman’ ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5315386.stm
66 Jack , the System 3 poll may or may not be “bollocks” but the conversion into seats forecast certainly is . The poll gives an increase in SNP vote under FPTP and List and the forecast a loss of seats .
66 – I’m inclined to agree. I still stick with 10 or so constituency losses but a few picked up on the list (a net loss of 5-6_. As I said I don’t think TNS weight by likelihood to vote. So if the turnout is less than 50% again then I would expect Labour to perform slightly worse.
What I think we’ll see is a traditional old Labour campaign which may well shore up the Labour vote in the central belt whilst sacrificing places like Edinburgh Central and Eastwood. A trade off they’d probably be happy with if it minimised losses.
Similarly I think the Tories best bet is to go with a fairly traditional message (tax-cuts, tough on crime etc) for the sensible reason that whoever enthuses their core vote will probably do well in these elections.
Sorry, that should be Observer at 67.
Thanks Dez. It seems to be my role here to try and bring the discussion back to betting from time to time!
72 Hi Mark … Indeed and good to see Max’s new technical polling term becoming common currency !!
72/73 and the Conservatives losing 1/3rd of their vote but increasing their number of seats by 2 ???
74 - And a very worthy role it is too…
O/T but I’ve been meaning to ask you - do you have any money on the 2008 US Elections, and if so which way? I keep thinking that Hillary would be a good lay (pun not intended
) for Dem candidate, but keep failing to spot the alternative…
64.”Of course for us Tories our aim has to be to implicate the Lib Dems in this unpopular executive policy!” Max, I am interested to see if the SNP and conservatives can make any inroads into the Libdem vote in the North East and Highlands.
I think that Labour’s biggest problem will be to get their voter’s out to the polling stations rather than support switching to other parties in traditional Labour strongholds.
70 - Yes: the media does try and create momentum by speaking to the usual backbench suspects (Dobbo, Lynne Jones, the leading Brownites inside and outside the government). But some of the people (like Bryant and Simon) who are content to feed the speculation are the kind who wouldn’t have dared do so six months ago. There does appear to have been a change in mood. It probably won’t amount to much at Conference, given the power of the leadership to deflect and dampen debate, but the momentum might well take on a life of its own once Westminster is in session again.
The SNp have details of a poll on their website by something called Scottish opinion poll…it gives figures of:
SNP 33%
Lab 29%
Lib 19%
Con 10%
Green 5%
SSP 2%
I have no idea who this company is but nobody believes System 3 polls !!
Mentioning the leaders has a big impact on the Conservative/Lib Dem vote shares - none at all on the Labour vote share. Since there is not the remotest possibility of the Lib Dem vote share falling to 15% or 16% at the next General Election, I’m inclined to take the hypothetical figures with a pinch of salt.
“Similarly I think the Tories best bet is to go with a fairly traditional message (tax-cuts, tough on crime etc) for the sensible reason that whoever enthuses their core vote will probably do well in these elections. ”
I quite agree, although it would be totally at odds with the message the party is putting forward South of the Border.
Re: 38 - Morning, Julian :). Fair question. I’ve maintained that the nadir for the Conservatives was the autumn of 2003 after Brent East and the disastrous Tory Conference. At that point, the party was on the edge of the precipice.Had they continued with IDS as leader, I have no doubt that the 2005 GE result would have been on a par with, if not worse than the 2001 or 1997 outcomes.
I leave Rik, Sean, Marcus and the other Tories to imagine what the mood would have been had they woken up on that Friday morning not with a Labour majority of 60 but with a majority of 160 or more and with the LDs having taken out a number of key Shadow Cabinet figures.
That didn’t happen. The Conservatives, individually and collectively, knew that IDS had to go and they ousted him as ruthlessly as they did Mrs T in 1990 because, and this always has to be remembered when dealing with Tories, they love power and being in office. Now, I don’t mean that in a malicious way - most Conservatives genuinely and sincerely want to improve the lot of this country and its citizens and believe they can and that’s fine. I don’t doubt their motives - I simply disagree with their policies. Michael Howard wasn’t elected to win the 2005 GE - I suspect he had no real desire to be Prime Minister - but he was chosen to lead the party back from the cliff and to ensure that the defeat was such as to give his chosen successor (Cameron) a real opportunity to win if not in 2009/10 then in 2013/14.
For the LDs, an IDS-led defeat in 2005 would have given the party a real opportunity to, if not overtake the Tories numerically, become for many the “real Opposition”. That opportunity still exists as we don’t know what will happen next time and the 2009/10 GE is going to be the most significant since 1997. If, and it’s a big if in my view, the Conservatives take over even as a minority, we don’t know what will happen to a defeated Labour Party - will they fracture as they did between 1979-81?
If, on the other hand, Brown/Reid wins and secures a workable mandate for another five years, will Cameron survive ? The Right will be out for blood if Cameron fails - we all know that - and where will that leave the Tories ? For the LDs, the future is, as ever, not in our hands but we need to secure every seat and every vote possible to make our position strong in the post-election climate.
As for the leadership issue, I’ve argued that while there may be a temporary blip, until or unless there is a real change in policy, especially foreign policy, it won’t last.
Re: 43 - I don’t agree, Robin. Of course it’s not about change for change sake. One of the problems of trying to formulate a programme for 21st Century Britain is the resolution of paradox. We all wan tto use our cars and fly everywhere but we also want to be green and counteract global warming ? We all want tax cuts but no one wants to see spending on schools and hospitals cut. It’s all about squaring these circles and parties have two choices. They can either try to be “all things to all people” (and I’ll let the Tory trolls spout on about that’s what the LDs are about because it illustrates how vacuous they are) or they can take a view and, if you like, face down the loud voices of those opposed (because those who are opposed or who will lose out always shout louder than those in favour or who will gain).
The essence of leadership is being able to take on those who are most vehemently opposed to what you want to do. Thatcher and Blair knew this - so did Kinnock oddly enough. I am to be convinced that Cameron has that quality of leadership. Perhaps he will try to provoke a confrontation on tax cuts - who knows?
73 Max. Thanks for that.
80 cymrumark. If memory serves I think those figures are for an old poll of second votes.
Jack at 66 - I sort of agree. But it is perfectly possible for Labour to poll 5-10 points less and lose hardly any seats.
I think they only one two or three ‘top up’ seats last time, so assuming they can 1) Keep the vast majority of their fptp seats in and around Glasgow and 2) Continue to poll 25%+ in most other areas they should be ok.
If they were to lose all their fptp seats in the NE region (lose two constituency seats in both Dundee and Aberdeen) (possible) they would almost certainly gain 2-3 seats on the top up - net result -1. Same would go for Lothian.
Only if Labour were to do so badly that they lost their over representation in west central Scotland would they suffer significant losses.
77. No, Lennon, nothing on the US elections. I made a small profit on the last US elections but I’m not much inclined to get involved again. We’re too remote from the ‘form’ over here so speculation is dangerous.
FWIW I would have thought the Democrats ought to be a shoo-in if they can find a decent candidate other than Hilary. She tends to radicalise opinion and therien lies the Republicans’ best chance. If you don’t have local knowledge though, it’s a dangerous market.
RE 10 and 12, Andrea and Robin, I read it on Iain Dale’s bog. truely repugnant stuff.
I remember the last days of Thatcher and tjough she was a bit unhinged, but by comparison she seems sane.
85 - Dan – Agree with a lot of that. Although there was a strange anomaly last time.
Labour lost two seats in Lothians (South & Pentlands) and gained no top up seats. But they also lost two seats in the North East (Aberdeen North and Dundee East) and gained two list seats so it’s hard to extrapolate how losing constituencies translates into gaining list seats.
86 - Thanks Peter - useful thoughts. Will hold off and see what happens I think.
87. ‘Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad’
cheers Jack
85/88 Dan/Max. Tricky, losing FPTP and gaining list seats.
What certainly is true is that Labour is so well dug in the Central belt that their FPTP representation is very high and it’s difficult to see too much change there.
Re 52, Icarus, Getting John Redwood into a fight over tax cuts is a well organised clause 4 moment.
Is reducing taxation the equivalent of Clause 4?
85/88 I expect Labour to continue to lose support in the North East and I can’t see anything that will reverse that trend in the near future.
92. JackW, do you think that the Dunfermline by election result was just a protest at the incumbant Labour government both North and South of the border, and that normal voting will be resumed at the Scottish elections?
Is there some Polling on Johnson vs Cameron available? Isn’t it time the pollsters started putting him in there because as a Labour supporter I would rather have an option that gives Cameron a run for his money that Brown or Reid, who Polls increasingly suggest will give Cameron a boost, and personally I don’t like Reid (I have a lot of time for Gordon Brown but I don’t think he is the right man for the future). I am sure that an Alan Johnson and Hilary Benn bouble Act will make Cameron very nervous. As Mike has said on a previous thread when a leadership election happens everyone starts to look at the polls and if they show that Johnson would do better than Brown everything will change.
96 Chris D. I think it’s important to remember that Scottish elections are different for 3 simple reasons :
PR .. the SNP and the broadly progressive consensus in Scotland that has marginalized the Tories.
There is no doubt that Dunfermline gave the Lib Dems some short term traction. However IMO the biggest plus for the Lib Dems has beem their involvement in the Scottish Executive. They have played a canny game and been successful in do so, effectively portraying themselves as the good guy in the traditional good/bad guy routine. Nichol Stephen has also been a bonus. In contrast Labour have at time lurched from one problem to another and the other “Jack” hasn’t really matched the mood as First Minister.
I expect something of the Dunfermline mood to be seen in the elections, with Labour suffering from a pincer movement from the other parties dependent on seat. The SNP often flatter to deceive, but the more inspiring leadership of Salmond will IMO push the SNP close to Labour with the Lib Dems putting on a strong show too. Not sure the Tories can expect much, odd seat gained or lost ?? Much will depend on the campaign and whether the Tories can hold together during it.
96 Chris D. I think it’s important to remember that Scottish elections are different for 3 simple reasons :
PR .. the SNP and the broadly progressive consensus in Scotland that has marginalized the Tories.
There is no doubt that Dunfermline gave the Lib Dems some short term traction. However IMO the biggest plus for the Lib Dems has beem their involvement in the Scottish Executive. They have played a canny game and been successful in do so, effectively portraying themselves as the good guy in the traditional good/bad guy routine. Nichol Stephen has also been a bonus. In contrast Labour have at time lurched from one problem to another and the other “Jack” hasn’t really matched the mood as First Minister.
I expect something of the Dunfermline mood to be seen in the elections, with Labour suffering from a pincer movement from the other parties dependent on seat. The SNP often flatter to deceive, but the more inspiring leadership of Salmond will IMO push the SNP close to Labour with the Lib Dems putting on a strong show too. Not sure the Tories can expect much, odd seat gained or lost ?? Much will depend on the campaign and whether the Tories can hold together during it.
98/99 Apologies for the buy one get one free posts there.
[52] [93] Listening to Redwood this morning, I don’t think that he is anything like the “clause 4 enemy”. He was awful: nasty, graceless, rude and arrogant. He came across as the kind of guy who could start a fight on his own in a locked room. Cameron, 20 minutes later was an easy, breezy charmer (albeit rather waffly). “Taking on” Redwood is like turning a blow torch on a snowman- and about as pointless.
Max and Dan- increasingly interesting about Labour in Edinburgh and the North East- I think the SNP are under pressure more than Labour, but find it hard to see that Labour won’t see significant losses too, if the Capital and Aberdeen are looking so weak for them.
Thinking about this remarkable leaked email - how Blair is going to leave in triumph, virgins strewing his homeward path with roseleaves, etc - it strikes me that Blair’s may be the most ignominious exit by a Prime Minister EVER.
He is going to leave with his reputation quite incredibly tarnished. His personal rankings are abysmal. His cronies are hated as corrupt and sleazy. His character is widely derided. Cash for peerages promises more pain, maybe even a police investigation. New Labour is now a laughing stock, its techniques of spin and mendacity reviled by all. And then there’s John Prescott and Peter Mandelson.
Most of all, there is the ‘elephant in the room’ (as the email puts it) - Iraq. It was Blair and New Labour that lied us into that quagmire of grief and despair, the worst “mistake” by a party and a prime minister since Suez.
I’m finding it hard to think of a PM who has departed in more shameful circumstances. I can’t. Thatcher was booted out - brutally - but her record was proud, she just lost it over the poll tax. Most other PMs just lost honourably at the election box.
Wilson resigned with dignity. Even Chamberlain had the excuse of wartime exigences.
But Blair, mantled with New Labour, will be chased from office with the catcalls ringing in his lying ears…
Ir’s all rather sad, really. When you look back at ‘97…
87- Benedict- just to say that I went to bed at 4.00- reading now through my reports (sustained mainly through a good bottle of Malbec, and a few malt shots)- they are surprisingly coherent- it is amazing what a good spell and grammar check and access to a thesaurus provides.
83-stodge- excellent post. Good strategic stuff. The next election may be the most interesting since 1945 even- both major parties are held together on uneasy alliances that are holding (barely)as a means to maximise electoral success. If they fail electorally the bonds will be under intense strain, and implosion, and realignment could follow.
The current tensions include the Labour left hate the leadership and see themselves more compatible (at a national level) with a left hitting Liberal Democratic Party. They are also not overly keen on holding power, and may fragment in a minority government.
The Tory right hate the leadership and feel spiritually more at home with UKIP. They are only staying with the Cameron Tory leadership because they want power. Again fragmentation is possible under minority conditions.
The Tory leadership philosophically see themeselves more at home with probably Blair (or at a push the right part of the Lib dems), but are hoping that government unpopularity will give them power. It is striking that even today listening to Cameron he does not do negative politics.
The Labour leadership is very close to where Cameron is postioning the Tories- but things will change for Labour once Blair goes. The Labour centre is fickle. It still craves power, but may shift left or right depending on circumstances.
Meanwhile the Lib Dems trudge unhappily along mimicking Woody Allen, displaying their neurosis of whether they should go left or right, pro Europe, or anti Europe, but harbouring the guilt and shame of the ultimate sin, the regicide of their leader.
What is interesting though is that we have 2 major faultlines within the major parties that not only diametrically split the parties, but also cross to the other side of the opposing camps.
I predict a political earthquake in 2009 that will shift the tectonic plates of British politics for a generation. The Lib Dems could be the primary beneficiaries, and be in a genuine postion to challenge for power thereafter.
As you rightly said though it is not in their (Lib Dems) hands. All they can do for the moment is get over the guilt of the regicide, back Ming to the hilt (he is a decent man and deserves the party’s full support) and look to maximise votes and opportunities whenever and wherever possible.
Last post for a while- tried to make it an interesting, non partisan one.
102, I think that from Labour’s point of view, the sooner they get rid of Blair the better.
I could easily see Labour’s vote falling to c.23% in next May’s local elections, which would virtually wipe out any representation outside Co. Durham and a few large urban areas. I think that with Blair gone, their support will hold up much better.
The Yougov poll for London apparently has Brown more popular than Reid among Labour voters, but Reid more popular than Brown among not Labour voters
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.aspx?cu_no=2&item_no=106157&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20
Do you think it’s just a London thing or is it a nation wide trend?
It must be a relief for the Iraqis to know that, in the midst of war, pain and devastation, Margaret Beckett is visiting them. I know I’d feel a lot more chipper, sitting in my bombed out house, with my grandad abducted and my business in flames, if I saw Mrs Beckett coming down the cratered road in her pant-suit.
102. You might have to go back as far as the Earl of Bute in 1763 for a similarly ignominious exit.
107. Impressive! Or are you joking?! What did the Earl of Bute do? Fiddle with sheep?
106. Should be plenty of good parking spots for the caravan though.
RE 94, Sean Fear, i think it is because of the attachment it gets to things like cuts in public services.
The statement “We will put economic stability before tax cuts” is a statement of the bl**ding obvious.
Also tax cuts are not an end on themselves.
Think of it as clever marketing.
Over the nest parliament I would expect the tax burden to reduce, but we will have to see how much debt is hidden under the carpet first.
Re: 102 - Ah, SeanT, it’s rare we get a chance to debate these days!! Your post reminds me of the maxim that all political careers are doomed to end in failure.
Is Blair the worst? In your view, perhaps, yes. In mine, no. As you say, Mrs Thatcher had the ignominy not of electoral defeat but of being stabbed by her own colleagues, many of whom owed their position to her including John Major, who probably left with more dignity and grace than most.
Going back, Callaghan in May 1979, Edward Heath in February 1974 - neither cut much of a figure having been defeated by a combination of democracy and union muscle. Wilson walked away but perhaps his reputation was already in ruins by then.
Further back still, Alec Douglas-Hume was I suppose like John Major, a nice guy but in the wrong place at the wrong time. MacMillan was ruined by scandal, Eden was ruined by Suez and Churchill, though a great wartime Prime Minister, was a shadow of that in peace.
What about Clem Attlee ? A great Prime Minister whose Government transformed the country but which also had to deal with economic problems far beyond the experience of any Government since.
Chamberlain was essentially kicked out by his own party as Thatcher was. Yes, I think we have to go back to Stanley Baldwin to see a PM who left office in reasonably good favour.
A lesson to Messrs Cameron, Davis, Brown, Reid et al…:)
105. I doubt it’s anything thing, Andrea. Such polls at this stage of the electoral mean little.
I’m a Londoner, born and bred. If there were a discernible trend in London I think I might have discerned it.
…That’s electoral cycle. Sorry.
108. He was a Scotsman who proved wildly unpopular with the public in large part due to his nationality…a straw in the wind perhaps?
Stodge - of course, Powell’s maxim about political lives is not just true, its a truism.
However, I still think Blair’s exit will be uniquely shameful this century, and perhaps since the Earl of Bute ;). The combination of Majorite sleaze, Thatcherite arrogance, and the Edenish Suez adventure that is Iraq makes Blair’s final draught of political hemlock quite a toxic cocktail.
Moreover, it contrasts so horribly with his entrance, in ten years we have moved from the happy smiley faces in Downing Street to the tortured faces of British soldiers lying in a dusty Basra street. Tragic.
99. JackW, thanks. I think you are correct about the Libdems being very “canny” about their role in the Scottish Executive. I also think that the SNP will do better but just don’t have the groundswell of support to make them the largest party?
As for the conservatives, IMO they will do better but not great.
RE 101, Cicero, I do like your description of John Redwood.
Sean T ‘However, I still think Blair’s exit will be uniquely shameful this century…’
I agree
Tyson. Is this a man losing his nerve? Have you given up on Brown for the whimsy of Cameron already?
Cameron, who aged 18 having seen the inner city riots, the Falklands war, the mass unemployment the destruction of the miners, the cardboard boxes that became home to our 16 year olds denied dole……..thought to himself;
“I like this. I’m going to become a Tory”!!
RE 103, Tyson, Interesting post. I think Cameron is staying positive because I think we Conservatives are
(I would say that wouldn’t I) and because it turns the electorate off to be negative all the time.
119. “the destruction of the miners”
Blimey, I must have missed that bit. Have the workers at Rover been ‘destroyed’ as well?
119. Rodgey-baby, let me get this right. Cameron was meant to be PUT OFF Conservatism by…. the Falklands War. ?? Is that right? You do mean the Falklands War, don’t you? That war in the South Atlantic against fascist invaders? That war to liberate British subjects? That war that we had to fight following an invasion of British territory? That war against an evil fascist junta that led to complete liberation and victory?
Oh, maybe you mean a different war! Maybe you mean a war fought on an illegal pretext, sold on lies, against a foreign country that never threatened us - a war that has led tio untold disaster, tens of thousands of dead, and complete foreign policy failure.
Or maybe not. I’m confused.
RE 119, Roger I am of a simlar age to Cameron. I just what what labour did before and have done since. There is even an article on my blog about why I am a Conservative even through the thatcher years here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/06/ok-ben-howcome-you-ended-up-tory-as-68.html
BBC leading with Labour MPs letter calling on Blair to quit.
He’s toast now (and knows it). If he doesn’t announce a timetable soon, conference is going to be bloody.
Get those bets on 2006!
124. It does look more and more like he is going to be hounded from office, just 18 months after leading Labour to a third victory. Extraordinary.
But then again less extraordinary when you remember Iraq. It’s Iraq that is doing this - Iraq is the salty air corroding Blair’s political undercarriage, even though the bodywork is gleaming.
124. Funny coincidence having that email leaked to the mirror, Kevin Macguire&Co would have more credibility if they could even pretend to be independant of the Labour party press office.
127. Is it possible (or even blindingly obvious) than Tony’s Times interview earlier in the week was induced by knowledge of a move to get him out? He knows more than we do.
124 Dan. I fundamentally disagree. Where is the interest in the Brownites organizing what will be a bloodbath, the more so if Blair simply refuses to go until next year or beyond.
Labour would also do well to remember that there is still a significant group in the party and wider Labour voting country that do not see Blair as the devil incarnate, or that Iraq was a mistake, let alone the Blair Tories that have helped Labour to 3 successive wins.
Difficult as it is, the only hope for Labour is a smooth transition, the more so as Labours poll ratings are still holding firm in the low 30s.
81 Sean Fear “Mentioning the leaders has a big impact on the Conservative/Lib Dem vote shares - none at all on the Labour vote share. Since there is not the remotest possibility of the Lib Dem vote share falling to 15% or 16% at the next General Election, I’m inclined to take the hypothetical figures with a pinch of salt.”
I take a different view. The movement of voters is an indication that the anti-Blair voters will leave the LDs and go back to Labour. The voters that the Tories gain from Labour are probably due to a combination of anti-scottish voters and a small group of Blair voters that previously have been Tories.
Roger 19- honest this is my last post (never accuse me of moving to Cameron, or any thing associated with the Tories- “I will hunt you down and bring you to Chinatown, baby” (What film?)
Just trying to be non partisan at 103 (for once).
Actually I think the Tories are finished as a political outfit that is capable of winning elections. I think that they are led by a lightweight, partyboy, Eton, toff who is unashamedly hankering after being PM and publicly jettisoning all his Toryboy principles (though I doubt privately) to do so. After all he thinks it his birthright.
Cameron is surrounded by a cabal of rightwing Toryboy, public school acolytes (”hang Mandela” Osbourne) who have the arrogance that they think they understand, and can represent the British people, and think the British public will buy it. They are as dishonest, deceitful and disengenuous as it comes. The sheer bloody arrogance of it all!!!
I think that the Tories are irrelevant in the modern world, and have large swathes of their supporters, activists, and representatives that are homphobes, racists, cruel sport enthusiasts, stupid thick farmers and greedy capitalists. April 30th 1997 was the last day the Tory party will ever be in power, and let us be thankful for that.
As for my enthusiasm for Labour- I am in your camp I’m afraid. On the whole the government has been good domestically (one of the better, more effective governments), but Blair’s foreign policy jaunts, coupled with his authoritarian iliberal impulses have rather soured things. The sooner he goes the better- and roll on Gordon- after all he has been the architect of Labour’s domestic platform, and I think he is a more liberal minded thinker (albeit with control freak tendancies- but there again so do I)
The Lib Dems- have rather an affectionate spot for them. After all have only ever voted Liberal, Lib Dem, SDP (occasionally Green) in every election since 1983. My political voting CV uncovered.
And this is my last post for a while (just too much I’m afraid)- although the Tories would wish post 103 was. Will leave it to you to champion the anti Cameron camp, and expose his sham.
129. But last month, when the Blair/DC/Ming question was asked, the LDs managed to lose votes even in that one and the tories went up.
What has been the defining moment for me was realising that not only has TB lost authority since his announcement not to stand again, but also think the same has happened to GB particularly since the local elections in May.
Watching developements over the last few weeks I can see Blair going sooner rather than later and not to timetable set out by him or GB. Interesting times ahead, its like a soap opera that goes on too long and responds to bad ratings by creating that dramatic finale!
128. Jack, we know you’re an old Blairite, but the facts speak for themselves. Blair has a personal rating of 26%, one of the lowest in modern history. Not great, it is?
So Labour itself polls higher. Yes. But when you look at actual elections in the last 12 months - from Wales to Scotland to Bromley to the locals, Labour have done much much worse than ‘the low 30s’.
Their problem is turnout. 30% of people might still say to a pollster that they are Labour, when pushed, but I reckon Labour’s actual vote at elections might now be heading down for their core. In the 20s. 32% of people are not going to vote for Labour as long as Blair’s there. The question is will the voters return for a tired and tarnished old Brown, or indeed anyone else?
I think Reid would have a shot at regaining the voters, but Labour will never elect him. Johnson seems insubstantial.
No Tyson, please keep posting. “Stupid thick farmers”. Brilliant. And you accuse the Tories of bigotry!
Priceless. More please!