So what does it mean for the General Election?
October 5th, 2006-
With maybe three years to go the Commons majority markets open
So we’ve ended conference season and we’ve now got a clearer idea about how all three main parties will tackle the coming months. But what’s this all going to mean in General Election terms? Do we have any greater feeling about the outcome?
-
The challenge is that nobody has any real idea how a Brown-led Labour is going to go down with the voters. Will his changed status as leader and Prime Minister change the way he’s perceived or could this simply magnify the negatives that have been shown up in poll after poll?
Newnight last night compared reactions to Cameron’s speech against Brown’s last week with their “voter meter testing” and the omens were not that good for the would-be Labour leader.
But assuming he gets it Brown will have all the power of the PM to set the agenda and has the political skills to raise the issues to make it tougher for Cameron. After yesterday, for instance, the Tory leader is going to find it hard opposing anything to do wth the NHS.
With everything really up in the air there’s a new General Election market from Corals on the size of the majority or whether it’s going to be a hung parliament. The bookmaker has divided it up into 25 seat segments and its opening prices look quite interesting.
Hung parliament 6/5
Majority 0-25:CON 13/2 LAB 7/1
Majority 26-50:CON 10/1 LAB 11/1
Majority 51-75:CON 12/1 LAB 14/1
Majority 76 - 100:CON 14/1 LAB 20/1
Majority 101 - 125:CON 20/1 LAB 25/1
Majority 126 - 150:CON 25/1 LAB 33/1
Majority 150+:CON 25/1 LAB 33/1
At this stage but it’s hard to see the outcome being out of the range of a 25 seat majority on either side. The Tory challenge is that they need a lead on votes of at least 9-10% to be in overall majority territory. Labour can maintain power just by getting the most votes.
I’m a strong believer in the adage that “oppositions don’t win elections - governments lose them” and it will probably be this time next year before we can make firmer predictions.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Labour majority of 0-25 at 7-1 looks the most interesting to me…
14/1 on Labour 50-75 looks tempting tbh.
Laugh all you like, but when reality sets back in, this is where the serious bets will go - along with the X’s into the ballot box.
I would be very surprised by any result other than a hung Parliament. We all know the arithmetic, with the new Parliamentary boundaries Labour only need to lose 20 or so seats to lose its majority while the Tories still need to gain 120 or so to win outright. Conference season hasn’t changed that fundamental dynamic.
The Tories are doing well, but not nearly well enough to win a majority. Cameron has the right strategy, its hard to see what else he could be doing, even managing this week to have his ‘Cluse 4 moment’. Though there is also a growing impatience with the lack of policy specifics, he’s probably right to wait till the new Labour leader is installed before setting out his own stall. Cameron is still only a few percentage points ahead of Labour despite the Govt being a shambolic, squabbling mess. The public like Cameron, but they still just don’t trust the Tories To be confident of winning a majority they should be polling 42-43% but frankly they are nowhere near.
Labour are marking time till Blair goes, I still believe that Gordon Brown will succeed him but it looks as though John Reid will run a populist campaign to beat him, appealing to Labour’s baser authoritarian instincts & the public hunger for a ’strong man’. If Reid does win then Labour will become an empty, populist rightwing electoral machine, a sort of British Fianna Fail. As such it might well revive its fortune but I suspect that will be too much even for Labour party members to stomach. There is likely to be a ‘Brown Bounce’ when he takes over, but I doubt it will be large or long lasting - the issue will be whether Brown feels he can take advantage of it & call a snap election or whether that will look too much like cut & run.
For the LibDems conference has killed the idea that Ming was for the chop, but done little to lift the party above the 20% barrier under which it has sunk since Kennedy departed the leadership. However, reports of the party’s death are greatly exagerated - although squeezed by Cameron (there are 20-25 LibDem seats vulnerable to the Tory advance) they are currently holding there own against Labour (though we still don’t know who Brown succession will play there). None-the-less the LDs still look well place to hold the balance of power after the next election whenever it comes.
For the Tories to win an overall majority they need a 12% swing. This is impossible. The best they can hope for is being the largest party in a hung parliament. This is when the real fun starts as future elections would have to be held under PR. Britain would then finally become a democracy.
4. Agreed.
There is just no way on earth that the Tories will get anything near a 12% swing - it would be completely unprecedented, and nothing about the current political situation suggests that the next UK GE is going to be groundbreaking: it will be a tedious slugging match, as usual.
Hung parliament looks by far the most likely outcome. Then the real fun will begin. How fluent are Brown and Cameron in Northern Irish?
4. According to Baxter, a 5.7% swing is enough: that’s achievable.
At the moment, a hung parliament looks most likely, but a lot can happen in 3+ years either way. In addition (and I know this isn’t what professional gamblers would advise), locking money away for up for over three years at odds of 6/5 isn’t very exciting. Part of the fun of gambling is the chance of the longer shot coming in. Were it possible to lay off later, I’d be interested in the Tory 1-50 ranges, which I think will shorten in the next couple of years even if they don’t pay out in the end (the chances of a Brown splat are more likely than a Brown bounce IMO).
Mike,
Curiousity question. I keep wondering what message to take from your strap-line photos. “Those who will rule us” “here are the big political bets” And who is that next to Condeleeza?
I agree there is plenty of value in Lab maj sub 26 or the hung parl option. Virtually inconceivable that there’d be a Tory maj.
Nothing short of Labour commiting political hari kiri would allow for that outcome.
Gawd knows we’ve tried over the last few months
- and yet the Tory poll lead is still not even enough to make them largest party, let alone give them a majority.
5. A 12% swing would produce vote shares similar to the 1983 election, so not wholly unprecedented but certainly unlikely (Baxter gives a Tory majority of near 300 for such a swing, though that’s nonsense).
I was out all day yesterday so only saw the headlines and the Evening Standard (didn’t have time to catch up with yesterday’s threads), Cameron seems to have come across well and the soundbites bit from the non-politico type perspective. What did come across well was how he’d annoyed some of the ‘old guard’ in the audience with the same sex partners comment. Their reaction was gold-dust in enhancing Cameron’s reputation.
Saw Kevin Maguire (Daily Mirror) on Sky for the newspaper round up and he was getting so worked up and bouncing on his chair I thought he was on something. More than anything I think this shows that those from all sides realise that the game is on and they are being energised.
As for majorities, a hung parliament is all but inevitable given the current position. I never bet this far out from an event but if I was going to dio so then that’s where all my money would go.
A 12% swing would put the Tories on 45% & Labour on 24% - that would be a Tory landslide not just a majority. Though forecasts vary, it looks as though it would realistaically take a swing of about 8% for the Tories to win. Unlikely, but possible with effective targeting. As I say though I don’t think they will make it.
My own view of a hung Parliament is that it would be very unlikely to result in any coalition. If they are the largest party the Tories would want to go it alone & try for ‘one more heave’ in a years time, probably relying on the DUP to sustain them in office.
If Labour had the most seats it is possible (even likely) that Brown would offer a coalition to the LibDems, but frankly even if Ming were tempted by the offer I dont see how he would be able to get a deal through the parliamentary party or a ballot of the membership, (which party rules stipulate).
IT would only be after a second inconclusive election that coalitions and any measure of electoral reform would be on the agenda.
Though a Tory majority does look unlikely, I agree that a hugh parliament is the most likely outcome, I am not convinced by currect swing calculators. There is a level of tactical unwind happening, this was so even in 2005. Compare the Labour majority to the level that would have happened in 2005 to the actual result. Quickly on H&K (link still working), this gives Labour-Conservative split about 372-179. Though Labour is about +6, Tories are under represented by 19. Factor in new seats and I think the required swing is somewhat less than that publicised. Nonetheless, still daunting.
9. But David, the Tories did not get a swing of 12% in 1983, nothing even remotely close to that. When was the last time there was a swing of over 5% in a UK GE, either way?
13 - I think some people misunderstand what swing is. One party going up six points and the other down six points equals a six percent swing. You don’t add the two together….
Bullseye’s figure of 5.7% swing needed looks right to me.
just flicking through the papers today, the cameron speech got quite a negative write up in leader columns, other than the FT, which seems quite positive. the sun still looks a long way from backing ‘the heir to blair’.
p.s. i feel more optimistic about labour’s chances at the next election than i did before conference season. i think labour are pulling together and i’ve still not seen anything from cameron to unduly worry me.
where’s the beef?
Re. 13, Stuart, the last time was in 1997.
6. According Anthony Wells’s figures they need a 6.12% swing to get an overall majority
13. 1997 was the most recent swing of more than 5%. 1979 also breached that barrier (5.2% Lab to Con). No other election has that achieved the figure since 1945 (which is a bit of an oddball anyway), but 1970 (4.7% Lab to Con) was also close. The 1983 result (3.9% Lab to Con) came on top of an existing Conservative lead, which won’t be the case next time. The electorate is also less aligned than it has been in the past which should enable larger swings; working against that will be the drift to minor parties and abstentions.
10.”What did come across well was how he’d annoyed some of the ‘old guard’ in the audience with the same sex partners comment. Their reaction was gold-dust in enhancing Cameron’s reputation”
When he arrived at that point, the camera cut to some old people in the hall and they looked petrified (and a woman was shacking her head)
I see our estimed contributor Tabman managed to get a letter in the Indy yesterday…
The fact is that the Tories had a bit of curates egg of a conference, and that is not good enough to win outright. I noticed Paisley was being courted enthusiastically- so I think we would see the Tories trying for something with the Ulster MPS - and I think that would be unpopular in the country as a whole.
So the next three years are uncertain- an interesting time for punters everywhere…
Labour is set to cancel the spring conference (they’ll do “seminars and consultations” instead of it)
21. Paisley was at the Labour conference as well.
21. ‘that is not good enough to win outright’
Yes, but the election isn’t next week.
General Election Swings 1945 - 2005 (based on 1997 boundaries)
1935: 8.27% to Lab
1945: 9.95% to Lab
1950: 3.24% to Con
1951: 1.06% to Con
1955: 1.73% to Con
1959: 1.17% to Con
1964: 3.00% to Lab
1966: 2.72% to Lab
1970: 4.81% to Con
1974 (Feb): 0.79% to Lab
1974 (Oct): 2.11% to Lab
1979: 5.29% to Con
1983: 4.07% to Con
1987: 1.75% to Lab
1992: 2.12% to Lab
1997: 10.23% to Lab
2001: 1.81% to Con
2005: 3.19% to Con
Average swing 1935 - 2005: 0.81% to Lab
Average Average Swings: 1935, 1945, 1964, 1966, Feb 1974, Oct 1974, 1987, 1992, 1997
Below Average Swings: 1950, 1951, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 2001, 2005
“So what does it mean for the General Election?”
in the words of that esteemed political commentator Paul Daniels:
“Not a Lot!!”
There appear to me to be two massive issues which could pan out significantly either way. The first is the frustration/impatience of the ‘true left’ in (and now largely outside/around) the Labour Party. A decade of pretending to themselves that it’ll be all right when Gordon Brown finally takes over may explode into some new focus - or fizzle and plonk.
The second is whether a combination of the right wing intelligetsia (a contradiction in terms but you know what I mean), Ruper Murdoch’s successor and the Redwood clan will allow a policyless (and possibly drifting liberally) Tory leadership to get away with the green squiggle agenda for more than a year or so. Either factor could throw a complete spanner in the works of our generally somewhat conservative collective predeictions for the next GE (discounting the Tory headbangers).
Mike, interesting article as always.
Brown will have a problem in that he will almost always look more negative than positive. He will also have a problem moving away from the Blair agenda, or indeed sticking with it. By contrast Cameron seems to have only positive things to say. I suspect people will like that.
I also disagree about Cameron not being able to oppose anything on th NHS. We already are shouting about private treatment contracts resulting in operations that have not been carried out being paid for, and we are shouting about NHS cuts. More will follow.
[3] Bullseye wrote if Reid does win then Labour will become an empty, populist rightwing electoral machine, a sort of British Fianna Fail. As such it might well revive its fortune but I suspect that will be too much even for Labour party members to stomach - particularly since many of them are public sector professionals. But Reid won’t win - he’s not even certain to stand, or even the Anyone But Brown tendency’s first choice - they want an Englishman in his forties, not a Scot in his fifties, although what they need is a woman with Cabinet experience and clean hands.
I suspect Cameron is preparing for minority government - if he is, say, 10-15 short of a majority but 50-70 ahead of Labour he could probably govern in minority for two or even three years, plenty of Canadian PMs have, after all. (See, I haven’t given up on my “Candianization” hypothesis
) What he won’t do is offer government jobs to the DUP, however post-Paisleyite it may have become by then. The policy to watch is the “English question” - were there any Tory conference fringe meetings on this, and if so, who spoke and how were they received?
At the moment both the Tories and Labour seem likely to bumble on a few points apart either way. Spotting the likely potholes for each party might be the best way to anticipate who will move ahead. If either does move ahead significantly the Lib Dem’s are likely to be squeezed unless a ‘97 repeat happens where the electorate are so sick of Labour they get tactical and go for an ‘Anyone but……’
Cameron’s danger is from his-and the country’s-right wing. UKIP or something similar or even just a rebellion from his backbenchers. He’s clearly taking the party in a direction that his own supporters found vomit inducing just a year ago. At the moment they just want to win. This is unlikely to outlive his policy revue. Contrary to the impression given most of his voters are not school leavers!
Labour have “events” of course and the possibility that Brown and team just don’t hit it off with each other and the electorate. They also have the worry that Cameron might become a phenomenon who just develops a mystique. It can happen. My guess is that Brown is less likely to make mistakes than Blair but Cameron should be a worry nonetheless
Slightly O/T, is there any significance in Labour axing the Spring 2007 Conference, other than their credit card being max-ed out?
(I notice that it was to be in Scotland, possibly as a backdrop to a Scot versus Scot leadership tussle.)
This could be wishful thinking on my part particularly as the LDs are in the doldrums a bit at present, but could the increasing threat (and media coverage) of a hung parliament boost their ratings.
In the past it has tended to have the effect of scaring the horses. Lab/Tories saying it will let the Tories/Lab in or the country will be ungovernable. However it feels a bit different now, particularly with Lab/Tories now on collision course flying in from the Left/Right to the middle (You sort of feel they might actually pass one another if not already done so - excluding the Tory old guard of course).
There is Clare Shrot campaigning for it! Portillo talking about deals with LDs! Polls saying people want it.
Must wake myself up from the dream.
Something else to factor in is how much “Its time for a change” will be a factor. If Blair had stayed there would definately be large numbers of these people, but we do not know how well Brown as PM is going to go down.
The news of the canceled spring conference is interesting. Private Eye bangs on about all the private sponsorship at the Labour party conference, has that dried up?
Lib Dem conference - a well attended policyfest, Ming is clearly not the latest young thing to vow the voters but the party seems to know where its going and have some potentially attractive poicies on taxation and the environment. If only Ming was a bit younger.
Labour - a “dont mention the war” conference but there is a war! until the new regime takes over we wont know if the “time for a change mood” which must play a part next time will be satisfied by Brown instead of Blair. Holding operation
Conservative - Glossy but badly organised - how can they run the country if they cant run a conference. Cameron is the New Blair, Thatcherism is history, these will not play well when the delegates get back to their constituencies. A potential disaster?
Quite happy with my 75-1 bet on Lib Dems being the largest party!
killing off this year’s spring conference is a good idea. firstly, it’s a waste of money labour doesn’t have. secondly, it means there won’t be weeks of ‘will blair quit at spring conference’ speculation. thirdly, it leaves the door open to a special conference to crown the new labour leader in june or july.
Quite a strong consensus here this morning!
My knee-jerk reaction was that a small Labour majority (25 seats, or so) is quite likely with a hung Parliament next best bet. The difficulty in this type of market is that you have to be very specific in your prediction and if you backed Labour 0-25 and they came in at 26, you would have been near as dammit right but you wouldn’t win the coconut. The odds on L 0-25 and 26-50 are attractive enough that you could cover both possibilities cheaply but no way is a hung parliament a 6/5 chance. (Does anybody really think there’s a 45% probability of that happening?) Odds of 13/2 on a slim C victory look much better, so I would take that together with the two lowest L outcomes and pass on the hung Parliament, if I were betting.
But I think I’ll just watch for a bit.
I would imagine that the cancellation of the spring conference has more to do with the main conferene being in Manchester not Brighton. Having a second spring conference in the North was a way of engaging with people who could not travel that far. Manchester is a better location - closer to the centre of mass of the country and the party. Hence no need for the second conference. Just a thought.
26. I think your second pargraph is right Zebidee.
The irony being that it would be exactly what Cameron wants
(a bust up with the disenfranchised right/his Clause 4 moment)
but I believe it is becoming more and more likely he will get his wish.
That would/will be ‘Crunch time’ as you allude.
How big would any rebellion be ?
Would there be straight abstentions or switching to other parties ?
Could the Conservatives even have their own ‘SDP’ moment ?
Cameron clearly thinks not, or that if any of the above do manifest themselves, they will ‘only’ be of manageable proportions.
We shall see.
I agree with other posters observations about Cameron’s reference to Civil Partnerships and the reaction it received in the hall.
He’s clearly Captain of the Ship and is entitled to plow the furrow he is choosing to. I still query the wisdom of deliberately antangonising most(I would argue)of his activists activists though.
Be in no doubt,that outside the incestuous world of Victoria St, things are stiring.
33 - you think the lib dems will be the largest party at the next election?
are you insane?
Our host is right to point out that govts lose elections, rather than oppositions win them.
The problem GB will have is that the present govt looks tired and washed-out. After 9 years, the best person to be Foreign Secretary is Margaret Beckett? Please. The labour benches are so thin on ability, they’ll look look even worse at minister level under GB. Their bright young hope is David Miliband. That’s a bit like thinking the Australians are worried whether Giles recovers from his hip injury…
So DC and his team will look like tomorrow’s men, not yesterday’s. A big plus.
But if there are many bye-elections, the tories are sure to do badly in most of them. They won’t look like GE ‘winners’. They will continue to be outflanked and outfought by the LDs. The tory top brass still seem to think its ‘only’ a bye-election, which will make ‘only’ one seat difference. Right in detail, quite wrong in the underlying message it sends. The tories won’t look well-organised, or like winners. Could DC turn that round? Possibly. Will he? No. And that’ll cost him hugely at the GE.
There is a momentum building for a change of Government. Unless Labour cleverly manage to change/renew themselves completely (a la Major in 1990-91) they will lose the next election.
Since vitually no-one seems to think that they will achieve this we are left to conclude that they will lose their majority in 2010.
The case for a hung parliament rests on the requirement mathematically for a seeming impossibly high swing in order for Cameron to enter No 10 with an overall majority.
Political parties are becoming ever more sophisticated in their management of campaigns - in reality a successful effort in the right target marginals could easily deliver him enough of them to take control and that is what I predict will happen.
Even though I know it’s hard for Lib Dem activists to accept the public really, really do not want a hung parliamant and won’t allow the Lib dems to avoid saying who they would back if one looks likely.
As Ming Campbell knows too well, as soon as he indicates a preference he is done for either way - say Labour and they will be doomed if the meed is ‘we want rid of Labour’ - and say ‘Conservatives’ and half their MP’s look vulnerable because we would say why vote Lib Dem to get Conservatives when you can support the real thing.
I would not offer £10 to win £10 but think the price will drop from 75-1. Labour and now the Tories, since Camerons speech yesterday, are potentially in serious trouble.
Marcus - generally agree with your post except:
“Even though I know it’s hard for Lib Dem activists to accept the public really, really do not want a hung parliamant”
BBC2 Politics programme quoted poll this week (Don’t know which one) which stated that was what people want!
It’s a real shame that the Tories can’t purge the nutters off to UKIP. It would be great to have a truely centre-right party - rather than one whose right wing extends into the far distance.
Not sure that it’s possible. Cameron is doing a very good job at revealing the full extent of how far removed from the public most people in the Tory party really are.
With the greatest respect to all those who have taken the time and trouble to post thoughtful, sensible replies - notably Bullseye (3) - the answer to the question posed in the headline is that the 2006 conference season means Jack Shit for the general election, for two main reasons: 1. It is still too far off, and as David Herdson says, a lot can happen in 3+ years either way, and 2. Because we still don’t know the identity of the person David Cameron will be up against.
If the next Labour leader turns out to be a disaster, and events conspire against the Government as they often do in politics, it is
by no means impossible that the Tories may achieve a 12pc swing. But is equally possible that, once rid of the nefarious Mr Blair, public attitudes to the Government could undergo a radical transformation, as they did in 1990 when John Major took over.
We can be sure of two things, however. 1. That Governments tend to lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, and 2. That it is by and large the party in power that has the ability to make the political weather. So the 2008/9/10 election is still, in my view, Labour’s to lose.
Who/what ever was keeping GBs price up on b/f has gone.
GB into 1.53
AJ/Reid both drifting strongly.
44. we can be sure of another thing - the lib dems won’t be the largest party at the next election!
For me the one thing that changed during the conference season that might effect the election was which party grabbed the headlines and set the agenda.
Up until the summer it was Cameron.
Because of the coup, the press remembered Labour existed, they had a good conference and the profiles were raised. Cameron’s speech contained so many reactions to what Blair had said a week before, it really confirmed for me that Labour successfully managed to rest the agenda back from the Tories.
The trouble for them will be that the novelty is wearing off. Cameron is less news worthy, but Labour is more so. Without that oxygen - Cameron will suffer. He will have to take greater risks, do more and more himself - as the party’s greatest asset.
Cameron may burn out or cock it up. Interesting times.
40/42 Marcus/kjh. The Matthew Paris take on the the Lib Dem/Hung parliament position has IMO appeal and merit :
A pox on both Tories/Labour who can neither be trusted alone to govern correctly with the Lib Dems acting as a brake on the more loony elements and policies in both parties.
What one does with the Lib Dem loonies is of course a matter for close discourse for some but death by claymore for me !!
45. Yes Jamie and I’ve stopped buying.
A glance at the matched and unmatched amounts suggests that the price will now tighten gradually until it gets down to about 1.45/1.47.
48. Yes - if one reads the posts from some of the Liber-Al Democrats on this site, the idea that they would ‘restrain extremism’ rapidly becomes risible.
Jonathan 47. Your comment “Cameron may burn out or cock it up” highlights the fact that Cameron has so far been generally over-rated by the media. Personally I didn’t think his speech yesterday was especially Prime Ministerial and his “let sunshine win the day!” comment at the weekend rivalled IDS turning up the volume for sheer risibility!
49. Hmm - to lay off or wait until spring for a bigger pay out.
re the discussion on whether people want a hung parliament or don’t the irony with our electoral system is that:
If they want it they may not get it
and
If they don’t want it they may get.
Great system for deciding government.
52. My intention has always been to lay off - but no rush. I’ll wait and see.
53. And yet, kjh, it is uncanny how regularly the electorate seems to get it right.
55 How do you know?
54. Alternatively someone is adding some at higher prices - maybe the game isn’t over.
55. I’ve voted in a lot of elections, kjh! (And lived with the consequences.)
Benedict
You are right- I do have some very bizarre prejudices. I really should have avoided the spat with seanT though last night- was always going to spiral down into personal insults (and by the way my Phd is very much work in progress and not acheived).
Regarding the days thread though the ball is still very much in Labour’s court for the next election. Why?
-the economy stupid
-that Brown is broadly viewed as competent
-the Labour succession will generate positive publicity
-that Brown will undoubtedly hit the ground running- he will unveil a policy platform to create a feeling of dynamism and change (after all Brown is a strategist)
-that Labour needs less votes to win more seats
-Labour still looks like a party that wants to stay in power
-that the British public are not particularly enthused by the Tories
-policywise I cannot see what the Tories can generate that is going to capture the public imagination anyhow
Because Brown is dour, a bit wierd, not particularly likeable and Scottish- all not important.
The current election odds are are much too weighted in the Tories favour, mainly I guess because Tories have been punting in hope rather than looking at the hard facts.
Jack why do you want to die by Claymore? Are you allowed to down a bottle of your favourite malt first.
60 Icarus. Any government with the more wide-eyed sandal munchers of the Lib Dems in tow would likely result in a self induced demise of the claymore variety. Though there’d be a damn fine party first !!
Bally Eric. He only said he thinks they have a one-in seventy chance!
Cameron is interesting. I have to say I have met many ‘Cameron’s’ in my professional life. He is an archetypal ad agency account director. Urbane and charming-always. Articulate-always. His job is to sell an idea or concept to his client. The best ones understand their brief completely and then recognize when their creatives and marketing people have produced the best solution to that brief- which they then can confidently sell to their client.
The client brief to the agency was obvious; A loyal but aging customer. Find new ones!
The agency brief; Look at more successful competitors and offer the same product but with added value!
Marketing solution 1st stage; Make the product look younger and brighter by featuring cost free feel good items
The danger
Tyson - I’d agree with you that Brown will unveil a new policy platform.
What is slightly weird is that no-one in the media seems to be pressing him on what it will contain.
Bearing in mind that his (almost certain) takeover is some months away - and far, far closer than the next GE. Compare with the pressure on Cameron to detail his policies - three to four years before the next GE.
I wonder what Brown’s policies will actually be - they’ll affect me far sooner than Cameron’s
Tyson 59. The other reason the odds are too much weighted in the Tories’ favour is that the polls underestimate Labour’s support. The reason for this is that people who might otherwise tell the pollsters they plan to vote Labour are telling them they don’t know, for the simple reason that they “don’t know” who the leader is going to be!
58. Made me laugh. Seriously though you don’t actually know what people wanted, you only saw the outcome of a skewed election process. In my life time twice the party with the most votes has lost. Umpteen polls suggest that people would vote LD ‘IF’ they stotod a chance of winning implying they vote differently. However many people vote LD/Tory/Lab to keep out LD/Tory/Lab rather than vote for what they really want so LD/Tory/Lab votes would go up and down by various amounts in different areas? Does anyone have any idea? Rarely do we get a party receiving 50% of the vote, but generally we have one party government.
I don’t think anyone has a real idea what would happen if we had a system where people voted for what they actually wanted. I think most people would accept that minority parties and independents would do better. And although the LD representation would go up under a fairer system I don’t think it would give them the boost that many people think as the tactical voting unwinds. However this is all guessing because nobody knows as it has not been done.
Re 59 tyson, you forgot to mention Labour infighting if Brown does get the PM’s job, and indeed if he does not.
Add to that the awkward squad who are growing in number, will be expecting a shift to the left. If the get it the Blairites will be up in arms, and if they don’t, they will be up in arms.
The party has been held together for the past few years soley on the basis Tony will be going soon and we can get back to Labour policies/ move the Blair project forward (depending on which side of the line you are on).
On top of that, you seem to forget that 3 years away from an election there is litle point in having detailed policy, it is positions and mood that count. The Conservatives are looking positive and forward looking.
On top of that the person who said to me last year “Your an intelegent chap Ben why do you vote tory” is no dissappointed by Labour on the enviroment and WILL vote CONSERVATIVE next time if their envormental policies look good. Fundamentaly he is the sort of Guardian reading voter who can make a difference in a swing seat (not that mine is a swing seat).
The DC slaters on here seem to have no concept of time.
GE = 2.5 years away (minimum) - Labour cant afford a spring election never mind a GE.
Can you grasp the concept that DC probably isn’t going to twiddle thumbs between now and then.
The next chance to vote is next May (for some of us) - 6 months away.
65. Well I’m glad I made you laugh, kjh!
It was a sweeping generalisation of course and I knew it but sometimes you have to resort to them and I hope you will excuse me.
I didn’t actually have voting systems in mind, much less fairness. I was thinking that I could recall only one occasion where the electorate palpably got it wrong in failing to back the right side when there was a compelling need for it to do so. I have in mind the Heath ‘Miners Strike’ election (and I confess I was one of those who failed to support him.)
On the other hand, I can quickly think of three important occasions (at least) when the electorate got it dead right - Mrs T’s first victory, Major v Kinnock and TB’s first win.
I hope that helps explain.
Btw, I have been a lifelong believer in PR although I am far from sure exactly quite how it would pan out in practice. (Not as good for the LDs as they seem to think, I suspect, altough nobody really knows.)
35. Peter, I do thing there is a little value in the hung parliament option, though probably not much. The odds imply about a 23% chance of either side winning a majority of 100+, which is way over the top - so there must be value elsewhere. The simple maths is this. For Labour to go from a majority of 25 to nil i.e. across one of the bands, they need to lose 13 seats to any other party. To go from Labour short by 1 to the Tories short by 1 (i.e. the hung parliament band), the Conservatives need to win about 80 seats - that makes the band broader than any of the others by a factor of about six, even before considering the political landscape.
I think the environmental emphasis could be laying up a lot of trouble for us, Benedict. What do you think?
I don’t believe for one moment that “Green” taxes will be popular (unless offset by compensating reductions in personal taxation); and as a former Hertsmere councillor, I know just how unpopular building on the Green Belt could be, particularly among the type of voter (Bushey is full of them) who votes Tory at national level, and Lib Dem at local level.
Roger - Is the brand they are trying to market the new shiney “dont call me President” Cameron or the old trusted (or not) Conservative one.
I think they are confused about which product they are promoting Cameron could attract the voters, but he does need a strong Conservative party behind him. People dont leave to join UKIP they just stop supporting you. Rubbishing Thatcher and praising Blair - cannot be what they want to hear!
As I asked at pre leadership election Cameron meeting “What if you fail to convince the Tories to change - will you join Nu Labour like your predecessor in Witney?” He got a bit ratty.
Benedict
The point I made about Labour wanting to stay in government is the most important. They have recently looked into the abyss, skirmished with in fighting and moved away. It is very unlikely they are going to crumble from the inside- possible, but unlikely. In all probability they will rally around Gordon once elected.
So without an imploding Labour Party, Cameron’s Tories have to actively win the next election through engagement with the public. They have to win hearts and minds and move people from supporting a Labour government (which has broadly been competent, made people a little wealthier, and invested more in public services) to supporting them.
Seriously Benedict if Labour do not commit political hari kari a la Tories of the 90’s can you see the Tories winning the next election??
RE 70 Sean, if it is all sack cloth and ashes and punishing people who drive cars etc., it will go badly for us, but I suspect that they are thinking about that.
We need a policy based on a bit of penalising bad behaviour but giving tax breaks to renewables in various different ways to make it pay to be green.
I will be wrting some articles on the subject soon for my blog.
On the green belt issue I have not seen the exact proposals. The best way of dealing with housing issues is to improve the economy in areas with low house prices and or empty housing by building much better transport links to them.
You can see why there is nearly always money to be made by betting on politics and why bookies usually steer clear when Coral’s offer odds such as these.
The idea that the Tories are shorter odds than Labour to have a majority is ridiculous and shows a lack of analysis by the researchers at Coral’s.
It is almost impossible for the Tories to win an overall majority next time (just as it was for Labour in 1992) because they are so far off the winning post. Remember Labour won 30 more seats in 1987 than the Tories did in 2005.
If you can be bothered to tie your money up for three years fill your boots on a narrow Labour majority.
Re 72 Tyson, yes I can. To some extent they are part way through commiting political hari kari. I also think that the wing of the party (we all have them) that would rather be right than in power is getting stronger and more vocal.
74.”It is almost impossible for the Tories to win an overall majority next time (just as it was for Labour in 1992)”
what was the swing needed for Labour to win an overall majority in 1992?
70. Sean, I was delighted with the way he emphasised the fact that we had tough choices to make on the enviroment. It is not a subject that we can ignore and it needs debating and action taken now!
I have had two phonecalls today from people who were impressed with David Cameron’s speech yesterday which is a 1st in the 20years I have been a conservative supporter!
The odd thing is that PB.com posters and political journalists/columnists agreed that Tony Blair made a good speech last week and looking at the comments here and in the newspapers David Cameron did not. But the view from those students on ITN last night was interesting and I experienced something similar today so what happened?
sean fear- on listening to the speech I actually thought that the environmental section was the only part where Cameron displayed passion. If you see an Inconenient Truth you really do understand what is at stake, and why politicians must take a lead.
But I accept your point- to make meaningful, unilateral green policy proposals is potentially political suicide. This is why a bi-partisan approach is so important, to avoid any single party taking a political hit.
If Cameron can influence the political agenda onto the environment that may be his legacy (even without getting into power)
8.0% swing needed in 1992 Andrea
Yes I think the public will not be averse to a hung parliament. We have seen around Europe this year indecisive election results in several countries. The fact is that politics is drifting currently. The post 9/11 and post Iraq world, combined with discredited incumbent govts means that electorates are undecided about where they want to go. They do not want more Blair-style conviction politics, because they have not seen what they want yet. I dont think the LDs will be squeezed badly if a a hung parliament looks likely, I think the electorate would welcome a period of consensus minority government. They are used to it in local Councils now…
Benedict 75. “I also think that the wing of the party (we all have them) that would rather be right than in power is getting stronger and more vocal.” It may be getting more vocal, but it is not getting stronger. Did you hear the cheer Prescott got when he condemned that point of view as “dangerous nonsense” usually spoken by people who “would not feel the full savagery of a Tory Govenrment?” (ie the metrosexual tendency.)
78. The elephant in the room on the environment is population growth, which never enters the equation. Boost the available nutriants for any species - food, adequate water, environment - and its population will increase. As soon as we started the mass consumption of resources - coal, oil, iron etc. - the human population increased in like fashion as their deployment could produce necessities more efficiently. Take those resources without a replacement and the world (and UK) population levels are unsustainable. Sooner or later the resources will be taken away, either through choice in pre-emptive action, or because they have run out or those remaining are inaccessible. Whether the population level can then be sustained depends on whether we have developed sufficient alternative technologies.
69. David, your comment moved me to calculate the percentages properly:
con lab
% %
hung 45.45454545
0-25 13.33333333 12.5 percentage for 100
126-150 3.846153846 2.941176471 - 22.18271924
151+ 3.846153846 2.941176471
94.69197469 41.99041155 = 136.6823862 (overround 36%)
The overround is abnormally large at 36.6% but you can’t blame Corals for that in a long term political market, especially when, as you rightly say, majorites of 100+ can be dismissed as fanciful. But even if you take them out, you still have an overround of 14% , so to get value you have to be able to identify with considerable confidence other options which can be safely excluded. I would tentatively suggest excluding all majorities of 50+ which would make the maths right but at this remove from a GE I think that would be a brave call.
I’m still going wait.
Over to you, David!
Ouch..! That table didn’t come out at all clearly, but I think you can see what I’m saying. I’ll try it again though.
81. Can someone please tell me what a ‘metrosexual’ is?
RE 81 Paul, there are always people who recognise splits are dangerous, and will cheer when someone speaks against them. The rebels have smelt blood I am afraid, and once on the scent will not give up, no matter how unpopular they are amoungst some colleagues.
con lab
% %
hung 45.45454545
0-25 13.33333333 12.5
26-50 9.090909091 8.333333333 - 114.499667
51-75 7.692307692 6.666666667
76-100 6.666666667 4.761904762
101-125 4.761904762 3.846153846
126-150 3.846153846 2.941176471 - 22.18271924
150+ 3.846153846 2.941176471
94.69197469 41.99041155 136.6823862
Hmmm…no better. What to do?
70.”I don’t believe for one moment that “Green” taxes will be popular (unless offset by compensating reductions in personal taxation); and as a former Hertsmere councillor, I know just how unpopular building on the Green Belt could be, particularly among the type of voter (Bushey is full of them) who votes Tory at national level, and Lib Dem at local level.”
David Cameron pointed out the tough choices facing us on both those issues. You are going to have to accept more houses on greenbelt area’s just as I am going to have to accept windmills on the hills near my home. And it is going to happen who ever wins the next election so we need to tackle difficult decisions head on rather than play opportunistic politics.
O/T. He seems a thoroughly unpleasant fellow this Alka Seltzer chap. Here is in today’s Spectator on John McCain’s visit to the Tory conference:
‘Some, this writer included, had urged McCain to cancel his visit after Cameron used the anniversary of the slaughter of the innocents on 11 September to tell his party he planned to distance it from America. He also favours a Middle East policy that is more ‘even-handed’, code for less favourable to Israel and more favourable to the Palestinians — no surprise coming from the member representing Douglas Hurd’s old constituency and world view.’
Two sentences - two lies. Isn’t Seltzer a buddy of Gordon Brown? Sadly, if Brown surrounds himself with characters like this, this may be a portent of a nastiness to come.
77 and 82. I think we need to accept that, now that the industrial revolution has taken place, and now that the World’s population is at 6 bn, our activities are bound to have an adverse impact on the environment.
The “tough choices” seem to me to be no more effectual in reversing that than spraying vinegar on oneself to keep off bubonic plague. I think it certainly makes sense to ear-mark money to cope with the effects of climate change, but there certainly seems no way to reverse it that I can see.
Following on, the “tough choices” seem to me to be both politically unpopular (potentially) and not actually serving very useful purposes.
The problem for green taxes is the usual one. For them to be a success in changing peoples behavior they raise no money. So people will be priced out of flying and driving without any tax reduction. Not exactly a vote winner.
82. Hey, David, you are a neo-Malthusian! I thought the species was extinct!
I salute you as a member of another near-extinct species.
I am a Leyton Orient supporter.
Apart from the headbangers at Ukip I can’t see that anyone could be happy at DC’s speech. The membership secretary at Ukip is probably this morning getting hundreds of enquiries from ex-Tory activists and supporters.
92 Sean, I could not agree less. There are plenty of ways to produce energy without fossil fuels, to keep growth going, we just need to encourage them more and discourage use of fossil fuels a bit more as well.
79. Many thanks.
85. It’s a “an urban male of any sexual orientation who has a strong aesthetic sense and spends a great amount of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle”.
The term was first used by Mark Simpson in a piece in the Independent in 1994.
I suppose the best example of a metrosexual is David Beckham.
85. A Tory who has sex on the Paris underground.
85 Camerlot “Can someone please tell me what a ‘metrosexual’ is?”
A person of either gender attracted to French sexual practices on the Tube.
Or
A cosmopolitan individual comfortable sexually with Andrea (male Italian) or Andrea (female English) or both at the same time (Scottish !!).
The media talks about Cameron following “the Blair play book” which is presumably a phrase they heard on the American news channels since the term “play book” means nothing in Britain.
Is Cameron really copying Bush, or rather Rove and Luntz? Is he talking about issues not merely to reposition the Tory brand but to do so without the need for policies or action, ever?
Cameron is concerned about the environment, doesn’t mind civil partnerships, uses the NHS, and would like to see peace in the Middle East. All issues which have previously alienated voters from the Conservative Party.
But will there ever be policies announced or is the plan to woo these groups back with warm and comforting words? What’s next? Compassionate Conservatism?
Meanwhile Gordon has become a football manager:
http://icscotland.icnetwork.co.uk/news/scottish/tm_headline=chancellor-gets-player-in-his-team&method=full&objectid=17875806&siteid=50141-name_page.html
Roger, that is a common misconception about “sin” taxes.
Think about it: you simply tax the most damaging behaviour. What about when that behaviour stops? You simply tax the most damaging behaviour. What about when that behaviour stops? You simply tax the most damaging behaviour. What about when that behaviour stops? You simply tax the most damaging behaviour….
Do you get it yet? There is ALWAYS a most damaging behaviour. We humans are great at finding new ways to damage the environment and behave badly - So sin taxes will always have plenty of targets…
83. Yes, I should really have calculated the whole market rather than just adding up the odds for the top three bands. Apologies if it mislead.
I don’t really see this - at this point - as being anything other than a fun market. Without the possibility to lay off, with the most likely scenario at little better than evens, a payout maybe 3 years in the future, a lot of water to flow under the bridge and smallish bands offered, I wouldn’t want to put much on anything at this stage. If I did, I’d look at a small amount on Tory 0-25 if only to have the fun of collecting winnings at well outside evens. Probably it won’t come off, but ten or fifteen pounds wouldn’t be missed in that time frame and with Corals being a high street bookie, collecting real cash is possible - always more enjoyable than seeing it posted electronically.
99, Nick Herbert delivered the best line of the conference, when he said one Tory activist had expressed pleasure that his ward was being transferred from Horsham to Arundel on the ground that “I’d rather be represented by a muscular homosexual than a mincing metrosexual.”
82,96: The problem is it needs to happen very, very soon if its not too late already. The lack of leadership from politicians is palpable and reckless.
Most of the science coming out now basically reckons that Greenland is a goner whatever we do and that is bad for some of the Antarctic Ice Sheets, perhaps even the whole of the WAIS.
That means we are staring at a 5-7 m rise in sea level by 2100 at the latest. If you believe that the current political system is capable of managing a population movement in and around nuclear armed countries of the order of 10^8 people you have more faith than I.
This raises the real woolly mammoth — WAR. Do you really think that countries going to prioritise CO2 ommissions over that?
I’m thinking of putting forward solar-powered tanks as a concept as one last throw of the dice…
104. Is Herbert muscular? Voters need to know…so a shirtless pic is required on the election literature….
Benedict
You didn’t answer- if Labour do not implode, and start to exert some discipline again can the Tories win? You are still relying on Labour infighting for a Tory victory which I cannot see happening.
The reason why Labour have to exert discipline is that there is no plan B. Labour has shifted to being a party of government- that it now its binding core belief- to be in power and to stay in power.
Without government it is hard to see what the point of the Labour party would be. This is the same for the Tories and their dilemma. I really struggle to see how the Tories can present an alternative that will enthuse the public. Why because there is no alternative? Labour are now so mainstream that to present real alternatives would be a massive risk.
I work in public services at a strategic level, and I think I understand the management and delivery of these large bodies as well as most. I cannot honestly think of different policies for health, education, local government, criminal justice that will make a positive difference- apart from more resources which will always be the case.
I met Letwin when he was shadow home secretary to talk about criminal justice policy- he was very complimentary about the reforms. I worked with Sir Sandy Bruce Lockard in Kent- a Tory, but New Labour through and through in terms of his vision and work in Kent.
Most public bodies are actually pretty well run. I was at the heart of the recent spending crisis in one of the PCT’s- this wasn’t the result of government incompetence, but simply the government telling the commissioners that they are going to have to start balancing the books. Next year we are going to face the same thing because the job wasn’t completed this year.
Blair has neutralised politics in this country to such an extent that to go off piste is potentially too risky.
94. I hadn’t thought of it quite like that (I wouldn’t align myself with Malthus politically - a Tory of the really old school). The relationship between population and resources is probably more of a two-way process than he believed, but it does work both ways and if the resources decline then I’d expect population to decline as well unless technology can make up the gap. If it can’t, then there will be serious social unrest, which brings us back to Malthus again.
“The problem for green taxes is the usual one. For them to be a success in changing peoples behavior they raise no money.”
You don’t change behaviour 100%. If you want to stop something, you ban it. If you want to reduce something, then tax it. Some people find alternatives, others carry on, and pay the tax.
ChrisD @ 77 — if the media and public have different views of Blair’s and Cameron’s speeches, it is probably for reasons mentioned in previous threads.
Blair is a better actor (and, it is said, took direction from Kevin Spacey on the delivery of his speech). The media see the whole performance and are suitably impressed. The public see a couple of sentences on the news and are unmoved.
Cameron’s performance was average so the media are unimpressed but most people do not watch the conference live. Cameron speaks in soundbites which are edited into news reports watched by the wider public.
There is one other leading politician who speaks in soundbites: Gordon Brown. Probably by the next election someone will have taught him not to gabble them, and a little training goes a long way; witness Margaret Thatcher.
104 Sean. Odd things happening to some Sussex Tories …. if Horsham is represented by a “mincing metrosexual” and Arundel by a “muscular homosexual”, one might only wonder where that leaves the member for Sussex Mid ….a “humpty-dumpty hetrosexual” perhaps.
RE 107, Tyson, it is not a question of whether Labour implodes cmpletely. It is simering at the moment.
I also do think the public are getting a bit fed up in some ways with Labour, so yes it is possible for the Conservatives to win, or almost win without the Labour infighting getting any worse.
However there may be clouds on the economic horizon, and if that happens Labour are done for.
68 Peter, It was your humour I was laughing at (And lived with the consequences!) not your opinions which I always respect.
Of course in the example you gave where the electorate got it wrong by not backing Heath is one of the examples I gave of the skewed system, because Heath won in the number of votes cast didn’t he, but not seats - so you could argue a 100% track record byu your definition. I guess you could also argue the electorate were remise in not making it decisive and allowing the electoral system to cock it up.
On another topic are you willing to give guidance on this betting lark off line. I haven’t really a clue and I’m pretty conservative with a small ‘c’. However I have spotted in the past where the market has sometimes got it completely wrong on political betting and once missed a huge opportunity through lack of get up and go to do anything about it. I’m likely to place rare bets only when I beleive the odds are wildly out.
To continue my marketing analogy from post 62.
…When Guinness changed their agency from JWT to ABM some years ago the new agency decided to go loud! They introduced the all dancing ‘Guinnless campaign’. No more subtle plays on the theme ‘Black’. No more Tukons.
So successful was the new campaign that they increased sales by nearly 20%. Unfortunately within a year they had not only lost this 20% of new drinkers but actually lost some of their existing ones. They had quite simply swapped ‘Personality’for tinsel and glitter. the Guinness drinker didn’t identify with the ‘young Guinnless’. They preferred the gentle reassurance of the ‘Black’ and those attracted to New Guinness couldn’t stand the taste.
The result? ABM lost the account and the new campaign went back to the slow pour……..
A thought…nothing more.
96. Re. renewable energy I think there is a growing ‘traditionalist Tory’ case for its expansion too, connected with the need for energy security. The escalating conflict with militant Islam means there is an urgent need to reduce our reliance on energy supplies from the Middle East. Taking a more global perspective, pulling the financial rug out from under Iran et al. by developing real alternatives to oil use could do wonders for the stability of the world. So policy wise I would favour big incentives for alternative energy uses within the UK, and stepped up investment in research into hydrogen/wave etc.
The great GB hoover up continues
GB 1.52
AJ 10.5
JR 8.4
D Milliband 30
H Benn 40
Re 115, Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is an energy store/carrier.
See:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/09/hydrogen-will-save-us-from-global.html
Apart from that I agree with you. We have lots of land being set aside, why not grow bio fuels on some, etc and so on.
RE 116, Jamie, I can see a lay opportunity comming up for all those who bought at 1.58.
108 - Support for your arguement can be found in a polemic here.
His argument is that Malthus was correct but oil got in the way. When the oil runs out, Malthus kicks in again.
Sheep rustling and support for the King o’er the Water will become realities for those of us in the Highlands while London will revert to some distopian Mad Max hell. Or something like that.
Jack’s Jacobite Party might be worth a a long punt as winnners of the 2075 Scottish Elections but any winnings will be worthless as we will be in an age of barter again. Etc.
115. PM, I agree with your comments.
117: Slightly harsh on the blog! You miss the key point that hydrogen is probably crucial if we are going to ever address the intermittancy problem of renewables. If it can be produced renewably at sufficent “macro”-localised points the saving of the 1/3 of our power we current burn away in overcoming electrical resitance in power lines will set us well on the way to reducing our CO2 ommissions.
Dinky’s little new gaffe…
from BBC website
Meanwhile .. and talking as I was of Lib Dem loonies, take a bow Bournemouth Lib Dems, who have clearly lost their sense of proportion and humour amongst the latest Focus leaflets !!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2389029,00.html
118. On the other hand could be the last time GB is above 1.5 for a few months/ever…
119 Stephen B. 2075 be damned !!!!!!!!!!
We intend to take power on the tercentenary of the 1715 rising.
123 - I suspect that Bournemouth Lib Dems will be returning to opposition next May.
123. His last sentence (the first part of it) left me a bit perplexed. I thought being pleasant to them and recognizing that they’ve as much right to be a councillor than anyone else was something implicit.
126 Sean. Perhaps they’ll be losing two by two !!
RE 121 jamie2, No I do not think I am being that harsh. I said it was an energy store, and yes it does even out renewables if used as that. The issue with hydrogen is that most things are pourus to it, so it leaks, albeit slowley.
There are I suspect better alternatives. For example, if you take solar energy, store it as heat, you can then use the heat at your leisure.
That said you do raise a very key point re micro generation near the point of use. Apart from removing transmission losses which is fantatstic it makes individual plant much easier for terrorists to hit, but oh so much less important if they do. The system becomes much more robust in other words.