Is Tony still the magic maker?
December 23rd, 2006
Should Gordon be worried about the eulogies to Blair
Tucked away in the detail of yesterday’s YouGov poll were the responses to the question “Who would make the best Prime Minister”? When the options were Blair, Cameron and Campbell 79% of Labour voters said Tony with just one per cent naming Cameron
But when the same question was asked with Gordon Brown substituted for Tony Blair the proportion of Labour voters going for Brown dropped to 71% with 6% naming Cameron.
The same effect was seen with the forced choice question - “would you prefer to see after the next election, a Conservative Government led by Cameron or a Labour Government led by Brown/Blair”. A total of 90% Labour supporters went with the Blair-led option but this number dropped to 79% when Brown’s name was substituted.
For in spite of everything there appears to be a significant group of voters who went with Labour because of Tony and might fall away when he goes.
All of this could be magnified in the coming months as we get nearer to the Blair departure. For we are already starting to see the eulogies to Tony Blair - one of which, by Matthew Parris, appears in the Times this morning. Under the heading “I’m no fan of the man, but I do love Blair’s Britain” Parris goes on to record the good things that have happened to British society in the past nine years.
Parris writes: “..And there has been, as gradual as it is signal and (I hope) permanent, a steady reduction in the level of general censoriousness in public life. In its way this is every bit as health-giving as a reduction in the volume of noxious gases in the atmosphere, and it is clear to me that Mr Blair himself has helped to lead it. Whether or not he “does” God (as Alastair Campbell put it), this Prime Minister does not do preaching, moralising or finger-wagging. The news media, even the red-top tabloids, have followed suit. Look at the sympathetic way the victims of the Suffolk murders have been treated by the press and broadcasters in recent weeks…..In democratic politics it is no small thing to catch a changed wind early, to let it fill your sails, and to help steer the spirit of a nation into different waters. This Mr Blair has done with a deftness, with a sensitivity to national mood that has been unequalled by any British politician I can remember. And the result has been good. That at least is a legacy of which he should be proud.”
For those of us who like predicting General Elections I fear that 2007 is going to be a frustrating year. How will Labour be viewed when the man who made it OK for many in the middle classes to support the party finally steps down? Will the dramatic changes that a likely Brown government invigorate the party?
I find this hard to call. The polling numbers don’t look good for Gordon but he will surely be perceived very differently when it is Sarah and him posing on the staircase of Number 10 and not the Blairs?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
No, Gordon should not be worried: quite the opposite. Reminding the public why they liked Labour, and how things have improved since the other lot left office, can only help. The beauty of it is that the negatives, principally Iraq and civil liberties, are personally associated with Tony so for Gordon and the party it is win-win: they benefit from the positives, and from the departure of the negatives.
Conservative activists may think it unfair that Brown escapes blame for Iraq but this is where we are and they should move on.
2 - Thus far, the indications from Gordon is that he is going to be even tougher on civil liberties. Whether this is a vote loser is another matter…
Whether Gordon will escape ‘blame’ for Iraq - well that is purely speculation.
Brown has been well to the rear on ID cards, and has already escaped the blame for Iraq.
A more interesting question, though perhaps not in the best of taste at Christmas, is what will be the effect of the eulogies once Mrs Thatcher succumbs to the Downing Street bus driver?
4 - You think he is going to cancel ID cards? Somewhat unlikely at this stage. Saying “he has already escaped the blame for Iraq” is a bit irrelevant. Obviously the voters don’t hold him personally responsible. What matters is whether all the voters who deserted Labour over the issue will come back once Blair goes. Which is still at this stage speculation.
If Brown had not cut off their funding, we might already have ID cards.
7 - I must have missed that one. When did he do that?
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/23/260_mcgrathwarne,0.jpg
Oops please ignore that link!
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1838315,00.html
Alex @ 10: Well, we shall see. If Brown wanted ID cards he’d not only fund them, he’d announce the funding several times over.
That article suggests (a) Brown does want to drop ID cards, but (b) he hopes instead to use existing private sector databases. If true, we can surmise his objection to ID cards is on practical and/or costs grounds rather than civil liberties ones.
In any case I make it a point never to believe alleged leaks from Brown or the Treasury.
With all the Blair eulogies, his record can be spun either way and I’m sure it will be to death over 2007!
Interesting that the Brown bounce might be a ‘Brown trounce,’ particularly given the reported number of Lib Dems flocking to support a Brown-led party. Not sure I can see it myself.
Anyway, a Merry Christmas to everyone here - thank you for your insight, humour and time over the past year, and hoping for more of the same next time.
1. “Gordon should not be worried: quite the opposite. Reminding the public why they liked Labour, and how things have improved since the other lot left office, can only help. ”
LOL!
In Mad House Britain, John must be one of the Lunatics running the Asylum.
Hillarious!
Blair’s record, as with that of any long serving prime minister, is mixed. He’s obviously sustained personal and party popularity over a decade and more, which is political terms is no small achievement. That he still continues to do so is quite remarkable given his involvement with Iraq and cash for ermine (which still has a long way to go, whatever Roger says).
The interesting thing about today’s topic - and one that John L is perhaps side-stepping - is that Blair is outpolling Brown. If these figures are to be believed, and there is no reason not to other than their being answers to hypothetical questions, far from there being a ‘Brown bounce’ at the changeover, there will be a drop in support for Labour. It is possible that Labour could pick some support back from the Lib Dems or minor parties that went walkabout over Iraq, but my sense is that the sort of people that did that have enough other things to complain to this government about - restrictions on civil liberties for example - not to come swarming back immediately.
One of Blair’s great early successes was to create a feeling around New Labour of freshness and friendliness. It is what David Cameron is trying to do now for the Conservatives, with a fair degree of success. It’s this image-making stuff that is so important in today’s politics, and Gordon is a long way from being a natural at it. When he takes over, I’d expect a flurry of new policies and plans which will interest and intrigue the politically aware and pass the vast majority of the country by.
The succession is looking ever more like a British version of that from Clinton to Gore in 2000.
Interesting that are still some leftish ex-Conservatives who give Blair the benefit of the doubt. Presumably, they do feel much the same way as Matthew Parris.
Personally, I think that only a very narrow section of the population would believe that Britain has become a nicer, kinder place over the past 10 years, but undoubtedly they do exist.
No he ruddy well isn’t
There were 1.6 million unemployed when labour came to power and there now close to 1 million unemployed. The government have recruited more than 0.6 million public servants. More alarmingly, they have bankrolled more than 4 million new private sector jobs with tax payers money (government funded projects, consultants and PFI partnerships). Many of these ’soft’ private sector jobs are unsustainable in the long term. The real private sector is being reduced to a rotting shell
[15] Sean, that’s a very significant post IMHO. If you had an argument against the point that Matthew Parris was making, I’m sure you’d've shared it with us …
[13] Excellent post as ever from David Herdson - let’s hope that Cameron doesn’t turn out to be the British version of Bush jr
I agree that a Labour equivalent of the “cones hotline” - although doubtless not quite so banal - will achieve little or nothing.
Talking of the Bush dynasty, there is of course the counter-argument of the 1988 U.S. Presidential where the GOP used the slogan “one more for the Gipper” - whilst ex-Prime Ministers have rarely taken an active (or useful) role in British General elections, Blair may prove to be different in this as in so many other ways. If, as seems possible, next time we vote not only for MPs but also a tranche of Lords, Blair may stand for that, with the reversion of the Woolsack. (And has Chérie ruled herself out of standing for the Commons?) Sounds fantastic, I know, but politics is so often stranger than fiction …
If Gordon is remembered for anything, I suspect it will for reducing the credibility of govenment statistics to those of USSR grain harvest reports. This reminds me of a Soviet production target for lorries was specified in terms of weight. The crafty production workers managed to exceed their target by fitting slabs of concrete to the chassis
14 David H - You are truly the standard-bearer of the Reasonable Right! If I agree with you any more, I shall end up voting Conservative!!
I think you are absolutely right about the anticipated Brown bounce. It may never happen. Support may even fall. We just don’t know and I wouldn’t bet on it, either way.
You are kinder to Blair than I would be. I’ve long been of the opinion he has been, on the whole, a good PM who made a terrible error on Iraq. Latterly, I have come to regard the Iraq episode as so catastrophic that I would not want him to continue beyond the proposed May departure date. He seems to me to have lost the plot in a more general sense and the increasing authoritarian and moralising tendency is a worry.
DC on the other hand seems to me to bring a very welcome change in Conservative attitudes. He has a tough task ahead of him but only the ideoligically hidebound could fail to wish him well.
GB may not score high on the ‘touchy feely’ scale but he is a formidable politician. I am sure that sensible and realistic Tories like yourself will not underestimate him but I suspect that many contributors here do. It is not always the fairest face that wins the race.
Finally, may I wish you personally a very Happy Christmas and successful 2007. There are many excellent posters here but few with a more reasoned and balanced approach. I look forward to reading more of the same next year.
18 That’s an old joke, Ad Hoc. When I first heard it, it related the story of a nail factory which hit its target, stipulated in weight, by producing a solitary nail three miles long.
20. Any tips re Chepstow on the 27th.
re 18. ad hoc stop gordon brown campaign
Please could you change this name. We do not now accept names which are political slogans and several that you used to see here have now been amended.
Many thanks.
21 No tips for the 27th but a loud whisper from Victor Dartnall’s stable for today at Bangor 2.25 “Norton Sapphire”
Unfortunately there is no such thing as a racing cert !
The big question to me is whether GB will continue and enhance Labour’s strict authoritarian programme. Nothing in what GB has done so far suggest he will suddenly come over all liberal. If he continues down this path I think it makes sense for him and for Labour.
If GB continues to play the strong man, compared to DC’s “soft” noises off, sooner or later the Conservatives will face the dilemma of whether to shore up their right flank (you only have to look at the reception David Davis’ recent comments had in the right wing press to see that this was the red meat they have been yearning for).
It strikes me that we could see some rather intersting churn, depending upon what voters see as the most important measure. If civil liberties are that measure, then Gordon and Dave won;t be the recipients.
20. Yes, that’s the version I heard first. In the following 5-year plan, the target was revised to measure by quantity so the factory produced miniature tin-tacks.
19. Thanks, that’s very kind of you. I could have been a lot harsher on Blair for his record, but politics is as much about perception as hard achievement and the facts are that Blair is still seen in a favourable light by plenty of people however ill-deserved that might be.
Merry Christmas to you too, Peter, and I took your advice on the Welsh National (the first time I’ve bet on horse racing, as I have a rule where I don’t generally bet on stuff I know little about - but you’ve got a good tipping record on here, so that counts).
I enjoy reading Matthew Parris and greatly respect his judgment when speaking on Conservative matters. He was very quick to identify Michael Howard as the unity candidate when Hague stepped down and also I think spotted Cameron quite early. But when he speaks about Nu Labour he loses all objectivity and is quite mischievously manipulative in his opinions. He has been anti TB for a long while and has been trying to talk up an anyone but GB alternative for some time too.
So I am surprised to see this tribute to Blair’s Britain. It probably reflects a general recognition as the year concludes that we are obviously moving into the end game of TBs premiership.
As a Brown supporter, both politically and speculatively, my Xmas message to TB would be:
“You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
So much has ben said on PBC but 95% of it misses the target. Familiarisation plays a massive part in politics. In the case of GE’s we see when the masses go out to vote, instead of the protesters at mid term locals, we get a swingback. Casual voters for whom names, image, everday affairs (economy stupid) determine their voting intentions.
People are familiar with Labour (and growth rates of around 3%), familiar with Blair, but not yet Brown and are ’somewhat familair’ with Cameron. There is a significant/sizeable minority of people who could name the prime minister, maybe at a push name the Tory leader and they ‘might of heard of someone’ called Gordon Brown. So you would expect ALWAYS the response to be Blair ahead of Brown and Cameron ahead of Brown.
The real question is the 11% differential between Blair and Brown or the extra 5% Cameron has of of Labour Blairite voters that Brown loses. To me the difference can clearly be put down as the ‘name/recognition factor’. And a 11% might be a lower than an expected difference between PM and possible future Labour Leader. In effect we are seeing margins that quid pro quo represent media footprint. When there is a Brown story it is not the lead item, Cameron’s as OppLead, is generally the lead item.
The fact that Brown - at this stage - is polling just 11% behind Blair could be the type of number that once Primer Minsiter, projects his and Labour’s popularity back up near the 40% mark.
And I would add for polling error point of view. ICM and Populus are using seeing 46% of people say they voted Labour in 2005 when only 36% did. That is an erroneous margin of 10%. Very sizeable.
Pollsters use the very same argument I have put above, that people recognise the popular vote, or recognised party or politician because of the footprint that has in the their lives through the TV and newsprint etc… I would argue this 10% error is mainly down to the fact that people don’t have a huge depth of politics.
People are not familiar wih Brown? Where have they (and you) been for the last ten years?!?
The important point is there in the lead article (which many are judiciously ignoring), when Thatcher was deposed polls suggested a big bounce when she left and, lo and behold, there was. Now polls are suggesting a ‘trounce’, how on earth can anyone think that people don’t really mean it? They mean it and it’s precisely because they *do* know Brown.
25. Can you share the tip at all. Thanks.
26. Do you mean IDS rather than Hague. Why are you surprised Re Parris, few speak ill of their departed foes. Ah yes Cromwell, nice speech but I doubt as much as Brown hates Blair he will bring the Household Cavalry into Parliament to disperse it.
BTW Is the Waller book out. Thanks.
Firstly I’d like to join IA and PtP in saying what an excellent and consistant poster David Herdson is. If I could write as interestingly and as concisely as he does I’m sure I wouldn’t contribute. I’d just mull over my own thoughts! A nice contrast to those posters with the ever changing usernames who can be bore in four lines.
Another eulogy to Blair appeared in yesterday’s Guardian and they do seem to be building at quite a rate. Matthew P though is a hypocrite. He pretends to be apolitical but his hatred for Labour is in every line of every article. Like many Tories he believes Labour have interfered with the natural order of Tory government and he resents it as much as any Telegraph leader writer. He hates Blair with a passion and has done from the beginning. Don’t be fooled. Underneath his soft liberal exterior he’s a very bitter Tory indeed. That he now is mellowing is only because Blair is no longer a threat.
As for Britain being a kinder gentler place well of course it is. It’s almost unrecognizable. The Suffolk girls are just one example but anyone with a memory will remember the days of demonizing single mothers, Section 28, monkey chants at football matches and just a general nasty prejudiced society very much echoing or being reflected by the prejudices of previous Conservative Governments.
21 Hi Punter.
I posted my Christmas tip yesterday but if you missed it, I’ve gone for Lou de Moulin Mas in the Welsh National. I’ve had £75 ew at 10-1 - a middling to strong bet for me. I might top it up later but I suggest you take the 8-1 currently on offer from Paddy Power and one or two others. It will definitely be shorter on the day.
Kauto Star should of course win the King George on Boxing day but at big odds on he’s a punt only for the needy and greedy. Just watch and enjoy.
Oh, and you might just take a small interest in Mighty Fella in the 12th race (3.55pm) at Walthamstow on Boxing Day. Yours truly is one of the owners and although it’s a strong field, the trainer tells us our dog is fit and ready to rumble!
Good luck!
23 Thanks Prince.
I need little encouragement to back Victor Dartnall horses. When he gets a good one, he certainly knows how to get it fit. I see Here’s Johnny won recently, so the yard is clearly in good nick. The odds are a bit cramped but I have taken an interest anyway.
Incidentally, one of my earliest racecourse memories is watching Prince Monolulu strutting his stuff at Epsom. Did you ever see him? Terrible tipster, but great character.
Punter. Yes quite right it was IDS not Hague. Bland Tory leaders were coming and going at a rate of knots at that time. Hence my mistake.
Despite fear of opprobium from other posters here, I am glad to receive support from Roger for my views on Matthew Parris.
Is it just ICM and YouGov out. I thought everyone Populus, CR etc were all out. That said I only take the first two seriously and even then YouGov seems to have a problem measuring Lib Dem support accurately.
33. Thanks, State of Play was an excellent tip, but you were slightly off last week I think. But never mind you help us all make monery overall. Thanks again.
BTW Is tressage about.
Tell us something we don’t know. Whilst Brown may steady the Labour core and bring some of left drifters who stayed at home back in theres every possibility the floating voters in the cenmtre who are so critical in deciding elections are showing strong signs of shifting to the Tories.
Assuming theres no dramatics up until election time, and the Tories actually do tell us what they intend to do in government, I think the polls are not sufficiently indicating where the floating voters are going to do come their day in the polling booths. I suspect there will be a huge swing to the Tories amongst such types.
You have a hint for Chepstow PtP? I’ll have to go searching through previous posts.
30. Peter’s just mentioned it again at post 33 - Lou de Moulin Mas in the Welsh National.
32. Roger - thanks to you too. Gosh, if I keep getting comments like this I might have to print them off and submit them for my annual review at work
. Life would be dull if we all agreed all the time (and would thoroughly mess the betting markets as well), and so thanks to you for putting a point of view I don’t often agree with but doing it with consistency and without fear. (And on that topic, monkey chants were a relic of the 70s and well on the way out by 1997). The same’s true of Snowflake if she’s around. Keep posting though; I’d hate to think of you just mulling things over!
37. Actually GB maybe a double whammy, his more Old Labour image will see the Blaitite Tories go home, while his attempt to outflank Cameron on security 90 days etc negates what was widely thought to have been his great USP, by ensuring the 2005 Lab-Lib switchers stay there. Can he avoid this, yes. Will he, lety us wait.
Ah Lou de Moulin Mas…..I’ll take a wee nosey at that.
I’m just praying for a Kauto star win, his odds will further cramp up for Cheltenham and he’s next to no chance in March.
32 - Matthew Parris doesn’t “pretend to be apolitical”. He is a Conservative (I think he is still even a member). He is an independent commentator, which is a different thing, but still wants as a default a Conservative govt and sees himself as a Conservative. (of course there is a bit of a problem within the Conservative Party at the moment that since Thatcher and the ‘betrayal of her legacy’ they can’t agree on what “Conservatism” or “Conservative principles” are)
LOL! :_) Yes, Yokel, let’s hope he wins by the length of Sunbury High St - we can shuffle straight over to Betfair and lay him like crazy for the Gold Cup!
41 - similar to Portillo, really.
Tressage is indeed about…… but just doing a bit of lurking.
As you say a certain element of middle England has been encouraged or enabled to vote Labour because of Blair. But others have fallen away bit by bit in 2001 and particularly in 2005.
Largely over two things. Privatisation and marketisation, which would likely have resulted under other regimes, and Iraq which may not have done under alternative LP leaders but would probably have done on Tory government. Brown seemed to have little enthusiasm for that adventure.
If you believe that some voters may fall away if Brown succeeds Blair it is necessary to also ask the question: “how many will be willing and able to return to the fold?”
I have never believed that Blair was the only one capable of leading Labour to victory, that he had to go as far as he did to the right, that he had to remain in charge and hold out against redestribution quite so much. Three myths if you ask me!
45. We’ll certainly see one of the myths tested as Blair won’t lead Labour to another victory; from a partisan point of view, I can only hope for the other two to be tested as well.
It’s a fair question you ask about how many supporters Brown would bring to the party, but the evidence from recent polls is that the balance is still negative for Labour after a switchover. Of course, that might change once we see him as PM, but I doubt it.
45 - good point on privatisation. We are yet to see for sure, but i think that one of Cameron’s major strengths is that he seems to have realised that promising to sell off anything and everything is not a fast track to electoral success. Not that his politically engaged right wing are very happy about that.
If Blair is indeed so popular, did Labour make a strategic mistake during the 2005 GE by air-brushing him out of their campaign literature? Could they have had a 100+ majority?
44. Can I refer you to 117 on the Brown backer jitter thread. I replied to your point and want to see what you have to say. Thanks.
45 & 46. It’s not just about the numbers you bring, its where you bring them from. Whilst Brown may bring the stay at home (or protest via the LD’s)left back in substantive numbers the chances are that that, logically most will be in Labour safe areas anyway.
In short, every person has an equal vote but some votes are more equal than others………..
Blair’s Britain (Nanny State)
Daily Mail news link
That’s it I’ve had enough of this country I cannot stand anymore of this bullsh*t!
Where am I going?
Any f**king where
In case the link didn’t work
wasting resources after he was issued with a caution for picking wild berries.
Keen jam-maker Ian Blayney, 67, found himself in a sticky situation after police tracked him down and accused him of theft after a fruit-picking trip in September.
Mr Blayney, from Aylburton Common, near Lydney in the Forest-of-Dean, got into bother while spending a relaxing day strolling down the Macclesfield canal in Cheshire.
The retired engineer, had paused briefly to pick some rowan berries from a bush so his wife Bette could make jelly to put on their Christmas dinner.
But as he filled a bag with the bright red berries, unsuspecting Mr Blayney was accosted by a caretaker from a nearby building who said the fruit couldn’t be picked as it was growing on private land.
Following a row with the caretaker, Mr Blayney, his wife and two friends left the scene.
But the caretaker reported Mr Blayney to the police, who tracked him down using CCTV images of his car.
Two months later he was questioned by officers and issued with a caution for theft.
Speaking from his home today Mr Blayney said the episode had been a complete waste of police time. He said: “I couldn’t quite believe it when the police came knocking at my door.
“I did initially think it was a joke but nevertheless I had to go to the station where I was questioned about the theft of rowan berries.
“I admitted it straightaway, because I didn’t want any more time or resources wasted on this episode.
“I was only picking a few berries, I didn’t even know I had done anything wrong, but the way I was treated I felt like a serious criminal.
“Surely the police have better things to do than waste hours and hours of time on something as trivial as this.”
Mr Blayney said he was warned about his future conduct.
He said: “If I do it again I suppose I might be in danger of getting an Asbo.
“My wife and I have already been given the nickname Blayney and Clyde by our neighbours for this.
“I will have to go out under the cover of darkness wearing a balaclava next time I want some berries.”
The Blayneys made eight jars of jelly but intend to give them away as Christmas presents to family members.
But they said that one jar of the jelly, which they described as “delicious” would be saved to smear over their turkey on Christmas Day.
A Gloucestershire Police spokesman said: “We can confirm a 67-year-old man from Lydney was cautioned under the Theft Act on November 13.
“We were acting as agents for Cheshire Constabulary in this matter and our only involvement was bringing about its disposal at their request.
“When a crime is committed we are duty bound to take action, however trivial the matter may appear.”
52, It improves the crime detection & clear up rates. Why else you think they do it?
Are you allowed to reject a police caution and demand your day in court?
Its just a tactic, they who are of a Labour hating disposition, will now once Blair has gone, and not a threat, start to eulogize.
They will start to push their hatred onto Brown, in a seamless manoeuvre.
They will state Blair was held back by Brown on domestic policy, and the money was wasted through lack of reform.
They will argue a three time winner, was forced out, not by the electorate but a cabal around Brown.
The venom will seep out,daily and has been for months, in readiness for the handover.
52. “I will have to go out under the cover of darkness wearing a balaclava next time I want some berries. The Blayneys made eight jars of jelly but intend to give them away as Christmas presents to family members” - looks like there could be prosecutions pending for disposal of stolen goods and intent to commit theft as well.
55. I think you’ll find venom is part of British politics…so your point is?
57,
As I said Yokel, the praise for Blair will come at the end from some strange places, not meant, but to hurt Brown.
Punter – My apologies for not having answered your post 117 on the “Brown Backer” thread. IIRC, the reason was that we seemed to be more or less in agreement, so I let it go.
I think that at the next general election, we shall see a large number of two-party contests, where the third party is ripe for squeezing. The third party is just as likely to be Tory or Labour as it is Lib Dem. I think that third-place Tories are more likely to vote Lib Dem than Labour, while third-place Labour are also more likely to vote Lib Dem than Tory. In a Tory-Labour marginal, as we saw on a recent thread, Lib Dems under pressure go both ways, so there is no very clear advantage to either party. Much will depend, I suspect, on personal factors.
Meanwhile, it is in the interests of both the Tories and Labour to try to polarize the situation as a contest between themselves. I don´t think this will work. As Bullseye has frequently pointed out, the number of electors going elsewhere has increased constantly election after election. And if people are less “tribal” than previously, and more thoughtful, from my point of view, that is to be welcomed.
So I think there may well possibly be a “Tory tsunami” in their safe seats. But a Tory earthquake where they are currently third. And an incognito in Labour-held marginals.
So when you say that you can see both Lib Dems and Tories being squeezed in their place seats, I quite agree – and Labour too. Likewise when you predict a record number of Tory lost deposits.
On the question of a Parliament with no overall majority, I am not convinced that the comparison with 1974 is valid. For one thing, the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party is now very much larger – approximately five times the size. And for another, in many local authorities, not to mention the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, Lib Dems have gained considerable experience of power-sharing. They can see the potential dangers and negotiate to avoid them.
So when our PBC Tory friends start spinning their line (which has worked for them in the past) of getting journalists to pressurise the current Lib Dem leader into declaring whether he will back Labour or the Tories, even before the election results are known, that is a false question for lazy journalists.
The question surely has to be directed towards the Tory and Labour leaders: how much of the Lib Dem manifesto are you prepared to introduce? On current form, Cameron might be prepared to introduce very much more than Labour would, though his Tory backbenchers would be very much less willing. That question is – frankly - unanswerable, until the Tories have produced some policies and defined what they really stand for.
I hope this has – belatedly – given you an answer to the questions that you posed. Where not, I plead the Nick Palmer defence!
Standard practice Dez.
60.
I agree, however there was no venom against Major when he took over from Thatcher on the mainland(maybe there was in parts of N I, due to any PM in post).
Just mild curisoty,over promoted civil servant, and some attempts at seeing him as a figure of fun(underpants).
59. It’s not an entirely unfair question. After all, people voting tactically - and you expect there to be many of them - need to know that their tactical vote has some value. For example, if a Tory voter in a Lab/LD seat wants Labour out and is thinking of voting Lib Dem, there’s no point if the effect would be to simply change the relative strength within a Lib-Lab coalition. The voter might as well stick with the Conservatives. The same thing works in reverse in a Tory/Lib Dem seat for Labour voters. That won’t stop the leaders from refusing to answer the question (because Brown and Cameron don’t want to give the impression that they’re expecting to fail to gain a majority and because Ming will want to maintain maximum scope for manouvre), but it does justify the question being asked.
You’re right about the differences with the 1974 parliament - one of the main problems there was that the Liberals couldn’t give either main party a majority. That won’t be the case if the Lib Dems win at least 40 seats, which is likely. A better comparison might be 1923 (I don’t expect the Lib Dems to get 150ish seats as Asquith did, but it was a parliament with three big groups, any two of whom could have formed a majority).
I think, David (62), that Liberal Democats have to define it as an unfair question…. The Tory and Labour leaders ought not to get off as lightly as they have done in the past.
The key question for them is: What parts of the Lib Dem programme are they prepared to implement?
You go on to say:
“For example, if a Tory voter in a Lab/LD seat wants Labour out and is thinking of voting Lib Dem, there’s no point if the effect would be to simply change the relative strength within a Lib-Lab coalition.”
Well, if that means the cancellation of ID cards, the introduction of environmental taxes on airlines, the decentralisation of power to local authorities - all Lib Dem policies and all espoused by Cameron (though not necessarily by all the Tory MPs) - then I think your hypothetical soft Tory voter might well be tempted to vote Lib Dem, in order to get a better government than having Labour in sole charge.
63. I’d be amazed if either Cameron or Brown does that though, apart from identifying those parts of the manifestos that overlap. Beyond that, they’d have to be talking against their own manifestos, which would land them in all sorts of trouble and could set off dissenting voices within their own parties who might want to offer their own suggestions as to what could be ditched/must be kept.
I do agree with your point in the last paragraph in principle, it’s just that I couldn’t practically see any senior Labour person in that instance talking about specific policies that might be on the table; an interviewer would be doing well to even get them to admit that a coalition might be necessary or possible.
17, Well, as it happens, I do disagree with Matthew Parris’s analysis.
I think that Britain is a more tense and unhappy society than 10 years ago. I don’t think that the Government is solely, or even largely, to blame for this. Trends and policies that have been pursued by all governments over past 50 years are now bearing fruit.
“Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” - the most stupid party in that story is not the police, who were just responding by the book to a valid complaint made by a member of the public, but the caretaker - a mindless robot who could obviously have seen that there was no harm in picking the berries, but decided instead to prove his manhood and go on a little power trip.
Huge amounts of fruit and berries go wasted on private property, today, in a world where people are starving and the climate being wrecked by agricultural transport. It should be considered a moral duty on landowners to ensure that the full potential of land they occupy (to the exclusion of others) is used to its maximum possibility. One way to do this is to allow berries to be picked where it is safe.
That the caretaker wanted to be mean, ignorant, arrogant, and waste police time and tax-payers money on top, just makes him an utter fool - and worthy of public ridicule. Dont blame the police for just doing their job when a trespassing complaint has been made.
28. “And I would add for polling error point of view. ICM and Populus are using seeing 46% of people say they voted Labour in 2005 when only 36% did. That is an erroneous margin of 10%. Very sizeable”
I would say that the 10% are Labour people who either stayed at home in 2005 or voted LibDem and are embarassed about it.
I myself voted LibDem in 2005, but it’s not something I’m proud of. I did it with pain and regretted it almost as soon as I left the ballot box. I was a mass of anxiety in case I’d let in a Tory and waited up till about 4am to get my constituency result before I went to bed. And I was in a safe Labour seat. I don’t know how I’d have felt if I’d let in a Tory - may have been tempted to wipe the whole incident from my memory and pretend it hadn’t happened.
But that of course is the reality for some Labour voters who switched - they let in a Tory. The question is, if they are so embarassed and regretful about it, are they going to vote that way again, or will they switch back to Labour. The pollsters are assuming they will stick to LibDem. I’m not sure.
Re roger’s and stjohn’s points about Matthew Parris - I agree. He hates Blair, and is only praising him now in order to damn Brown, whom he also hates. And his article is confused. He says he likes New Labour Britain, credits Blair with it, but at the end of the article seems to change his mind “By no means has he created the new mood but he has caught the mood”. Really? All those liberalising laws would have happened by themselves would they? He also neatly sidesteps the central point about New Labour, which is that it is a team effort always.
I’d also like to add my voice to the eulogies to David Herdson: I think he’s one of the shrewdest, most realistic Tory posters here.
Re the point someone made about ID cards: the Home Office was due to begin asking for tenders from IT contractors in June 06. This got postponed to Sept 06, and then got postponed indefinitely: a combination of lack of funding from the Treasury and John Reid deciding that the Home Office had more important things to concentrate on. Neither Reid nor Brown is going to humiliate Blair in public over ID cards. But if Brown were really keen, he wouldn’t delay the funding, the only probably reasona behind the delay is that he either doesn’t want to start spending money on something he doesn’t intend to carry out as PM or he’s decided that the govt can’t afford it and simply doesn’t want to waste money on it full stop. This is speculation of course: we shall find out in due course.
53 “When a crime is committed we are duty bound to take action, however trivial the matter may appear.”
That simply isn’t true. Very frequently the police decide that a crime is of a rather inconsequential nature, or would take disproportionate resources to tackle. For example, no police force in the country arrests everyone who they see being drunk and incapable - they only tackle those who are judged to be making a serious nuisance of themselves
68
Hang him. He probably pinched some bread from the local bakers too. Let the hoodies out - lock up the old folk. Save on pensions
59. Interesting. I would say though that I think you understimate the Tories in Lab-Con marginal seats. I presume also you mean a Tory uptick in seats where they are third. Only if the Local Lib Dems are grossly negligent, or can’t be bothered due to a 50%+ Labour majority will it I feel. The Conservatives outperformed in terms of seat to vote share last time and I expect them to do so again even as they should have a sharp nationwide increase in their share of the vote. I also think you overlook the Lib Dem tactical split. In recent times it has overwhelmingly been in favour of Labour, so a large scake reduction even if Labour retain a narrow edge should deliver disroportionate gains for them. As for 1974 I don’t know but even if you can hold the line it is possible a collapsing Labour Party could deliver a Tory majority at the second time of asking anyway.
I think we do agree though that those expecting a Lib Dem collapse are likely to be mistaken, at aleast the first time. Only a series of bad decisions in a Hung Parliament might do that. Indeed if the Lib Dems do anything other than vote issue by issue and no formal deals they will be taking great risks I feel.
Manchester Withington is it the biggest Lib Dem swing in a winning seat of all time outside By-Elections isn’t it. I feel if the Lib Dems wish to turn a few heads they need to analyse this inside out. There are scores of seats with largeish Tory votes but always safe Labour where the Lib Dems are now the challengers, bringing these Conservatives over will be key as Leech proved. If they don’t then Labour MPs will like Phill Woolas likely find a way to cling on. Could it be that the Lib Dem/Clegg charge on the “libertarian” agenda ie issues likely to appeal to such tactical Tories is as much about smart politics as it is about principles.
I’m inclined to have a small flutter that if the Lib Dems can do this, that while shipping a few seats to the Tories Ming could take the Lib Democrats into the 70-80 seats ranges. I think Labour are being streched and the fewer Councillors they have the more vulnerable they become as the anti-Labour vote consolidates around the nearest Challenger in the individual seat, just as it once did for the Tories.
I hope we can carry this on. I find this a very interesting topic.
Happy Christmas to all BTW.
70. You always tend to concentrate a lot on tactical vote from third party…it’s important when the 2 top parties (in that seat) are running neck and neck.
However direct switchers from the party holding the seat are important too and in seats like Withington type majorities, they’re probably much more important. With just the 4.8% they took from the tories, the Libdems would have not gone very far in MW, it’s the switchers they got from Lab that put them in contention. Then the squeeze to the tories allowed them to edge Labour.
So tactical vote can help to make to go from 2% behind to 2% head, but you’ve to reach that point first.
You mention the “Lib Dem/Clegg charge on the “libertarian” agenda” as a good way to squeeze the tories….and I agree that it is. But is it a good way to get Labour switchers?
And talking about LD gains from Labour, frankly I think they’ve plenty of opportunities without looking at 30%+ majorities.
Andrea, you ask “You mention the “Lib Dem/Clegg charge on the “libertarian” agenda” as a good way to squeeze the tories….and I agree that it is. But is it a good way to get Labour switchers?”
I would think the answer is “yes”.
The traditional (unthinking, uncritical) Labour voter stuck with Labour because it was a class-based party. Thanks to Blair, it has lost its class base. They may still stick with Labour, but I think many of them feel let down by the Blair Government. Whether Brown can get them back into the Labour fold, I do not know.
On the other hand, most Labour voters were and are thoughtful people. They identify with the traditional Liberal-Labour causes: universal suffrage, fair and transparent voting, cooperation, freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to strike and so on. These are under attack from the increasingly authoritarian Blair-Brown-Labour Government.
So I think that a Lib Dem call to defend the libertarian agenda and the rights that our forefathers made sacrifices to gain, could well find a response among despairing Labour voters as well.
72. Yes I quite agree, but without that 4.8% they would nott have won. BTW do you mean 4.8% of the Total vote or 4.8% of the previous Tory vote. Mr Smithson said it was third I think. I do concentrate on the tactical, but as you pointout neither that or direct switching will likely do it on its own. The only sort of Labour switchers from Labour who are likely to stay with Labour purely or largely due to the Lib Dem “Libertarian” agenda or Labour’s “authoritarian” agenda I think would never have switched Lib Dem anyway and would if anything have gone to the BNP or some other far right outfit, so I don’t think that costs them anything, and it will of course help to squeeze GMW as well as Tactical Tories I think.
Punter (71): “…..Ming could take the Lib Democrats into the 70-80 seats ranges. I think Labour are being streched and the fewer Councillors they have the more vulnerable they become as the anti-Labour vote consolidates around the nearest Challenger in the individual seat, just as it once did for the Tories.”
It´s a long time since I have seen on PBC such upbeat comments about Lib Dem prospects. You have made my Christmas!
75. Well it is Christmas and the most optimistic scenario I can see. However conversely as thinks stand the most pessimistic scenario I can see for the Lib Dems a is floor of about fifty seats, which most Lib Dems in decades gone by would have had fantasies about I reckon, so that would be Okish.
I think LDs will be net gainers, losing to Tories but taking more from Labour.
74.”Yes I quite agree, but without that 4.8% they would nott have won. BTW do you mean 4.8% of the Total vote or 4.8% of the previous Tory vote. Mr Smithson said it was third I think”
I meant that they went donw from 15.3% to 10.5% which is 1/3 in the end.
On the Lab/LD seats. One question can be “how much can Labour go further down?”.
In 1997 the tories had big % losses in some Con/LD setas that allowed the Libdems to take previously safish seats. In some of those seats the tories were starting from a pretty high position (their 1992 performance being just a couple of points lower than the early 80’s high points), so they probably had more to lose.
Now in some Lab/LD seats, Labour has already lost many votes in the 1997-2005 period, so they’re starting from a pretty low point compared to their highest years. So maybe (I stress maybe..it’s just a suggestion) they have less voters to lose (cause they’ve already lost them).
If it’s true, I think the % Labour is starting from can become important. If Labour is starting from 50/51%, losing just 4% will still leave them in high 40% which probably means a Labour hold.
However if they start from low 40%, they can easily fall to high 30% even losing not many voters. In that case they can lose the seat applying Punter’s theory: the Libdems took some votes away from tories and others and they can pass Labour.
Now rant finished…what I wrote is probably rubbish. But it’s Christmas and so you can’t point it out in a too harsh way!
MPs should write “Dear Santa” letters too..they would probably be somethine like this:
Brown: please, let me become PM next year
Maude: a black le*bian woman selected in a safe seat
Jim Knight: Ed Matts again
James Gray: winning the reselection ballot
Simon Hughes: a woman to marry (and who wants to marry him)
Clare Short: a hung parliament
77. I concur.
78. Yes, you are right. Hope you’re ranting doesn’t mean you’re annoyed because I agree with you. If I omit something I don’t necessarily diagree with it. On % can’t turnout completely upset the applecart. The most diehard never vote anything but Labour will always be more likely not to vote, than other diehard party supporters. These people are usually roused to get out by their local Labour Councillor, and if they are massacred next year this could seriously impact their GOTV on these people I think possibly. Happy Christmas though.
79. No, I’m not annoyed. I’m just getting back my good mood.
77 - How many seats are you ‘expecting’ Labour to end up with?
76,I would concur,even as a Labour voter,that there will be a big block of LibDem MPs post the next general election;living in Bournemouth East,one hears a lot about the work of Anneete Brookes(Mid Dorset and Poole North )-she seems assidioud,hard working as probably are many Lib Dem MPs-perhaps that’s part of the reason they are hard to dislodge once established?
I dont think that Manchester Withington is reproduceable “at will” by the Lib Dems - it was a confluence of circumstances. (If it was reproduceable at will by the Lib Dems it would be the beginning of the end for Labour as a party). However, there are now plenty of seats like Withington was - where LDs are 30% behind - where they will get, say, 8% swings next GE, which will put them in range of a likely win the GE afterwards.
Barring a Rik W fantasy style LD meltdown at the next GE, this means there could be a whole swathe of LD-Lab marginals in the inner cities at the election after next. If the next GE produces a hung parliament, then the one after could be closer than we expect. This of course is the great gold hope, and Labour planners must have seen it as a possibility on their radar…
Sorry,’assidious ‘ was meant on line 2 of 82-I have’nt been on the sauce-yet!
83,I would be confident of a Labour re-take of Withington-well,reasonably..
I don’t think Withington should be considered typical of anything. It is a very “Guardian reading” constituency and the reason it went Lib Dem was 100% down to the Iraq war.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the loss of the 4% Tory vote didn’t have more to do with revulsion at the leadership of Michael Howard than any tactical vote for the Lib Dems.
My guess is that it’ll go back to Labour next time particulartly as the students will probably resume their policy of abstention but I might well be wrong. The new MP is massaging the constituency like crazy!!
The last line of 86 could raise eyebrows,if mis-construed
83. I generally agree on the first part.
In terms of LD gains from Labour, I think the great majority will come from seats with less than 20% majorities (there’re a good amount of them). Then there will probably be a 30% majority falling, but it’s one, not 30 of them! (or Labour will be left will be left with just the Easington!)
A few points…”This of course is the great gold hope, and Labour planners must have seen it as a possibility on their radar”…a gold hope for who?
“where they will get, say, 8% swings next GE, which will put them in range of a likely win the GE afterwards”….I think that at one point Labour can start to go up again! (after they’re thrown out from government)
Great “gold” (i.e. Liberal) hope!
Re: Labour going back up in 2 elections… that’s what the Liberals thought in the 1920’s…
82. I believe Annette Brooks wins a rep as a great local MP by….spending all her time in the constituency and never going to the Commons!
Parris’s article is most peculiar, and can be explained several ways.
1. He’s mischievously praising Blair to confuse and undermine Labour as a whole, as they seek to ditch Blair for Brown.
2. He’s seeing the world through a gay prism - Britain has certainly become a kinder, gentler place under Labour - if you are a toffeewombler like Matthew P.
3. He genuinely believes Britain is a nicer in a fundamental way for all of us.
My bet is that a complex combination of all three is to blame…
FWIW I do think Parris has a point. As its Chrimbo I’ll be nice, too. Some of the things Labour has done have made the country a little more civil - the tabloids are slightly less savage, racism is now unacceptable in polite company, etc.
But these are fairly minor changes. As far as poverty goes there are just as many homeless people outside my flat as there were under Major, possibly more. I see no change there. New hospitals have been built but the queues seem the same.
The one major good thing that Blair has done is to stabilise the economy and provide consistent growth - that is very creditable. And important. But its been done partly through a huge influx of cheap-labour immigrants which has certainly left the country less gentle and tolerant than it was, and much more tense about foreign cultures etc.
And of course all this “nicer, gentler” dreck is to ignore the massive case of Iraq. I wonder if the Iraqis think Blair’s Britain is a nicer, gentler place after we invaded them on a false pretext and contributed to the deaths of half a million of them?
How kind and gentle is that? To kill half a freaking million people? Yes, that’s very “kind and gentle”.
Moreover, Blair’s and Labour’s actions in promoting multiculturalism and mass immigration - long beyond the point when it was obvious to anyone with a rudimentary brain stem that these were storing up problems for the future, belies his claim to have created a kinder, gentler Britain. Add that to the Iraq blowback and the future for the UK seems a lot less kind and a lot less gentle than we’d like.
Finally, under Blair the far right has achieved more votes than ever before in British history. How kind and f***ing gentle is that?
So, sorry, no Matthew. I’d really like to agree with you, and you have a tiny point, but on the whole you are talking drivel.
That said, it is Christmas, and it’s nice to be optimistic. Soon the girning fool Blair will be gone, sooner than later Labour will follow him down the toilet of history, and the country - this great country - will survive and prosper as she always has done.
Hooray! and Merry Christmas to all.
89- I think it’s a bit hard to predict it now, because we don’t know what it can happen during a hung parliament.
90.”82. I believe Annette Brooks wins a rep as a great local MP by….spending all her time in the constituency and never going to the Commons! ”
well, she had a 76% division attendance record during the 2001-2005 Parliament. In this Parliament, she attended 82.5% of divisions.
Andrea,I never fail to be FLABBERGASTED at your ability to muster political facts,figures-it is truly awesome!! Merry Christmas,one and all!!
Roger 86. We are both from Manchester Withington and know it well. In 1962 I was elected Vice-Chairman of Withington Young Socialists - my first political office.
It is very like Cambridge in its make-up with thousands of academics as well as students amongst its electorate - and these are groups who have shown themselves ready to vote tactically on much greater scales than in normal seats. Labour have yet to show that it can win back seats where the Lib Dems are the incumbent.
My guess is that there will be a further squeezing of the Tory vote and the LD majority will increase.
The graceless way the incumbent Labour MP dealt with his defeat in May 2005 has not helped him. It was pathetic and an insult to the voters. Lib Dem hold by at least 2,000 votes.
94. Patrick. Thanks. Happy Christmas to you too!
93. Actually in this Parliament there’re around 100 MPs who attended less than 60% of Commons divisions.
In some cases, it’s understable (ministers, frontbenchers + a couple of MPs who had some health problems), but some others seem to have few excuses….
What percentage of the Withington electorate is students? Because don’t forget they will virtually ALL be different people in 2009. The reaction of the defeated Labour MP will hardly be an issue for them (if for most people).
95. They would do well to watch out in Gorton if GK steps down n’all. Re MW Did he not put the Chap’s mobile number out in public and invite all and sundry with a problem to phone him. As for the Lab MP doubt he cares, is he not a Peer of the realm now. Would not be surprised at a lost Tory deposit there next time at all.
97. Alex, according to the 2001 census, around 19% were students in the old Withington (there aren’t many boundary changes…so the % will be similar)
Don’t want to freak anybody out - but check this report:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/london_braces_f.html
Jeepers! Avoid those trains, people! Stay indoors, drink too much, eat fourteen mince pies. In other words, do what you always do.
Have a good one.
“I think LDs will be net gainers, losing to Tories but taking more from Labour.”
That is kind of you, Commentator (77) - at least the first part of it, up to the comma.
I am not so sure about the losses to the Tories. The worse Labour does - and it is doing pretty badly just at present - the less likely previously Labour voters are to stick with it, and more likely to vote tactically to keep the Tories out. So the scenario, just at present, is highly encouraging for the Lib Dems.
Far more crucial, though, is whether the Government will permit the Tories to win seats by throwing money at them, well above the individual constituency spending limits, as they did last time. Without that, there would probably have been 80 Lib Dem seats this time round, and on into the 120 -150 range next time….
100 - I wouldn’t be surprised if Blair’s latest plan to avoid a terrorist attack over Christmas was to ban Christmas. If in doubt, legislate against something, whatever the effect on our liberties.
It’s funny that the only manifesto commitment in 1997 in relation to “legislating to prevent” something was in relation to academic fees. And that’s something they ended up introducing, not banning!
101 - it’s tricky this. There are LD / Con marginals where there is still a reasonable Labour vote. This is squeezable. It is quite possible that in some seats both LD and Tory votes go up, and the seat changes hands either way.
102. It slightly troubles me that these seemingly well-informed reports - that al Qaeda are targetting mass transit in London over Christmas - are not being released to the UK public. Instead, we have to learn the reports from a US newsblog, even though the info ultimately comes from Britain.
OK, the info may be suspect, the whole thing could be a hoax, a bit of white noise on the jihadist websites, but surely we should be told this stuff anyway: so we can make up our own minds?
Instead we just get vague threats of possible attacks somewhere in the UK from Ian Blair and Reid etc. Whereas the real intelligence seems to be much more specific.
Hm. I’m driving this festive period, anyhow.
Steady on Tressage have you started Christmas early. If you are anywhere outside 50-80 seats I will be very very surprised. I think you are very optimistic if you think you will sustain no losses to the Tories, as their vote rises. True it will help in places like Eastleigh with a laege Labour vote to squeeze but in places like Romsey next door and even more so in others the Labour vote has already been ruthlessly repressed. No one is predicting Lib Dem meltdown only a small trade of seats with the Lib Dems ending up slightly on the loss rather than the proft side of the ledger. The Tories have had more experience of fighting Lib Dems, Labour have not. That is why I cannot see Labour removing a single Lib Dem incumbent MP themselves next time, and being very vulnerable to Withington type squeezes on Conservative votes by Lib Dem candidates in Lab-Lib seats as MBoy points out.
103.”It is quite possible that in some seats both LD and Tory votes go up, and the seat changes hands either way”
It happened in Taunton and Guildford last time. In Taunton the tories went up by 0.6%, but the Libdems went up by 2% and gained the seat back.
In Guildord, the LDs went up by 0.5%, but the tories went up by 2.4%.
Ok, I understand that the growth of the loser party was minimal, but it always was a growth.
Another interesting (at leas for me) type of result is when Labour went down, LD stayed unchanged and the tories went up. Like in Maidenhead. Labout went down by 6.2%, the Libdems went down 0.1% and Theresa May went up by 5.8%
What happened? Lab voters switched to LD and LD to Con? Or Lab voters directly switched to Theresa May? Maybe both?
105.”The Tories have had more experience of fighting Lib Dems, Labour have not”
They can have got some experiences in fighting them at council level.
IMO some CLPs have learnt* how to fight them, others are totally clueless. It’ll probably reflect on the results.
*
The Conservatives are running 4-5% up in the polls. It’s completely fanciful, surely, to think that the LibDems could avoid losses against this sort of a rise, especially as they seem to be running in parallel 4-5% down? You have to invent some extremely implausible scenarios in terms of irregular distribution of votes to cover up vote shifts on this scale.
107. Perhaps more experience of fighting and removing incumbent hardworking Lib Dem MPs viz Newbury. yes I know there was Leicester South but the Lib Dem MP wasn’t particularly great IIRC. It took the Tories many years to deverlop specialist Lib Dem fighting skills, it may well take Labour the same. Hence no Labour Lib Dem MP incumbent removal I wouldthink.
101. Tressage. Up to the 120-150 range next time round…
You have to be joking!!! You do make me laugh. More like 30-40.
Anyway have a nice Christmas and I hope when reality does dawn on you, it is not too shocking.
I think a lot depends on local activity, Alex (108). My scenario is that each constituency is ring-fenced (which is not in the least implausible) to avoid Lib Dem losses and maximise Lib Dem gains.
As a contrasting scenario, I see the Tory strategy as quite the opposite: focusing on a Presidential-type candidate and talking up National Uniform Swings and all that.
I have no idea how it will work out in practice - but I don´t think one is necessarily any more fanciful than the other.
Punter (105) - I only looked at the cooking sherry….. Are you suggesting that that was enough?
Andrea (106) - What happened in Maidenhead? The Tories recognised that it was under threat, and started throwing money at it.
The question now is in two parts: one, will the Labour Government allow them to continue to win over individually targetted voters with a supposedly “national” campaign in this way? And will they have enough money to win new seats as well as defend the ones they currently hold?
109.”Hence no Labour Lib Dem MP incumbent removal I wouldthink.”
In the 1997 landslide they unseated Liz Lynne.
No DDC (110) - you are wilfully misinterpreting me yet again.
What I said was that, if the Tories had not been allowed to throw money at individual electors in individual seats (without it counting against the constituency total), then the Lib Dems would have done far better last time, and better still next time.
It is what is known as an impossible condition. You Tories got away with murder in 2005.
Happy Chrismas.
108 - quite possible actually. Last time in terms of national share there was a swing Tory to LD, but the Tories made net gains from the LDs. The converse could happen just as easily, though is less likely.
Two things are key - targetting and turnout.
Last time round, I think the results in Newbury and Taunton were wholly predictable. It would be interesting to predict the most likely Tory gain from LD next time (Romsey most likely) and a LD gain from Tory (I would go for Guildford).
113. I wouldn’t say that winning the most votes in England yet suffering a Labour Government is ‘getting away with murder’.
114. “Last time round, I think the results in Newbury and Taunton were wholly predictable.”
I seem to recall that some Libdems were surprised that it was pretty close in Taunton in the end.
“It would be interesting to predict the most likely Tory gain from LD next time (Romsey most likely)”
Hereford
112. Well Ok but exception proves rule I think unless you’re expecting a 1997 stule reprise.
114. Millionaires row G on a rising Tory national vote. Must be likelier candidates than that surely don’t you think.
117. “unless you’re expecting a 1997 stule reprise. ”
no and in my original comment I had already (in my mind) ruled out gains and I was thinking of defences.
115 The Conservatives did not win most votes in England Darren , they polled 35.7% only just over 1 vote in 3 .
118. Did you Ok. Certainly on gains I think we agree v unlikely even one by Lab from Liberal Democrats.
118. In the end I think that we agree on LD gains from Lab too (just that we disagree on which seats in particular)
114 - What happened in 2005 is nothing like on the same scale to what is being suggested. I also think there were very specific circumstances in 2005 which it is not realistic to see recurring, especially this time in the LibDems favour.
I think the Lib Dems are in danger of finding themselves squeezed both ways next time if (as I hope and expect) the Conservatives fight the election on a theme of ‘Vote Conservative to get rid of Labour’. Labour will presumably counter with ‘Vote Labour to stop the Tories’ and leave the Lib Dems high and dry.
We shall have to wait and see of course, but I think this is as plausible a scenario as any of the others mentioned to this point.
222. Alex, you clearly don’t frequent enough gyms to have a full political picture of the situation on the ground. yes, the tories are 5% up, but their increase in concentrate in the Rhondd