Has Labour killed off its electoral “golden goose”
September 11th, 2006-
Can the party even contemplate a fourth term without Blair?
For all the excitement now there’s a firm end to the Tony Blair era in sight the uncomfortable question has to be asked - is it possible for Labour to win General Elections without him? Has the pressure from the party that forced his September 2004 commitment not to run for a fourth term and last week’s mid-2007 departure statement meant that Labour has killed it’s Golden Goose?
Here’s a poll finding that should be scaring the pants off Labour campaigners. The detailed data from Saturday’s YouGov survey had Labour supporters dividing 82-6 to the question “If you had to choose, who do you think would make the better - Prime Minister, Tony Blair or David Cameron?”. When the same question compared Brown and Cameron the Labour supporters split 79-10.
This is in line with poll after poll that have shown that amongst party supporters at least Blair does better than Brown. Where the Chancellor gets a bonus is from Lib Dem supporters who invariably support him rather than the outgoing occupant of No 10.
For Blair has extraordinary qualities when it comes to winning elections. Just think back to everything that had gone on in the two years before the May 2005 election, and yet even with negative poll ratings, Blair produced a great result. His ability in the final week to demonise the Tories, and get Labour waverers back on board, was a triumph.
-
The relationship between Blair and the voters is like that between a wife and an errant husband. He gets thrown out of the marital bed every so often but in the end he’s always invited back.
Through his personal style, the way he looked and spoke, and for the way he got Labour to use a different vocabulary he became the first major Labour politician who was able to relate to the English middle classes. They responded in their millions in 1997 and most stayed in 2001. What are these voters going to do now? It is hard to see who else in the party has the same magic?
How would he have fared in a General Election encounter with Cameron? Sadly we will never know but my guess, supported by the polling evidence, is that he would have done a lot better than any of the prospective Labour leaders that are being talked about.
For the Tory leader the past seven days must be like a dream. Not only are Labour self-destructing but he also knows for sure that he won’t be up against the one person most equipped to stop him next time. It won’t be the mighty Tony who is facing Cameron in his first General Election campaign as leader.
Labour are now out to 1.3/1 in General Election “most seats” betting - their weakest position for fourteen years.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
82-6 vs 79-10
There may be good examples elsewhere, but this alone is hardly a significant enough difference to justify an article, let alone “scaring the pants” off anyone.
There will be people who are pleasantly surprised by Brown as PM, and people who will be disappointed.
“His ability in the final week to demonise the Tories, and get Labour waverers back on board, was a triumph”.
Genuine question: what is the polling evidence to support that assertion? IIRC (and I may not) the actual 3% margin was lower than all the polls had forecast, whether dutring the final week or beforehand.
I agree with John O - if he’s saying what I think he’s saying - that you haven’t quite made the point you wanted to, Mike. Rather like the (in)famous “Reagan Democrats” in days of yore, there are “Blairite Tories” that no other Labour leader can reach. And they tend to be in the right places, so far as our electoral system is concerned, while the votes that Brown would recover for Labour probably aren’t. (I’ve no proof for this assertion, which I leave to others to confirm or refute.)
But there’s always a “but”, and if the Blairite Tories have, up to now, been the forgiving wife, there always comes a point when that good lady decides there’s been one indiscretion too many and goes home to mother…
Re 2. Just check through our archives for the General Election campaign and see how the Commons seats spread markets were moving. The spreads were recorded daily and the numbers, based on the perceptions of punters backing their judgements with cash shows a big move to Labour.
Its not just Tony Blair that is the problem, its the ‘baggage factor’. Fresh faced in 97 amd 01 he is now damaged in the mind of the public to the point where th media can continually reinforce that message till the day he goes. If he could reach out, why are we wiped out in many of these middle england local councils?
Mike the people who should be scared by the poll findings are Lib Dems! Labour sheds a few % to Conservatives and a few % of Lib Dem voters return to Labour.
4 - Surely that was because the punters knew Labour was going to win. Or have I got this wrong here?
I think Innocent Abroad was right when he talked about “Blairite Tories” - Blair was able to keep hold of this crucial group of people whilst he lost the support of many others. It could also be argued as well that with a majority of 166, Labour had such a large cushion to start with that even with an unpopular leader they were able to retain their majority simply because they had so many MPs to start with.
82-6 vs. 79-10 - I don’t see that as a big spread. Are you sure you’re not being influenced here by the size of your bet against Gordon, however unconsciously? This seems stretching a point to the nth degree.
6 - HF,is that is a huge assumption, why the should they “return” just to shore up a party that is politically more damaged than last year. Why would any previous Labour supporter sit there and think “Tell you what the Tories may win so let me jump to the sinking ship that’s the Labour party. After all what a great job they’ve done in the past 10 years, and how they have conducted themselves in the last few days is a real vote winner!”
I agree some, maybe 20% of switchers might switch back but that’s it, no great rush back I think unless Labour polices drastically change in the interim.
Re 9 Big Mak. It is not my assumption it is based on what the polls say will happen when Blair leaves. It does not mean that the Tories will automatically win. Tactical voting amongst LD and labour could be an even bigger factor in reducing the number of Tory MPs. The issue for The Lib dems is how can they keep these Labour votes?
My apologies for being off-topic and also bringing betting to the discussion
:
I was just catching up with last night’s thread and the question of the next chancellor if Brown *doesn’t* become PM caught my eye. In that case, the chances of Brown staying at No 11 have to be very high and the chances of a non-Labour successor consequently higher as well. As yet, there’s only one non-Labour person available: George Osbourne at 16/1. This is a good deal more than the combination of Brown not becoming PM and Labour not winning the next election. Of course, Osbourne may not be the next Tory chancellor, but in that case there may be scope to win even more money.
11 - How many Tory Shadow Chancellors have lasted three years since 1997? Is Osborne a sharper Shadow Chancellor than Portillo, Howard or Letwin - none of whom lasted more than 2 years in the post?
I don’t think that Osborne offers value for money at that price.
11. I am sure that if Brown doesn’t win he will retire from Parliament and take his peerage. He could not be Chancellor to Reid or Johnson; even for him that would be a humiliation too far.
[13] Absolutely - if he doesn’t get the big prize, why wouldn’t he relax and enjoy being a Dad?
12-14. Brown has got used to getting his own way in domestic matters from the Treasury. He could continue to aim to do so were he to lose. Leaving parliament would smack of sour grapes, though I suppose can’t be discounted. I know Bryan Gould did after losing the 1994 leadership election, but Labour was in opposition then and about to undertake the sort of policy reform he was opposed to. That’s not the case with Brown (we assume).
As far as the next Tory chancellor goes, I would agree that Osbourne is a long way from the finished article but he is close to Cameron. That said, I would like the option to back Hague, whose literary commitments will end next year when his book is published. How can his name be added to the market? I had a quick look through the help section of Betfair, but if it’s there, I missed it.
15 - I agree that Hague would be a good Shadow Chancellor. He will probably get the job in a year or so. Willetts may not have the media persona, but would be better than Osborne in most ways. Theresa Villiers is Shadow Chief Sec - she is touted one to watch, but I am not sure she will make it that far. Letwin seems to have lost the appetite for a really big job.
Bryan Gould got a crap job after losing the leadership election - Shadow Minister for Fun. No wonder he went back to New Zealand to get a proper job.
Gordon Brown as MP is a liability for Labour due to the fact that he is a Scot. English voters increasingly resent subsidising Scotland. As one of my mates said to me on Saturday “he should f**k off back to his own country”
4 - That means nothing: so the punters’ perceptions (and their cash) did not represent what voters were actually doing with their votes! Can you demonstrate some credible polling data that Blair’s final week’s campaigning did indeed swing wavering voters?
4.”Just check through our archives for the General Election campaign and see how the Commons seats spread markets were moving. The spreads were recorded daily and the numbers, based on the perceptions of punters backing their judgements with cash shows a big move to Labour. ”
Punters were still betting on Labour in Dunfermline when the candidates were on stage and the returning office starting to read the results (and Cathrine Sthiler trying to do a fake smile)
Back to the article. Is Tony Labour’s golden goose?
In the first 2 election victories the answer was a clear yes. In GE2005 the answer was a more muted “maybe”. With a reduced majority, one of Labour’s lowest numbers of voters and the need to bring Gordon part way through in a “dual premiership” set of adverts, it is arguable that most of the positives Blair brought had dissappeared in GE2005. If just over 100,000 people had voted differently in GE2005, Blair would have lost.
Blair killed the golden goose himself some years ago, we are just waiting for him to arrange the funeral date.
16 - SBS – I agree with you about George Osbourne although I would go for David Davis as Shadow Chancellor rather than William Hague.
I like Osbourne and he’s clearly a clever guy but I don’t think he is yet cut out for the job. Partly it’s because he looks a lot younger than he is and given DC’s relative youth (although when 40 ever got considered young I don’t know!) I think it would help to have a more experienced individual as Shadow Chancellor.
I personally would go for Davis given the manner he has conducted himself in since losing a leadership he looked odds on to gain and also his own background in business.
9. Got to agree with Big Mak I can’t see the majority of switchers being Lib dem to Labour, I’m sure there will be some that see Brown as being a return to traditional labour and therefore returning from the Libs and to a lesser extent the old right wing socialists that Hague had attracted. But I see a lot more ex tories or Libs switching back to their traditional party.
21 - Max I agree - Davis or Hague could be good and add the gravitas that Osborne lacks. However, I think I would put Hague in the Chancellor role, Davis as deputy Leader and bring Rifkind back as Shadow Foreign Secretary.
21 - I am surprised at Davis. When he ran in 2001, as a non-Tory I knew little of him. He was the king of rubber chicken, so was well known to Tory members - watch out as Mark Oaten was once the LD king of rubber chicken!
He ran twice as on a right wing ticket, but he has trod quite a liberal line in his role at Shadow Home. People say he is a poor media performer, but I don’t see that. He’s pretty laid back and chatty, and comes across well. But if he’s doing a good job where he is, would Cameron really want to move him? (Cf: Hague who is doing rather less well at Foreign Affairs than would have been expected. The Iraq issue is a difficult one for the Tories to handle, I admit, but his EPP fudge must be a disappointment to many.)
24.”People say he is a poor media performer, but I don’t see that”
well, I find extremely difficult to understand the last part of all his sentences.
23 - not in the habit of agreeing with you Rik, but that is a sensible line-up. It would be the first Tory “top table” to look on a par with Blair-Brown-Prescott-Cook in 1997. (Prescott as an attack dog, and appeaser for traditional members of the party.) Given the permutations available, that is the closest you have to a “dream ticket”. But I doubt Rifkind has the appetite any more.
26. Max/Rik/SBS…are you overlooking a pivotal figure in the tory party for that position?! I’m very disappointed in you
Leave David Davis in place for now, he has the capacity for another ministerial scalp at the H.O., Mcnulty or even Reid in 6 months?
Osborne IMHO looks bad and better to leave him in place to give him every opportunity to prove himself. Moving him just hides the problem.
“Osborne IMHO looks bad and better to leave him in place to give him every opportunity to prove himself. Moving him just hides the problem.”
The same could be said of Ruth Kelly!
Pivotal figure? Michael Ashcroft? Stanley Kalms? Stuart Wheeler? Who?
29. SBS, look at the link in my signature!
30 - how very very silly of us to overlook Dinky! Dinky for Shadow Foreign Secretary! Dinky for PM! Dinky for UN Sec Gen! Dinky for Pope! (well, maybe not!)
OT - but aimed at Max… what happened to Hearts on Saturday. I see that St Mirren scored the 1 goal predicted, but Hearts failed to score any of the 4 expected. In all seriousness, do Hearts still look good, and have just had a couple of unlucky games, or are the Romanov signings just not gelling and working together as a team? I ask ‘cos I’ve got Hearts to win the SPL at about 14/1 and wondering wether to cut my losses or if they’ll come good in time?
Nice friends you’ve got Mark……
I think you are going to see the most public love-in since John and Yoko in Amsterdam which will start at the TUC Conference and go through the Labour Conference right up to when Tony has his triumphal resignation followed by Gordon’s coronation. Labour still have all the cards though Cameron’s predicted damning of Bush’s foreign policy to-day is a very astute move. It’ll P*** off a few Tories but it really does force Gordon’s hand.
Interesting speech due to be made by Cameron today attacking American foreign policy post-9/11 - also William Hague was expressing very strong pro-Arabist views on 5live earlier - not too likely to endear them both to one or two major Tory fundraisers I fear …
33 - “All we are saying…is give peace a chance”
Fat chance
Still the dollar bills are sprinkled on the pavement for anybody to pick up - Willhill again offering 2/5 for 2007 and hedging can be made at Ladbrokes at 4/1 for 2006.
31. I see that you’ve got the point now
Mmike Smithson) think he’s behind some good Tory attack strategies in recent times, others think he doesn’t perform well on TV. It isn’t possible to find him a role where he can concentrate on advising Cameron without having a proper portfolio? Like creating something new like the position Letwin holds.
Interesting article Mike.
I am amused how much Brown seems to be getting people like Roger back in the tent whilst still maintaining the same policies that got him out. From that perspective those who wish to believe in Labour will be back. (Or at least some of them will)
Blairs Tories will leave, and I think the non voting Conservatives will come back to the Conservative party.
Interesting times ahead.
37.”Mmike Smithson) think …”
It should be “Some people (like Mike Smithson) think….
24- SBS- I agree with you. Davis is an excellent communicator- and just doesn’t do spin (or speeches). On Marr yesterday he was going along swimmingly until he got stuck on the spin lines (people dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, terror- Labour only interested itself, disaster for the British electorate…). He delivered this pretty awfully, yet Hague faced with the same lines was much more assured.
Also, Davis is quite a handsome guy aswell- albeit in an unspun, rugged sort of way. A rarity for politics, a profession that normally attracts strange looking people to its midst.
Shame that Davis is too ideologically right.
Andrea- 30- remind me who it is??
36. Jan, You are driving me nuts!!
I have looked everywhere for that 2/5 without success. Two minutes ago I found the market on the Willhill site but the odds were 1.22 i.e a shade less than 1-4. That’s certainly the best price in the village but nothing like the 2/5 you have been quoting and crucially less than the arb rate with 2006 standing at 4-1.
What’s your source?
34 - The US Ambassador was on Breakfast News and was hit with some lines from Cameron’s speech. He stuck to his guns and said the world is a much safer place now than 5 years ago. Hmm!
It’s instructive that, in a recent issue of Viz magazine, GB lost the ‘Battle of the One-Eyed Gordon Bs’ against Gordon Banks. He fared particularly badly in the category of ‘not doing that funny flapping thing thing with his lower lip’.
I have to say I amused by Rogers prediction of peace breaking out in the Labour party.
A lot of comments about voters ‘returning’ to the tories (or not). But it is now 14 years since the tory victory of 1992.
There are now thousands of what might have been ‘natural’ tory voters in earlier generations who have never voted tory and are now in their early thirties. This will be mid-thirties when the next elecion is held.
The tory challenges is not simply to get older voters to ‘return’ but to attract voters who have never in their lives voted tory.
If for whatever reason Brown does not succeed Blair (very very unlikely in my view) the new leader might be the recipient of what in rugby terms would be termed the ‘hospital pass’. A big defeat for the new leader (or simply a loss of power) would leave Brown the obvious successor. If only you’d chosen me…
You’re giving your age away JohnO. It was a trick post to separate the men from the boys!
Benedict. Most people I know would instinctively feel more comfortable with Blair than Brown. My guess is that the difference in vote between ‘97 and now is ALL down to Blair’s foreign policy. Cameron is saying all the right things but you only have to read this site to know what a Tory mindset is and it’s not what Cameron is telling us. My punt in the dark is that Brown will be Blair without Bush
Some funny letters in The Guardian:
Re 45, Lurker Terry, you could be right about the hospital pass, but I think it will be a hospital pass who ever wins. (I did that to a hooker once, when I first started for my local team, their pack picked him up and threw him at the ground until he let go of the ball).
I think Cameron is out to attract the younger voter, and if membership numbers are anything to go by it is working to some extent.
Those laying Gordo - he’s now 1.59, AJ 5.9 !, Reid 14.
45 - we have debated this issue of returning Tories many times. It would be fair to estimate that by 2009/10, 25 - 30% of those who voted Tory in 1992 (17/18 years previously) will be dead.
There will be some lapsed Tory voters alive who may return to the fold. The Tories will, however, need to rely on first time voters (who may have had a vote before but not exercised it) and on the fact that, as Father Ted said “It’s true; you do get more right wing as you get older!”
I think that George Osborne is underestimated, I think he was chosen as chancellor on merit You just have to consider his role in DC’s leadership challenge and his previous assessment of Gordon Brown as a politician now being echoed by some of Brown’s own colleagues and you see how astute he is.
I think that he has also been equally instrumental in the strategy adopted by the shadow cabinet of ignoring Blair and attacking Brown’s credentials as a future Labour leader, something that Labour have been successful at with previous conservative leaders.
Brown even now is not regarded as media friendly and his reputation/gravitas was earned by his long incumbancy in the job rather than something he brought with him. The public want competence in the treasury rather than a beauty contest. IMHO it would be a mistake to move Osborne at this stage and I still think he will prove himself well suited to the job.
RE Roger at 46, I think Brown is more Blair with added Bush. As for our foreign policy, you ought to know that many hold different views on the subject, particulalry me.
RE 47 Andrea, Love the quotes!
David Herdson - 11 etc - Next Chancellor odds.
That’s the kind of unconventional thinking which can pay dividends but unless I am mistaken I think your calculation is slightly out. Brown is currently trading at approximately 2-1 on for next Labour leader i.e a 66% probability. If he doesn’t win, I should say the chances of him leaving No.11 (for whatever position, doesn’t matter) are again about 2-1 on. That means the scenario you have in mind (he loses the Leadership battle but stays on as Chancellor) is about a 12% probability - roughly 8-1 in conventional odds. Since Osbourne is by no means the only potential Conservative Chancellor, odds of 16-1 don’t strike me a especially generous.
Have I figured it wrong? What do you think?
46 - Fifty is FAB
51.”You just have to consider his role in DC’s leadership challenge and his previous assessment of Gordon Brown as a politician now being echoed by some of Brown’s own colleagues and you see how astute he is.”
yes, the personal attacks..I thought Cameron was against punch and judy, but he’s happy to let Boy George do it…I would call it H…..
It was productive though.
“I think that he has also been equally instrumental in the strategy adopted by the shadow cabinet of ignoring Blair and attacking Brown’s credentials as a future Labour leader, something that Labour have been successful at with previous conservative leaders.”
yes, but he can still continue to advise Cameron and decide strategies (as I said earlier), but on TV he’s as good as Ed Balls is…..
52. Benedict, the authors are Bob Lewis from Bolton and Graham Nickson from Hertfordshire
“Blair produced a great result” Mike, did you drink some bong-water on holiday?
Blair got 35% (the lowest for any PM in modern history); he also got one of the lowest numbers of votes in modern history; he camse second in England in numbers of votes. Only our bankrupt electoral system kept him in power.
Peter: This is in deed strange. Just refreshed and the 1.40 on 2007 is still there. Are you getting 1.22 for 2007, or are you mixing this up with the Brown odds? I guess it can’t be that WH is offering different odds when you access from a non-UK IP-address (I live in Norway). I can see no reason for WH to do that.
A propos of very little, I hapen to catch DD on Sky News yesterday. I found him appealing, as I have done in the past. However, I was reminded of a very sharp observation made by a PBer during the Conservative leadership campaign. His diction is poor. Now I can think of a lot worse things to say about a politician and it strikes me as a pity if a capable man doesn’t achieve his potential for lack of a little speech training, but I can see that poor diction can be a serious handicap in one trying to reach the top in politics.
Shame really.
158 Jan…OK, I’ll try again. Watch this space!
Politicians with poor diction:-
Roy Hattersley, Roy Jenkins, Geoffrey Howe… I’m not sure there it is such a big handicap.
61. None of them ever became PL or PM !
158 Jan
My error…1.40 is correct. I am now off to my local WH to place my bet.
62 - well, Jenkins was a party leader, but I take your point!
The problem with Osborne is that he keeps being fly swatted away by almost everyone. He reminds me of a speaking doll thats been activated by being trodden on.
163 Good luck to you, Peter!
64. He lost his seat to Gorgeous George. Maybe it’s his fault if we have GG around now!
61. Hattersley, as I recall, was mercilessly mocked for his sibilance (’spitting’ image indeed)…he was a figure of fun, really. Was Geoffrey Howe that bad? very plummy, but poor diction?
Max- not wanting to intrude on private grief re: St Mirren, (Aberdeen had their little local difficulty over the weekend too) but what do you make of this story about Romanov:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/scot_prem/5329990.stm
Next week- Pope admits to Catholicism…
55. Andrea, when it comes to the voter on the street I think that chancellor’s earn their reputation whilst in No11 rather than rely on previous ministerial positions. After 9 years I can’t be the only person who turns the volume down and listens to the highlights of Gordon Brown’s delivery of the budget. People seem to like their PM to be highly visable and ready to address them, Gordon Brown has successfully shown that no one bothers to much if the chancellor disappears from media view for long periods as long as he is delivering a stable economy.
It is only now that Gordon Brown’s media weaknesses are coming to the attention of the voter’s because as PM his media appeal is much more important.
Caught a quick headline on BBC news. Apparently eating mandarins keeps liver cancer away.
How many do we have in the civil service and are there enough to go around?
Any thoughts on this from todays Times?
Can anyone put together a lis tof 44 MPs for John McConnell or a Alan Milburn?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-2351916,00.html
72: It’s very difficult for McDonnell to get 44 signatures…unless some MPs sign his nomination papers just to allow him to stand.
73 - I am sure Mike Hancock will sign McDonnell’s papers.
72 This is why I am reluctant to bet on the Lab leader market - the whole process is murky and depends on patronage - there is less opportunity for a DC or a CH to challenge from nowhere.
Gordo 1.6 and rising !
166. Jan.
Job done and thank you Jan!
I got £200 on at 2/5 no problem. I would have gone heavier but I am already fully committed to laying 2006 and I didn’t want to take my net exposure much beyond normal limits.
Of course, I could now close out my £200 bet by staking £50 with Paddy Power on 2006 at 4-1, giving me a free bet worth £30 on 2007 but I’m greedier than that and I think the 2006 odds are way too low - 20-1 would be more like it imho.
Thank you VERY MUCH INDEED for pointing out this opportunity. Other PBers, you have been wonderfully well informed - fill your boots!
74. Charles Clarke might, depending on who he dislikes that particular week!
The fallout of last weeks machinations appears to have damaged the Chancellor most, if we are to believe his protestations that he was not involved in last weeks letter writing and resignations, can we speculate as to whether this was actually a Blairite ‘black-ops’ to stitch up the Chancellor and portray him in a bad light.
69 - The St Mirren result was awful, their goalkeeper probably had the best game of his career and they scored with about their only chance of the game! Still that’s how it goes sometime.
I don’t really mind what Vlad does. If it wasn’t for him Tynecastle would be a block of flats we’d be at Murrayfield in front of a few thousand fans (and anyone whose seen the Edinburgh Gunners play their could tell you how bad the atmosphere would be!), and Paul Hartley would be playing for Celtic! And worst of all we wouldn’t have beat the wee team 4-0 in the semi-final.
It’s tough at the moment but I think we’ll do well as the season progresses especially with Pinilla up front who was fantastic when he came on.
74. SBS, does Mike Hancock know he fell in 4th place in the number of EDMs signed ranking? I suppose he should start to sign everything when the Commons are back from the recess to gain back positions!
79. Spare a thought for my other half, he is what you could call an Aberdeen “core” supporter! :D:
79 - Thanks for those comments Max, I think I’ll keep my Hearts SPL bet on for the moment then and hope it improves over the season. I reckon Celtic should slip up a bit when we get towards some fixture congestion further into the season, and Rangers look shocking from all the reports I’ve seen.
76. Done the same in slightly smaller size…and I did hedge with 2006!
Also OT - is there a ‘Strauss or Flintoff to captain England in Australia’ market on Betfair yet? The media all seem to be saying Flintoff, but I reckon it should really be Strauss and the selectors will see the thoughtfulness rather than just the ‘big personality’.
First of all, THERE ARE THREE YEARS TO THE GE. Basing assumptions on what is happening today as to the position in three years time is moronic: anything can happen. Extrapolation is a pointless excercise, the classic was the ERM disaster, which changed British politics for ever, we never expect the unexpected, if we did it wouldn’t be unexpected. If you graphed the growth of gaslighting during the ninteenth century, you would confidently predict that by 1950 everyone in the UK would have gas lighting, then up pops electric lighting result no one had gas lighting in 1950. Its wonderful to speculate, but its pointless: still won’t stop us will it!
There probably are some soft Conservatives who thought (and think) of Blair as one of themselves and may come back to the Tories next time.
But among the electorate at large Blair is poison for Labour.
84. Nope. Also not much time to get the market going as decision is tomorrow ? I’ve go for Strauss too but not sure he’ll get it.
DC and George Osborne are joined at the hip. There’s no way David’s going to move him from that job. George will also be Chancellor in a Conservative administration. DC is very happy with George, particularly his policy work; that isn’t Hague’s forte. I doubt GB will be swotting anyone anywhere, for the time being at least. No change in job for either is at all likely.
88. I disagree - GO will drop the “shadow” ;o)
Does anyone see the Blair/Brown situation being repeated in 10 years time with Cameron/Osborne . I get this awful view of the future where we will be saying the same things we are now . Sort of premonition of deja vu .
Mike
Interesting article. Talking to people over the last few weeks I have come to the conclusion that Blair is done for. You do now find the sort of comments taht one got about Thatcher as she lost her last marbles.
But Brown has mihandled things - and blown his own previously reasonable figures on trust (as shown here.
This probably does open up the contest - although I still cannot see Brown losing. If you are right, we face a long parliament (because Brown is only going to call an election he feels he is about to win).
Roger, as always, forgets anything slightly away from his very strong perceptions and opinions.
One of Geoffrey Howe’s opposition speeches was likend by the then Labour Chancellor as to being “savaged by a dead sheep”
Once in Government it was all very different.
Thinking of voices can one imagine what would have happened if Ruth Kelly were in opposition. Or memories of Mandelson in former years. One huge asset for Osborne his accent is not Scottish.
However, looking at PBC Roger’s as predictions are almost invariably wrong, it is possible that Osborne could have a long glittering career. Er, then perhaps not
91. I’ve often wondered how feasible a 5-year-parliament is. Major certainly carried the 1987-1992 parliament on for 5 years after a change in leadership, so there’s precedent.
However, the 1992-1997 parliament seemed to tarnish the strategy of holding out for 5 years somewhat. The 5 year full term was characterised as a desperate government vainly holding on in the hope that they might recover their position somewhat. This, in effect, made matters worse.
I wonder whether Brown would risk it? He could risk being seen as the “Major” figure - the man who held out for the full 5 years because he was desperate. This may harm Labour more than help them.
91.” - although I still cannot see Brown losing. If you are right, we face a long parliament”
what? You aren’t trusting your leader who thinks there’ll be a GE next year?
92 Roger can erply for himself. On Howe you are right up to a point. The “dead sheep” phrase predominated until 1979. After 1979 the “mogadon man” phrase was widely used. Different, yes. Very different? Not really.
94 I think Brown will want an election asap. But he will only go for it if he has a big enough boost from the polls. The way he has handled the last week or so makes that less likely.
96. Peter Pegeon, I actually agree. It would be a bit kamikaze to go for a snap election without being likely to win and things have developed, it’s very unlikely to be in such situation. Even if there’s a bounce, it would probably just push the parties at level pegging situation (so hung parliament territory).
Anyway even if the polls were better, I would have still thought that ming’s idea of a GE in October 2007 was unlikely (I would have thought a snap election at the beginning of 2008 would have been better)
I have been reading on here about David Cameron having short temper and throwing tantrums. What’s that all about? As a relatively interested observer of British politics, I can’t see that at all - he always comes across as very calm
Dipped into the TUC conference and I thought the Tories were back in Govt! Speech after speech denouncing the Govt and not any sign of praise. No one had a good word on Gordon either.
How do they justify providing 70% of Labour’s cash to an organisation with policies that they oppose? They also have 40% of the Ledership vote, sponsor many MPs and have (through donations) influence over the Constituency Labour parties.
When will the unions just turn off the tap and withold the cash from Labour?
RE 96 and 97 I can’t see a snap election because no one has got the money.
98 The first time I heard him say it, he was responding to a question I asked which assumed a long parliament. Ming interrupted to say that he thought Blair would go in the spring of 2007 and that the election might follow in the autumn.
The logic of autumn 2007 rather than Spring 2008 is that a bounce might not last all that long.
In either case the difficulty is explaining why a General Election is needed - as you imply, a bigger problem in 2007 than in 2008.
100 A snap election would result in fewer Labour seats than at present, so I can’t the sense of it.
101. I think you mean The Spectator interview, whilst I was thinking about The Times interview. The choice of words in the Spectator was more hypothetical compared to The Times (but maybe it’s just how the Times chose to report it).
Yes, I can understand that logic…but then it depends on when the handover takes place. I think that at the time Conference 2007 was the likest scenario, so to call a GE in October would have been, maybe, a bit too early, in the sense that there could have been no time to see if the bounce was short term or real
183. Well done Punter! I have taken another £200 on 2007 - still, incredibly, at 2/5. I intend to lay this off, but no hurry. You know my views well enough by now and I can’t see the 4-1 about 2006 going soon and it may well drift.
Good luck, mate! No doubt we will continue to compare notes as events unfold. (And I am sure we will be toasting Jan’s health in due course!)
Argument (A)
Brown (for it will be he) should hang on as long as possible - Cameron as Blair Mk II will become less and less attractive - especially to the existing Tories (No tax cuts, Tuition fees etc) - and he will have no money - The Tories are as broke as Labour.
Argument (B)
Brown should go to the country as soon as possible - A statesman like thing to do, Labour have no money so a long campaign will hurt them more than the Tories. Also the economy is going to start to look sick, which would be blamed on Brown.
93. 96. A reply of 1992-1997 with the government desperately hanging on as long as possible in the hope that something will turn up to save them seems, IMHO, even more likely after this week’s events.
So what did Brown say to Marr that was edited out (see Guido’s enigmatic blog)
” Does anyone see the Blair/Brown situation being repeated in 10 years time with Cameron/Osborne . I get this awful view of the future where we will be saying the same things we are now . Sort of premonition of deja vu . ”
Of course we will ! - as sure as eggs are eggs.
Every government implodes on itself in the end.
Matt.
107. ‘gissa job’?
As Major didn’t see the need to go to the country, why should Brown? It will be hypocritical of the Tories to demand so.
An electorate elects a govt, not a primeminister.
110. Technically, they only elect their local representative. But yes, I know what you mean.
Technically, or pedantically?
112. Probably both.
159 Peter, re DD. I would not have voted for him in the leadership election, but I give him top marks since. He has been fearless, articulate, likeable, relaxed, absolutely on top of his brief and easily the best of the Shadow Cabinet after DC. Furthermore, Davis is the anti-Brown. Having lost, he has not tried to undermine DC. He has instead consolidated the Tory lead with a tremendous show of unity. He adds core Tory values to the DC ‘brand’ Mike S keeps referencing. As solid as anything. I rate him 100% whenever ConHome puts out its surveys.
Implied odds of current betfair prices
GB 62 %
AJ 16 %
JR 6 %
Still think backing against Brown is dangerous - the hurdles to be jumped by other challengers are too high.
114. I was struck by his remark to the effect that he liked DC before the contest and liked him rather more now. It was said with a kind of understated sincerity which reflected well on them both. What GB would give for such an endorsement!
Perhaps ‘Nice Dave’ is hanging on to useless George so that he can make a big show of sacking his ‘mate’ in 6 months time - and thereby show what a strong leader he is?
RE 117,I hate DC, I think you may be biased
What if the LD and some of the unions got together? If the unions started to cosy up with the LD it could persuade Labour’s leadership to shift their policies further left.
The LDs could do a huge amount more if they had half the cash the unions chip into Labour.
Should Ming start making moves to the unions before Gordon takes over and Ming loses 3% of the LD voters?
119 - please no! The future’s bright; the future’s orange (book). CK may have tried to cuddle the unions a bit, but Ming knows that doing so in a big way would split the party.
Interesting thought…the populist left alternative inaugurated by Kennedy would really be entrenched by that.
But a) shurely the Orange Bookers would vomit and b) can’t really see the unions being interested, when they can wield more influence by simply threatening to stop the cheques to Labour.
20 - SBS, agree I for one would run for the hills. If I want to cosy up to the Unions I will bloody well join them or the Labour party. The Lib Dems are LIBERAL not bloody socialist’s, which I think even they forget sometimes(Evan Harris) and the media love to beat them with this stick as much as possible(50p high rate, etc)
Just say NO Ming!!
I had a feeling that as soon as he announced he was going, the political commentators who had charted his demise would start saying how much he was going to be missed. But I didn’t think Mike Smithson would be the first!
OT - Zambian Elections
“A new opinion poll by the University of Zambia has placed the main opposition challenger Micheal Sata ahead of President Levy Mwanawasa in the run-up to the Sept. 28th election. The poll states that at voter turnout of 75%, Sata would win with 52% with Mwanawasa at 27% and the third placed contender Hakainde Hichilema at 20%.” (abbrev. from Reuters)
Other polls still have Mwanawasa in the lead but on a reduced amount from previously.
One of the best bits of the statement in my mind was Mwanawasa - “…opinion polls should be stopped because they are interfering with democracy and confusing people!” - The sound of a desperate man?
120. Well the split will come eventually anyway. Same tensions building up as in the 1920s and 1930s, same result on the cards.
12. Sorry, way back now, but I think it is stretching a point to include Howard in a list of Shadow Chancellors who haven’s lasted. After all, Howard was well commented upon as doing very well against Brown, and only left to become leader of the party! Hardly a story of failure.
Stupid question of the day: considering you have 5 years as maximum duration for a Parliament, why is it so common to call a GE after 4 years?
RE 127, Andrea, Because you can.
If you wait for the full five years then you have to have an election on a set date. If you go early you get to choose the date and do so on the basis of being more likely to win.
127 Andrea, a far from stupid question.
A flexible election date gives the incumbent government a useful advantage in that it can, up to a point, time the election to suit itself. If it hangs on to the last minute, it gives that advantage away. Sometimes of course things are going so bad for the government that it hangs on for pretty much the full 5 years anyway, presumably in the hope that things might get better as the final deadline approaches. A government which has a fair chance of winning would, on the other hand, tend to go early rather than late.
It’s all tactical. It doesn’t normally make a huge advantage but why not use every advantage you can find?
Lennon at 32 etc - you’re throwing your money away backing Hearts to win the SPL even at 14-1.
After a dire start Celtic seem to be in some form and having signed Gravesen and Yan Vennegoor of Hesselink now have quality in the middle and up front.
Rangers have started slowly, but now seem to be coming onto a game (not surprising with a new manager and half a dozen new players).
Hearts are much weaker than last season (lost Skatchel and Webster and Fyassis is finished) - and they have been not much better than the rest since mad Vlad sacked Burley last year.
They’ve also played four out of six at home.
The value bet in Scottish football is Hibs to ‘win the SPL without the ‘big’ three’ at 15/4.
I suspect Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen will be scrapping over third (again).
But then I am a Hibs supporter;)
Andrea, one of the classic examples of this use of Government advantage was the end of the Callaghan government in 197/-1979. Everyone expected Sunny Jim to “Go to the Country” in October 1978; there was even a TV Address to the NAtion, when he was expected to call it - but he did not. He hung on, and Britain suffered the “Winter of Discontent.” The election was held in May 1979, and he lost.
The general concensus was that he might have won if he went in October, but of course that is subject to debate.
128/29. Thanks, Peter and Benedict. Yes, I should have thought to the tactical aspect. The extra year can always bring “suprises”…if Labour had waited the 5 years end of last Parliament, they should have voted this year between Home Office chaos, Prezza, Jowell’s husband and Hewitt’s nurses.
The “election on a set date” point…considering the commen lenght has become 4 years, the date itself isn’t a huge surprise anymore and opposition parties are prepared…apart the exact date, but I don’t think that May 5 or May 12 would have changed the situation.
The four years for a parliament has become a convention. Governments don’t like to go over four years because they are open to the ’scared of the electorate’ charge. Major was particularly prone to this charge, it would be therefore somewhat hypocritical of the Tories to try it on Brown (if Brown it is).
The obvious solution would be four year fixed date parliaments, unfortunately no government has introduced legislation on this. The reason is obvious, governments hope to choose the most advantageous time to go to the country, the aftermath of the Falklands War etc. If Brown gets a ‘bounce’ he may go for it, the opposition will of course then say, ‘cutting and running,’ So its a no win solution don’t go, it’s cos’ your ‘frit’ ( as Mrs Thatcher used to say) go and it’s cos’ you know things are going to get worse.
114 - Commentator - I agree wholeheartedly!
132. Yes, Andrea. It gives a slight edge - that’s all.
http://dizzythinks.blogspot.com/2006/09/david-taylor-registers-johnson4leader.html
Lennon and Dan. I was persuaded recently to invest some of my hard-earned on Kilmanock at 14-1 in the Scottish League Cup. My knowledge of Scottish football is non-existent. Was I led up the garden path?
135. Thanks, Peter
136. And read the dossier about that David Taylor linked by Dizzy blog.
Not sure if it’s so good for Johnson to have those people around him
137. Yes. And get on Rangers for the SPL - they are still value at anything above 6/4.
140. Thanks Jamie. I’ll never trust a drunken Scot again.
137 - I think you may live to regret that punt, but there is some value at 14-1.
Like most things in Scotland the League Cup is usually won by one half of the ugly sisters, but if not then Kilmarnock are as good a bet as any. Whatever you do don’t put money on Hibs to win a cup!
I’d agree with Jamie that anything odds on in a two horse race is value.
139 - Really? I keep being tempted to lay Rangers at 2.25 ish on Betfair, but then I don’t watch and get an English perspective on things from London. (And my Scottish mate is too busy watching St Johnstone!)
It is interesting to note that in recent times PMs in charge of events have usually called an election after about 4 yrs. It is only when they are not in charge of events that they have gone to the full 5 yr term.
142. New manager (the highly rated Paul Le Guen), a young team and no champions league football for distraction I would say that they are even money with Celtic.
143 - nice try Rik, but not completely borne out by the facts.
Since the war the Parliaments have had the following lengths:
45-50 4 years 7 months
50-51 1 year 6 months
51-55 3 years 7 months
55-59 4 years 4 months
59-64 5 years 0 months
64-66 1 year 5 months
66-70 4 years 3 months
70-74 3 years 8 months
74-74 0 years 7.5 months
74-79 4 years 7 months
79-83 4 years 1 month
83-87 4 years 0 months
87-92 4 years 10 months
92-97 5 years 1 month
97-01 4 years 1 month
01-05 3 years 11 months
So four Parliaments have gone over four and a half years in length 45-50, 74-79, 87-92 and 92-97. Two of these the incumbants won and in two they lost. A bigger driver of Parliamentary length is the size of majority. Small majorities lead to shorter Parliamentary terms.
143. Of course, Rik. Why would anybody expect them to do otherwise.
141. Glad somebody thinks 14-1 Kilmarnock is value. It just looks like another embarrassing chit that I have at the moment.
146. Peter - are you dabbling in the Lab leader market ? - would be interested in your thoughts..
147. Do you mean, Jamie, who will be the next leader and what odds would be attractive?
You don’t mean the Blair Switch market, on which I have pontificated ad nauseam, do you?
http://forum.mpacuk.org/archive/index.php?t-12346.html
145. Five did - there was 1959-64 as well. Of these, the government lost three and suffered a relatively heavy reverse in both others: starting with majorities of near or well over a hundred and ending with a majority insufficient to see out the term (Attlee was out within 18 months, and though major limped through another 5 years, he lost his majority part way through).
148. No - the Brown v Johnson vs AN
I have concerns with Mike Smithson’s stance of laying Brown and hoping for a mystery challenger/white knight to appear with the support of 44 MPs to even allow them to stand (who are signing a suicide note if Brown wins).
145 - Nice try Dan but as usual you ignore the point! I said in “recent times”! I dont call 45-50 recent times. But your list tends to prove my point!
1974-79 - Labour Govt beset by troubles - result LOST
1987-92 - Maggie deposed - Major installed - result WON against the odds with a wafer thin maj
1992-97 - Cons Govt beset with problems - result LOST
As I said - when a govt feels in charge of events they tend to go after four years.
151. Jamie, I’m not entirely sure we are talking about the same thing but if you mean who will be the next Labour leader then I too (unusually) disagree with Mike. Brown’s price has been slowly drifting and is currently at about 1.62 with Betfair. I think that’s a decent enough price but I am staying my hand because I think it’s likely to drift further.
150 - thanks David - my mistake. I tend to agree that the longer you go on it’s because you’re waiting for the opportunity to win that doesn’t come, but it’s not as Rik says about being in control of events.
Atlee didn’t need to go in 51 and in fact the Tory administration that took over with a similar majority lasted twice as long.
Rik’s mate Ted Heath was in control of events, but lost it by calling an election early.
So there are a number of examples of Government’s going early and losing as well as staying to the limit and losing.
Jan, Punter and others.
William Hill continue to offer 2/5 on a 2007 departure for TB but I think the offer may well end at 5pm today. I thought you ought to know.
I dipped in for another £200 just now. Seemed too good to miss. The only thing that stops me going for more is the limit to the amount of money I want tied up for six months or so. Apart from that, there is no conceivable down side.