Predicting 2007: Labour
December 30th, 2006
What will be the size of the “Brown Bounce“?
A key question in our Predicting 2007 competition, to be published tomorrow, will be on the effect of a new Labour leader. What will be the increase in the average of Populus/ICM/YouGov surveys of a new person taking over. Here the change in the PBC Polling Average in the first month is what we are seeking. Also what will Labour’s position be by the same measure two months afterwards?
Another of the questions will be “who will be Prime Minister on Christmas Day 2007?.” On the face of it this is such a certainty that to encourage those who do not simply write “Brown” there will be a special bonus of quadruple points to those who name someone other than the Chancellor who get it right.
For perfectly credible answers could be Tony Blair, David Cameron or one of the Labour alternatives such as David Miliband or John Reid.
On the same there another question will be to give the precise date of Blair’s last day as PM.
Other questions will be “how many candidates for leader will there be?” and who will get the Deputy role?
There will also be questions on Labour performance in the May elections. What will be the number of losses/gains in the Scottish and Welsh parliament elections and in the local council elections on the same day.
We do not know if there will be any Westminster by elections but if there are what will be the average change compared with the General Election in Labour’s vote share?
The thread listing all the questions and where you should put your predictions will be published on Sunday. This is a normal comments thread.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Quick suggestion - after a post is held in moderation, wouldn’t it be better to add it to the end of the thread. Currently it puts the post references out of sync when it finally appears.
just a thought…
I have no clue as to Labour council losses but it will be interesting to see Sean’s prediction.
“We do not know if there will be any Westminster by elections but if there are what will be the average change compared with the General Election in Labour’s vote share?”
A prediction competition or a clairvoyancy competition?
Will one of the minor parties gain a Westminster seat if a GE is held? The thirty or forty seats the Lib Dems are going to lose will have to go somewhere.
1. An excellent suggestion, not least because I said it yesterday!
3. Even though we don’t know exactly where any by-elections might be, by using change in vote share, rather than a raw vote share figure, it is possible to have at least a decent stab at an answer. This ties in with the UNS / proportional increase / other method discussion from yesterday and is clearly inclined to a UNS perspective, though obviously no matter how badly Labour does, there’s a limit to how far they could fall if most of the by-elections are in places that are contested between the Conservatives and Lib Dems. Still, I don’t think that it’s an unreasonable question; the whole set could be completely thrown out by some event we can’t predict e.g. what if the first by-election is in Sedgefield, and not as a result of a resignation? That (though unlikely), would have massive consequences but is utterly unpredictable in as short a time-span as a year.
4. I would confidently predict that there won’t be a general election, and if there was a market, would be happy to lay money on it.
“What will be the size of the “Brown Bounce“?”
I assume all the Tory commentators will be submitting negative figures?
6 - There doesn’t seem to be a great deal of polling evidence to suggest otherwise. Personally I think it’s a bit of an unknown at this stage but I’m yet to be convinced their is any good reason to suggest a big leap in Labours polling should GB take over.
I certainly wouldn’t expect much of a bounce in the first month nor, I suspect, will Labour care much one way or t’other. After three months or so it may be a different story, particularly if Brown has managed to find initiatives and/or attitudes that voters feel Blair wouldn’t've done.
I hope that this link works.
Spread the word:
http://www.thecep.org.uk/news/ViewItem.asp?Entry=919
8 - Far more likely that Brown gets an immediate bounce IMO. His political skills aren’t up too much if he doesn’t.
2. Will he predict the devolveds as well.
3. That’s impossible. If it’s Sedgfield or somewhere south they could be way out.
4. If it’s in certain areas the threat of a BNP MP is all too real.
HF I think you maybe a tad optimimistic on Hammersmith. True your GOTV operation last May was awesome for a Council Election and your MP appears to be defying expectations of MPs transferring to ultra safe seats by continuing to work his socks off to get Hammersmith Blue as well. But Labour start with a notional 8,000+ majority and rock solid areas for them are moved into the seat which fall outside the Conservative Controlled council boundaies. I suspect you will come very very close, within 2k but may require two electrions as opposed to one to complete the Job.
Brown will get a bounce because he’s not Tony Blair.
FWIW I predict no bounce or seepage (perhaps say after the first month) in the polls either way for Labour when Brown assumes the crown.
IMHO, the ‘fact’ is already in the market/price and peoples response to the question of voting for Labour already factors it
in.
I appreciate that the questions “If an election was held today”
vs ” At the next election would you vote for a party led by….”
suggest otherwise. I don’t buy it.
Perhaps if GB calls a quick Election he will be “bounced” out of offce.
7 ‘There doesn’t seem to be a great deal of polling evidence to suggest otherwise.’
Not strictly true, Max. Polling evidence suggests that most new leaders benefit from a bounce. In GB’s case there is also evidence that the reaction may not follow the norm. There are obvious reasons why this might be so.
It’s an unusual if not unique situation and therefore hard to predict. If I had to guess - and guess is the right word - I would say not much immediate change either way.
The closest situation I can recall is Callaghan taking over from Wilson. Maybe Andrea can tell us what kind of bounce Stoker Jim got.
Would any “Brown Bounce” (assuming the positive) be noticeable bearing in mind the effect of 1 million Romanians, Bulgarians and Romas arriving on the streets looking for jobs or welfare, housing & healthcare etc.
Bearing in mind Labour’s dictat that immigrant children must be accepted at local shools - regardless of waiting lists - Labour ratings still have further to fall…
15. Very different. No one had advance warning with Wilson. Plus pre-1992 polls are useless as Historical comparators, unless you apply today’s Methodology to them.
Brown could face a constitional crisis within days of taking office if the SNP emerge as the largest party in the Scottish Parliament and carry out their promise of a referenda on Independence within 100 days of taking office. Being a Scottish M.P. will not been an assett in the eyes of English voters who are increasingly resent of having to pay for better public services in Scotland but not having the same facilitys in England.
16,
Which party do you support?
Looks like an interesting competition Mike. I shall put my thinking cap on.
18 - Going to war with Scotland could be Brown’s Falklands!
Gordon Brown will never be accepted as the heir to the Socialists throne.
The SNP are threatening to annexe Scotland and part with England leaving him truly in an untennable situation.
Neither Scotland, or England want the imposter, and despite the shoe horning he will either get a vote of No confidence after his appointment, or a Labour Rebellion will discount him before he even reaches the starting gate
There will be so much media hype with every minute change being scrutinized that I find it hard to envisage there not being a bounce. My guess is2-3%
There will be so much media hype with every minute change being scrutinized that I find it hard to envisage there not being a bounce. My guess I 2-3% coming mostly from “others” and maybe the LDs. So we could see Lab 36: Con 37:LD 17.
The big question will be whether it is sustained and how the Brown - Cameron battle is perceived. Three month in we should have a clesrer idea.
Re 23 Mike, I agree about the initial bounce giving him + 2 or 3%, but I expect that to turn negative in 3 months. However there may be other events that mask the effect a bit.
22. Mike, you suggest a bounce of 2-3% because “There will be so much media hype with every minute change being scrutinized”. I think that equally this could have the opposite effect if Gordon Brown is really put under the microscope of media attention.
I think it’s very hard, from “now” to judge what kind of a bounce Brown might get without knowing what state Labour’s ratings are in at the time of the handover.
If Labour is still treading water at its present level of support when Brown takes over then there’ll be little to no bounce. If Labour’s support has plunged further by the time that Brown takes over then there’ll probably be a significant bounce to take Labour support back up to around (or slightly above) where it is now.
So to my mind the size of the Brown bounce is almost entirely dependent upon how much more (probably temporary) damage Blair is able to do inflict upon his own party before Brown takes over.
Re 11 Punter
What are the wards not in Hammersmith council area that come into the new Hammersmith constituency? Shepherds Bush is in Hammersmith.
The estimates of Labour’s notional majority are from 5,600 down to under 2,000.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/hammersmith
19. I have always been Labour, however, I had my doubts when I saw the rteatment of Walter Wolfgang, the 82 yr old that Labour thugs threw out of conference, followed by threats of arrest as a terrorist…
Now I look at my teenage children. Young people cant even get a builders apprenticeship because immigrant builders are cheaper and better qualified. Young people cannot get a home because the new immigrants need housing too, going to the front of social housing queues and pushing up prices.
Nobody here is objects tp foreigners - but if my neighbour starts taking part of my garden - or if he makes life difficukt for my children - I am not going be happy about it. There are limited resources and for some perverted strategy - the current leadership have decided to share out our resources with the entire world.
What party am I? I didnt renew Labour membership after the Walter Wolfgang revelation. Now my children’s future has been sacrificed for imported votes, I will vote tactically - not only to kick out Blair and Brown - but to teach the Labour party political elite to respect the people and never take us for granted again.
There will be no bounce.
There will be movements but no bounce. 2007 is set to be a very grim year for the UK with Blair and Brown’s chickens coming home to roost.
Labour to be polling under 30% consistantly in the second half of 2007.
Looking forward to the comp.
What with Saddam being hung, it’s turning in to a good weekend.
Looking forward to the councillor predictions, I am just amazed that the Labour party “leaders” seem prepared to lose hundreds of councillors and lose power in Scotland, rather than remove T. Blair. Is that worth giving him a few more months of power?
Saddam being hung is a futile pointless gesture that I’m sure will backfire. ‘Victors justice’ is always unattractive but never less so than when instigated by one invading country alone. Margaret Beckett would have been well advised to keep her mouth shut. I’m really starting to despise certain elements of Blairs ‘New Labour Party’.
….Listening to Peter Hitchens, Simon heffer, Iain Dale and someone from the Independent discussing Tory fortunes on the radio this morning was very rewarding for those of us who fear a Tory Government. The consensus was that they haven’t a dogs chance. Peter Hitchens actually believing they’ll cease to exist in ten to fifteen years!
What about the families of tens of thousands of people murdered by Saddam? I’m sure they’re mostly glad. Just a pity he wasn’t tortured beforehand like so many of his victims.
32. Then Hitchens has totally lost the plot!
33. I find it sickening that the EU were pleading for his life to be sparred. One less evil scumbag on the planet.
Was a Saddam look alike hanged??
Has anyone see the actual footage of the hanging yet? What was the pont in him wearing a big coat? Was it to hide a device up his back to the tip of his neck to stop the noose from snapping his neck in half? Conspiracies eh? Gotta love ‘em
28,
Lot of contradictions there, more like a far right rant.
32 - It’s rather more likely that brands Hitchens and Heffer will cease to exist in 10 to 15 years.
I must just say, or else I’ll explode, that I’m thoroughly sickened by all of the posters who are celebrating the execution of Saddam.
Apart from the very obvious point that this particular execution will prove to be 100% counter-productive (the backlash will result in the deaths of thousands more ordinary people), the death penalty is a thoroughly barbaric practice and has no place in the 21st century.
Just because Saddam was an evil, brutal murderer it doesn’t give anyone else the right to behave in the same way.
Right now, I feel ashamed to be a human being.
Well said, Steven.
38 don’t ask the questions if you don’t like the answers.
But that is the problem. The party has also stopped listening.
ps. I dont care what is happening in Iraq.
15/17. It’s difficult to find a meaningful parallel. The problem with both the last two handovers in 1976 and 1990 is that neither was expected whereas this time it is, and neither successor was obvious, whereas this time it is. People can therefore factor both expectations into their answers. Admittedly, if the question is ‘who would you vote for if there was a general election tomorrow’ then that does imply Labour with Blair as leader, but I’m not convinced that everyone answers that question absolutely literally anyway; some will see it as ‘who are you most likely to vote for next time’, which implies Brown. In both other cases, people would have assumed Wilson and Thatcher would go their respective courses.
I can only think of one successions since universal suffrage that was both more-or-less flagged up in advance and where the PM-in-waiting was clear: Churchill to Eden in 1955. (It could be argued for MacDonald to Baldwin in 1935 as well, but the circumstances there are so exceptional that there are no meaningful parallels). Whether there is any useful data that’s around from the run-up to that event I don’t know. In any case, as an election was held just about straight away, such data as might exist was gathered against an unusual political landscape.
We’re really in uncharted territory here, which in some ways is good. We can’t just rely on what happened last time as a guide but have to use our judgement and instinct in placing our predictions.
39,
How very pious of you, they are not behaving in the same way.
They did not commit genocide on certain people.
Comparing the two is unbelievable.
44 - hear hear!
Iraq isn’t a country operating in “the 21st century”.
Just looking in from holiday via the excellent Barter Books store in Northumberland. A few random comments on recent threads:
- The CR Labour lead should probably be taken with a pinch of salt as they were several % out at the GE. But I don’t think we’re doing significantly worse than at the GE either, from my own comparisons with what people are saying to me now and what they said then. The GE was, after all, not a great result for Labour in % terms, and it’s quite close to the core vote: if one considers all that’s happened since the GE, the case for saying that the remaining Labour vote is very resilient seems pretty overwhelming. To beat it, the Tories have to take votes from other parties as well.
- I expect a Brown bounce of 5-6% or so, though I think it’s one of the harder things to guess: it depends as much on media mood as on what he does himself.
Back in 10 days for normal posting!
39
Pass the kleenex,one mass murderer has finally been got rid of.
39. You should be ashamed sprouting nonsense like that!
Justice was done for the millions that suffered under him. He was (great to talk about him in the past tense!) a monster.
40. Ah Sage… yes I forgot about the Libdem ‘Save Saddam Campaign’. Really have you nothing better to complain about than the execution of someone who had children raped and tortured in front of their parents.
Today is a great day for justice and the rule of law.
44/5. Actually, Saddam didn’t commit genocide on ‘certain people’. That’s a very specific crime and one that shouldn’t be levied unless there was a genuine attempt to kill an entire people. What Saddam’s government was guilty of was mass-murder, torture, waging illegal and aggressive warfare and a host of other crimes. I know there has been a move to widen the scope of the crime of genocide in recent years; I believe that would be a great mistake. It was defined to deal with the very special conditions of the Second World War and in so doing, the bar was set deliberately high. To use that term whenever a government or organisation kills many people without the intent of eradicating a whole race, lessens its impact and in a sense, lessens the crime of the Holocaust because it seeks to place the events on a level footing.
That’s not to say Saddam shouldn’t be dead. I’m not in favour of the death penalty as a rule; it’s too easy to make a mistake - or in the avoidance of making mistakes, you end up with the farciacal situation in the States where the sentance takes decades to execute. However, in his case, the crimes were so severe and his participation so obvious - indeed, admitted - that for him to pay for them with his life is not unreasonable (that said, it would have been better had he been tried for all of them first).
We should also remember the cultural context. The middle-east is not the UK, and Iraq is obviously a more violent place both because of his regime and the because of the war and aftermath than Europe. Had a death sentance not been passed, it would have been viewed as an act of weakness by many in the insurgency. Remember that Hitler was able to gain control of Germany and do everything he did after that, because he only served a few months having been found guilty of treason.
How big was the ‘Saddam bounce’?..I haven’t seen the footage yet.
52 - gallows humour I presume.
27. Thought someone haad them at 8,000. Doable as its London though. But boundaries thought they got bits of Ealing Acton or something didn’t they. Is it just those two constituencies that come into that Council area.
RE 32, Roger, Hitchins is a pratt. End of discussion. There always will be a Conservative party.
Saddam should be kept in case Iraq produces a hung parliament
Re 39, Steven I agree too.
BTW Any word on BroadCast time for the Smithson radio program.
Interesting to see just how many of our Tory posters here are coming out in their real colours: “Hang´em! Flog´em! Sell it off!”
And how few can even see the other side of the argument. This is well presented on this blog site:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=93378120&blogID=211332942
(Not Benedict´s and not mine either…)
This is the beginning of Cameron´s dilemma, isn´t it? The cracks are showing in the Tory ranks. And Cameron reveals his great powers of leadership and says……. Nothng at all?
I am a firm supporter of the death penalty. Why should the public have to pay to keep multiple murderers in prison all their lives?
Saddam Hussein and his sons were brutal, evil men. It is absolutely right in my view that he has been executed and swiftly. Just one example for those crying that this was an injustice: in Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, three industrial plastic shredding machines were found by the US forces. They were not for shredding plastic, but for shredding live prisoners who crossed the Hussein family.
Good riddance I say!
58 - Tressage while your party sinks to 14%!!!! lol
50: Good post David. I am disappointed that Saddam has been executed - if it is wrong to rob someone of their life, then it is wrong to rob the life from the perpetrators also. We are better than them because we do not stoop to their level - we are not like murderers because we have higher values and goals.
It is true that the longer you fight someone, the more like them you become. I realise that Iraq is a very different place to Europe right now, and that not to execute Saddam would have created various problems, but that doesnt mean I’m happy about it happening. I would have liked to see him serve life without parole, so that everyone could know he was always in there, serving his time. The easy way out has been chosen instead.
The death of any man diminishes me, for I am part of Humanity
John Donne, 1647
50. “Actually, Saddam didn’t commit genocide on ‘certain people’. That’s a very specific crime and one that shouldn’t be levied unless there was a genuine attempt to kill an entire people.” David, I think that Saddam did try to do just that in Northern Iraq with the Kurdish people. We are now witnessing something similar with Darfur. I find quite repellent that we should sit and discuss the actual merits of using the word “genocide” while it is going on before our eyes.
62 - he also tried it on the Shia Marsh Arabs in SOuthern Iraq, by draining their historical homeland and using them for target practice. If it is gencide in Darfur, it certainly was in north and south Iraq.
58. So no doubt you and George Galloway are sad today at justice being done. This was Saddam Hussain for Christ’s sake!
Are you dreading Osama Bin Laden being caught and being handed over to the Saudis?
59. Hear hear Rik.
DDC: Killing people is not justice. Saddam thought it was though.
Sicty The same poll had a Labour lead. So if you bring up one you must bring up the other, and if you say the idea of a Labour lead is rubbish so must you say the same of the Lib Dems at 14%.
Thanks, Rik (60). “Tressage while your party sinks to 14%!!!! lol” I´m glad you find it funny.
I would rather my party did what I thought was right, even though it may have a short-term negative effect in the opinion polls; than say and do what I thought was wrong, solely in order to win short-term support.
But then, Rik, you are a Tory, and all that that implies. And I am not.
Tomorrow night there will be parties across the planet to celebrate the execution of Saddam.
Tressage, would you like to come to mine? I am going to replace the tinsle with ropes.
I think I can resist the temptation, thank you DDC.
Tim Kent, on his blog mentioned above
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=93378120&blogID=211332942
points out that the hanging of Saddam comes as no surprise:
“Why are we not surprised? Because now his old friends are protected. Yes, his old mates like Rumsfeld, Bush, Thatcher, Kohl. All of the people who supplied him with weapons, chemicals, materials to carry out his murders and wars. No need for that to come out now!”
Rik rejoices in the death of Saddam. Yet he resisted even the trial of Pinochet. Both chums of Thatcher, of course. The only difference - apart from that of scale - was that Pinochet had no beans to spill, while Saddam most certainly did.
Only someone who hates life would celebrate death.
For all some people’s high minded principles, and they are fully entitled to them, they should not confuse themselves into thinking that opposition to the death penalty on the basis that they apply, is anything other than a minority view in this country.
There is a significant percentage who support the death penalty and of those who oppose i would suspect that most do on the basis that our criminal justice system will always make mistakes and the death penalty should never be applied accordingly.
But, consistent though it may be, the execution of Saddam Hussein is hardly a great place to garner support for society coming into “the 21st century”. And i suspect it is severely misguided to think that Saddam’s death will have any effect, positive or negative on the insurgency. Whatever myriad of motives that are driving it, support for Saddam and the Ba’ath state comes very low down.
71 - A rather silly blog post IMO, but that is only my opinion. The idea that Saddam died to keep him silent is really ridiculous.
71. Tressage, after the invasion of Iraq there was a distinct lack of paperwork lying around, in fact it looked like the shredder’s had been working overtime. We will never know just how many dodgy deals were done in secret and may have yet been surprised at the participation of some countries.
“Yes, his old mates like Rumsfeld, Bush, Thatcher, Kohl.” You forgot the venerable presidents of France and just about every other country which had a product to sell to Saddam over the years before the early 1990’s. Everyone was guilty of helping prop up this evil dictator, but then many thought the real threat/villain was Iran at the time. Funnily enough they seem to have come full circle and now believe that Iran once again the biggest threat in the Middle East.
You are mistaken, Alex. I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that human life is sacred. Saddam was as guilty as hell, yet I would have let him rot in an Iraqi jail til he died.
77 - Mistaken about what, commentator? I apologise for once again failing to appreciate that you speak personally for the whole country as the fount of all wisdom…
77. I am against capital punishment here and anywhere else in the world.
59.”Interesting to see just how many of our Tory posters here are coming out in their real colours: “Hang´em! Flog´em! Sell it off!””
Tressage, try to pull those tinted anti tory sunglasses off occasionally and look around. I think that many people are going to be surprised at the reaction of some of their family or friends to this news, and they won’t be able to neatly box any one view into party political lines.
I can’t say I feel “ashamed to be a human being” simply because Saddam has been hanged. I feel pretty much indifferent.
There are practical objections to the death penalty, but, like Tim Hames, I’m rather puzzled by the current moral consensus which justifies dropping bombs on civilians, but balks at executing someone whose guilt is manifest.
I can’t say I’m very surprised by the way in which the Saddam debate is shaping up here. People are dividing along the lines that I’d pretty much expect them to.
I must just say that I’m very pleased to find myself on the same side of the argument as Benedict and Tressage - two top rate posters who I’ve always had a great deal of respect for - even though I don’t always agree with them.
However - even if I were to find myself in a minority of one on this matter I’d still stand up here and say my piece as loudly as possible. I can’t accept the execution of any individual - however evil.
Incidentally - those who shout “justice has been done” or “he’s been held to account” forget the many victims of Saddam’s numerous other crimes which he hadn’t yet been tried for - these families will now never get the chance to see him stand trial for those murders. He should’ve stood trial for all of his crimes. (That’s a slightly seperate issue to my deeply held moral objection to the death penalty though as, I concede, under Iraqi law the end result would’ve been exactly the same.)
Whatever else today has been about it most certainly hasn’t been about justice.
Alex:
“There is a significant percentage who support the death penalty and of those who oppose i would suspect that most do on the basis that our criminal justice system will always make mistakes and the death penalty should never be applied accordingly.”
As an opponent of the death penalty I know plenty of others and we oppose on principle. Often it’s religious; I am a Catholic.
Sean, I don’t think anybody would justify dropping bombs on civilians intentionally.
Intent is the difference.
Indeed one of the reasons the initial war was so successful and quick and limited its casualties was a “smart bomb” programme that was precision guided to avoid civilian casualties, which were extremely small comparitively for any war.
79 - I would guess that vociferous celebrating of Saddam’s demise will be found most prevalent amongst Labour supporters, for the simple reason that I think there will be a fairly strong correlation with support, and continued support, for the war.
82 - I didn’t say that nobody opposed the death penalty on principle!
Commentator, in modern warfare it is a matter of fact that any bombing or missile attacks on a city will kill innocent people. We can try to keep such casualties to a minimum, but when we wage war, we do so in the deliberate knowledge that innocent people will die as a result of our actions. That is not (hopefully) the main purpose of our actions, but is something we can be sure will happen because of them.
That seems to me to be morally worse (even if it may be necessary) than killing someone who is plainly guilty.
83. ‘Sean, I don’t think anybody would justify dropping bombs on civilians intentionally.’
Unless it’s Serbian TV, perhaps?
81. Steven. Benedict is indeed a top poster but Tressage???
Had he stood trial for all his crimes, Saddam would have died of old age by the time it all had taken place. Saddam has been punished and most of the world will be pleased.
Yes you are entitled to your view which you would not have had living under Saddam. Taking about being a lone voice… Wasn’t Saddam Hussain the only world leader to welcome the September 11th attacks?
It is because of the value that I place on human life that I welcome the death of this butcher.
85 - Quite. At least the LibDems on here are consistent on this point (although even they, presumably, claim that they support wars when waged by the UN).
Saddam’s death (by whatever means) was always the logical outcome of the war. It is ridiculous for anybody who supported the war, especially on “humanitarian grounds” to get all moral about the death penalty now. (which is why it is ridiculous for the Govt to get criticised for sounding ambivalent on the whole thing, even though they are officially opposed).
Saddam used to have people dropped in acid baths. He fed pregnant women to dogs. Now he has paid the ultimate price for these ultimate crimes. You don’t have to like the death penalty, or be a hang ‘em and flog ‘em reactionary, to take a certain grim satisfaction in this outcome.
Some crimes are so bad that - where there is no question of guilt, as here - the final sanction is permissible, I think.
Its noticeable that so many of the sanctimonious lefty middlebrows who oppose the death penalty ‘on principle’, and admire themselves for doing so, often have few qualms about abortion - where an innocent fetus is consigned to the sewage system.
I have qualms about both abortion and capital punishment; I reluctantly believe that both are, sometimes, a necessary evil.
I think you are right, Chris D (79) when you say “they won’t be able to neatly box any one view into party political lines.” But I think that is true of almost any issue. It is almost inevitable that there will be some exceptions within any party over any matter.
What I find very significant, however, is the way that Tory posters on this site are split over this issue. Lib Dem and Labour posters seem not to have been quite so active today, but those that are here do seem more united.
And the Tory splits are significant because there are surfacing precisely on the fault line which Cameron is trying to cover up. Is the Tory Party a compassionate party, does it really believe in “Hug a Hoodie” and “Love a Lout”, code words for reforming the criminal. Cameron wants us to believe that it now does.
Or does it follow the Rik line, that the only important thing is to save taxpayers money, even when they are Iraqi taxpayers? This, combined with vengeance, is the traditional Tory line and it seems you don´t have to dig very deep to find it.
That is a very real problem for Cameron.
So, going back to the topic, I think things will not run so smoothly for the Tories this year, since Cameron will be faced with increasing difficulty in reconciling the two Tory factions - especially as they come to realise that there will be no Tory walk-over.
And this, in turn, will make life easier for Labour and the Lib Dems.
The loathsome death-loving Tory scum posting here today remind me just how much I hate them & what they stand for.
shows what a bunch of wet people most leftish liberals are that they consume their energies trying to be all superior and oppose the execution (chuck him in his own shredders i would have) of a brutul killer.
I wonder why the murder rate has shot up since 1965?
No sooner do I use the phrase ’sanctimonious lefty middlebrows’ when ColinW pops up, talking about ‘loathsome death-loving Tory scum’.
Enormously gratifying.
nice bit of santimonious emotion there Colinw
90. We are a broad church and can have differences of opinion on things like the death penalty. I support it as the ulimate deterent and punishment but respect those in my party who do not share my view.
2007 will be a very bad year for Labour, a poor one for the Libdems and an excellent one for the Conservatives. Expect the December 2007 ICM poll to be around 43 28 16 13.
93. I know! its like the jobbie that always floats back up no matter how many times you flush!
ColinW
When are you going to get a decent argument. I presume you where in the throngs of people who said Saddam is evil but when it came to action thought a sit down peace protest in Islington’s Library (or some other leftwing council) was going to change the world.
Probably that attitude that caused the lib dems Camberwell and Peckham PPC to defect to the tories. Nice to see its not just our list that gets a little bit of turbulance.
IMHO there was very little today in Saddam’s execution that was about “justice” - revenge, perhaps but not justice.
I am opposed to capital punishment on the simple grounds that if it is wrong for individuals to intentionally kill each other, then so too is it wrong for the state to do so. There is a logical and moral inconsistency in state-sanctioned murder - no matter how heinous the crimes of the perpetrator.
That said, I respect the rights of a sovereign nation to determine its own criminal justice system - provided they are broadly in line with international norms. I would have wished to see a fairer trial and a different sentence, but I can accept that the trial broadly conformed to the norms of the international community and that the Iraqis themselves determined Saddam’s fate.
Not often I find myself as Tory, agreeing with Tressage, but I suspect we are coming to the same solution via different routes!
87 - “Taking about being a lone voice… Wasn’t Saddam Hussain the only world leader to welcome the September 11th attacks?”
Probably - but I’m not here to defend Saddam in any way. I fully understand that when a man as evil as Saddam is executed, questions are asked of those of us who are anti-death penalty. It’d be so easy, in the present climate, to bend or falter and temporarily abandon my principles just because the criminal in question was the 2nd most evil man on the planet. I won’t do that though - because if I can’t stand by my principles in the most extreme case then it’s not worth my having them.
You may well be right that had Saddam stood trial for all his crimes then he’d have died of old age before they concluded. That doesn’t matter though - he’d have been in captivity throughout anyway.
91 ColinW - Thanks for advancing the debate in your customary well thought-out fashion. You really are a plank.
91: It all starts with hate…you seem to carry more than your fair share.
It is indeed pleasant, Robin (98), to find that there are some decent Tories with whom one can agree on certain issues. But then, I have never found it otherwise - ie there are lots of decent Tories around.
It is even more pleasant when the people we disagree with are the hard-line traditional Tories - the anti-Cameronites, I suppose.
I am looking forward immensely to the New Year - let´s see just how much more we can agree on!
(102) Tressage - to my mind the Cameronites *are* the traditional Tories (or Conservatives, as I prefer to say).
I can’t really reconcile these 80s style right-wingers with traditional Conservatism as I understand it.
102 Tressage - my general experience is that the majority of folk from all parties are broadly decent, and just disagree on the best way to serve and improve our nation. I even extend this sentiment to the loonies like Roger, Snowflake and even liberals like yourself!
I do disagree on your prediction for Cameron this year. As soon as the policies start to flow (”real grit”) I have no doubt that all wings of the party will find succour and comfort, and that the polling gap between us and Labour will consolidate and extend. I have always predicted a dead-cat bounce for Brown and have seen nothing in the past 6 months to alter that opinion.
The real difficult prediction is what will happen to the Lib Dems - will they also benefit from Labour’s implosion in May and subsequent leadership woes, or will Ming the Faceless continue the downward trajectory. I find it hard to call.
I oppose both the death penalty and abortion, SeanT, considering them flip sides of the same coin.
Quick comment to Sean Fear about the difference between capital punishment and the (inevitable) death of civilians in war. The latter is morally acceptable as the utilitarian consequance of preventing greater atrocity (assuming a morally valid cause for war). The former cannot be imbued with that claim (assuming secure prison is a valid alternative).
103 - dead right. We’ve historically been One-Nation tories far more than Thatcherites. Our real strength has been our ability to adapt our core philosophy to the problems of the day.
We’re doing it again just now - the resaon we’ll be more successful at it than Labour, is that we don’t need to jetison our core beliefs (rewarding individual enterprise, small government, individual freedom, etc) in order to gain power.
72 - that is a typically silly comment Tressage. It is for each county to try their own. Iraq tried, convicted and hanged Saddam. Chile did not with Pinochet. I wish all you so-called “liberals” would stop imposing your values on other countries and then condemning the US for bringing democracy so that people have their own choice of govt. Your hypocrisy stinks!
There also was a MASSIVE difference in scale. Saddam murdered at least tens of thousands, some on his direct and personal orders. He attacked four neighbouring countries and tried to annex one! Pinochet headed a regime that at worst, killed a few thousand. But he also made Chile an economic success and voluntarily handed over to a civilian elected govt. He also aided our country in our time of need and by doing so probably saved many British servicemen’s lives.
73 - not at all. I value life very highly but I also value justice. Was it wrong to hang Nazi’s after WW2?
79 - a very sensible comment!!
81 - in your opinion. Many of us beg to differ!
89 - SeanT you are absolutely right!
But those “core beliefs”, Robin (107) - rewarding individual enterprise, small government, individual freedom - are surely the essence of Liberalism.
The traditional core beliefs of the Tory Party (or Conservative Party as Steven prefers to call it) are rewarding the wealthy, concentration of power in Tory hands to protect Tory interests, freedom for those who can afford to pay for it etc.
These core beliefs came to the surface under Thatcher, when the so-called One Nation Tories were demonised (like Heath for example) and many abandoned the Tory Party altogether.
You cannot reconcile the two within the Tory Party. It is time for liberals to come together under one banner, without the Tory die-hards. And the place to come together is clearly in the Liberal Democrats.
99 - A far more balanced post, but not one that can really be reconciled with your previous statement that Saddam’s execution makes you “ashamed to be a human being”.
If you accept that Saddam’s execution represents the near ultimate test for your principles, then it seems a bit much to effectively reproach those who cannot bring it within them to maintain your high ideals. I don’t believe the conflict on this thread has not come as a result of disagreement on an “issue of conscience”, but due to the objection that people take to being labelled “embarrassments” for taking a more relaxed moral line.
109 - Do you really believe everything you write?
90 - “Or does it follow the Rik line, that the only important thing is to save taxpayers money, even when they are Iraqi taxpayers? This, combined with vengeance, is the traditional Tory line and it seems you don´t have to dig very deep to find it.
That is a very real problem for Cameron.
So, going back to the topic, I think things will not run so smoothly for the Tories this year, since Cameron will be faced with increasing difficulty in reconciling the two Tory factions - especially as they come to realise that there will be no Tory walk-over.”
Tressage you really have surpassed your own usual inanity! It is not just about saving money or vengeance, it is about justice! Saddam has been shown to be one of the most evil dictators we have seen in modern times. Both by the nature and the scale of what he did. I make no secret of my support for the death penalty for multiple murderers; it is part of the historic bargain of the state with the citizen that individual vengeance is handed to a judicial process remote from the victim themselves. It is partly due to the detachment between citizen and the judicial process that we have the crime and societal breakdown that we currently see. Please try to raise the level of your argument!
109 - I havent had such a laugh for a while. Tressage you should study some political history. The Conservative Party is a blend of “conservative” and “liberal” tradition. It always has been, as successive waves of Liberals split from their party and joined the Conservative party.
110 - I didn’t mean to imply that Saddam’s execution made me ashamed to be a human being (though it does anger me, of course). I meant my post to say indicate that the celebrating of his execution made me ashamed to be a human being. Apologies for the confusion.
109 - lol
Why would I want to abandon Britain’s most successful political party, at the point at which it is adapting to 21st century problems, in favour of a minor party on a downward spiral?
To demonise Thatcherite economics in the way you do is a little trite. Thatcherite economics was an adaptation of our core beliefs to the state of the UK in the 80’s. A state, may I remind you, that was the result of lib/lab and then Lab failures in government in the 1970s.
112 - RikW
How do you square the fact that your position requires the state to say to the citizen “It is wrong to kill, except when I am doing the killing”.
Surely what separates civilised states from less civilised states, is that the sanctity of life is maintained in all circumstances, the power of the state is limited in certain vital functions, and that the justice system is separate from the Executive and contains both retributive and rehabilitative intentions.
106 Yes, that is a good argument. However, suppose either
(a) it was not possible to find a secure place to imprison a convicted murderer (say it was a lawless country where there was a good chance of escape) or
(b) it were conclusively demonstrated that capital punishment acted as a more effective deterrent than a term of imprisonment,
would not the utilitarian argument then favour capital punishment?
An interesting repeat theme on here is the superficial argument by Tressage et al, that the Conservative party is riven by a great ideological divide that will get worse under Cameron. It is a simplistic argument that assumes that Conservatives fall neatly into categories ( a few do - but most dont).
For example I am considered right-wing and Thatcherite in most of Tressage’s outpourings and yet I backed Cameron in the leadership election. I am socially liberal on matters of the state and intrusion into private lives, I support Cameron’s green intiatives and I would like to see real prison reform that leads to prisoners reoffending less. I dont agree with some of what Cameron is doing but he is absolutely right to reposition the party nearer to the centre of British politics, as long as he doesnt abandon tough law and order, and immigration policies.
I respect leadership and the ability to take tough decisions that later prove right for the Country and the party. That is why I have no time for Heath and very little for John Major. I do have grudging respect for Blair in that regard, although of course I would never vote for him. The Lib Dems by contrast have always seemed to me to be by-and-large, woolly minded do-gooders, who fail to understand the nature of humanity and often act as unprincipled abusers of the political process in order to try to further their own position.
116 No. There’s a huge difference morally between killing an innocent person out of hand, and killing a murderer whose been found guilty after due process.
Otherwise, one would have to argue that imprisonment after due process is no different morally from kidnap.
116 - not at all - what about abortion???
The citizen surrenders the right of individual vengeance to the state which conducts justice in a (usually) impartial manner and exacts a price determined by societal norms of the day.
We also supposedly live in a democracy and yet our legislators refuse to implement the death penalty which is supported by the majority of the populace!
119/120.
I see the logic in your arguments. I guess it comes down to one’s starting position - I happen ot believe that the sanctity of life (and the absolute responsibility of the state to preserve the life of its citizens) sets killing in a different moral plane to other crimes and punishments.
I don’t come to this from any religious persuasion. I happen to believe that it is wrong to kill.
Agreed - abortion (and war) drive a cart ans horses through my logic.
120 - not sure that the evidence is there for your final point. A referendum question has never been put, and as we know opinion polls are just that - an imprecise snapshot in time. I don’t doubt that the pro-capital punishment sentiment holds great sway across the nation - it’s just that it has never been tested at the polls following a proper national debate. Lets not forget that half the country would probably also send “home” 1st and 2nd generation immigrants to solve the housing/NHS/unemployment problems.
Thankfully we have representative democracy to restrain the some of our most gut-felt instincts.
NEW THREAD FOLKS!
The execution of Sadam Hussein seems to have excited some very strong emotions on PB.com. Unfortunately, whenever emotion replaces logical analysis, some very odd positions emerge.
Opposition to and support for, the death penalty, both seem to be very passionate, but rarely supported by dispassionate analysis. Does it reduce crime? (Re-offending seems to be less frequent.) Does it offend against religious beliefs? (Does this matter in a largely secular society?) What is the rate of “unsafe” verdicts leading to execution? What is an acceptable rate? Does it leads to a general cheapening of life? If so, does it lead society to invest less in health services, social services, etc? Does that matter?
The prevalence of emotional, as opposed to logical, position-taking leads to some quite inconsistent platforms. E.g. it seems very difficult to justify supporting the murder of innocents (viz. abortion) and yet oppose the punishment of the guilty (viz. the death penalty for murderers).
Many people support these two positions, but it does appear to be hypocritical. Can anybody explain why this is not?
Sean Fear is totally right to bring up the question of bombing, collateral damage in wars, etc, in relation to capital punishment. It just isn’t good enough to say Oh, in the first case (bombing) we don’t mean to kill anyone, in the second we deliberately try to kill someone so its worse.
This argument has a superficial appeal, because it gets anti-death penalty zealots out of a logical cul de sac, but it is specious.
The fact is, in war we do try to kill. In the Iraq war the British state has set out to kill thousands of people, knowing that many of them will be innocent, in belief that these deaths serve a larger purpose. Moreover, our actions have caused, collaterally, the deaths of maybe half a million people. Most of them totally innocent, including babies, infants, etc.
Someone who countenances and accepts this kind of killing, but then balks at the judicial execution of a single mass murderer, after a trial by his peers and victims, probably isn’t thinking hard enough.
There seems to be a logical and emotional short circuit in the human brain whereby death-we-cause-at-a-distance is deemed morally acceptable compared to death-we-cause-close-up. Its like people who happily eat meat but can’t bear to think about abbatoirs, disapprove of hunting, etc. It is a weedy, immature and typically narcissistic way of thinking and it is most often found on the left - though not always.
109. “You cannot reconcile the two within the Tory Party. It is time for liberals to come together under one banner, without the Tory die-hards. And the place to come together is clearly in the Liberal Democrats.” Tressage, many have been waiting for the last 10 years for the demise of the “broad church” conservative party and the champagne continues to gather dust.
You just don’t get it, you can’t rely on the conservatives imploding to maintain or improve the libdems performance. You are going to have to look at your own leadership and the direction YOUR party is going in for your own survival. You have relied on borrowed votes and if the next GE is going to be a much closer call then many of those votes both Labour and conservative will no longer be available.
91. That post illustrates well why we need to bring back capital punishment….on the grounds of mercy, if nothing else.
110,
Well written Alex.
124 - Sean, I assure you I have thought hard enough about it. The problem is there is no morally consistent position for anyone to take - there is no absolute positiuon on killing other people. I guess the only morally “pure” positions are the total Darwinian anarchist where anything goes, or the uber-liberal who decries any killing at all. Neither are tenable.
I can see a difference between unintentional civilian deaths during war (the utilitarian argument that it prevents death on a greater scale at a later date) and a controlled judicial killing. The latter is intentional and can not be argued on utilitarian grounds - it is not designed to prevent greater death at a later date. (I don’t buy the argument that executing Saddam prevents his future return to power).
I just happen to believe that executing Saddam was essentially revenge, doesn’t help bring Iraq out of the chaos we have put it in, and on a wider scale demeans his executioners in a similar way (but not scale) that Saddam’s many crimes demeaned him.
Simply false, Sean T. We do not “set out to kill thousands of people”. We set out to kill as few as possible, including enemy combatants, and always prefer the sorts of mass surrenders of entire divisions we saw during the “war” part of the Iraq war. We warn and leaflet before we bomb. The intention is to obtain a military objective, if possible with zero deaths.
Something you always fail to mention, and it does get aggravating, is the calculation the allies made of minimal, mostly avoidable civilan deaths vs. Saddam’s genocide, death and torture squads, parking lot amputations and executions, and torture prisons for children five and under.
The war was absolutely moral and just. Opposing it I find morally inexcusable.
What we should complain about was the equally inexcusable failure to plan for the peace. The short, minimally costly in human life war was a great success and the dancing Iraqis proved it. The “peace” was the true inhuman disaster. For that the Americans must pay a dreadful accounting.
128. Eloquently put, but still wrong, I think.
I believe, like most people, there are circumstances where it is morally permissible to take life, even innocent life. War is one of them - if the war is just and it prevents even greater atrocities later. Abortion I also, reluctantly, accept.
The death penalty is, I agree, the hardest of all to justify. Nonetheless the argument above means I accept sanctioned forms of slaying. Therefore my opposition to it - and yours - cannot be principled. The question therefore comes down to circumstances. i.e what did this man do, how heinous are his crimes, what purpose does his death serve, is there any doubt as to his guilt, etc.
This man was a brutal mass murderer. His crimes are amongst the worst in history. He fed people to dogs, he had children raped by their fathers at gunpoint. His death brings a symbolic end to a terrible era, and will maybe enable his victims to reach some quietus; his death also shows the world that the worst tyrant can meet a humbling end. There is no doubt he is guilty.
His execution was therefore justified.
That’s my position. It seems coherent to me. Yours, with all due respect, looks less coherent.
118, Rik w,
Intresting position that grudging respect, I know where you are coming from regarding leadership.
One has to look at recent three times winners, both Thatcher and Blair come into that category, even though many, as you say would never vote for them.
I for one hope Cameron can become a politician who has the ability to take those tough decisions, which later are right for the country.
The honesty in re-postioning the party over student finance was a start.
129. Piffle. There is no logical conflict between the statements:
‘we set out to kill thousands of people’ and the ‘we set out to kill as few people as possible’.
The fact that you see a difference shows to me that you, too, are not thinking hard enough. Of course we tried to kill as few people as possible, but invading and conquering an entire nation like Iraq does, I’m afraid, lead inevitably to lots and lots of dead people - killed by us. I saw pre-war estimates that said maybe ten thousand Iraqis would die as a result of Shock and Awe, as we now know that was a gross under-estimate - but the point is made.
We decided to invade and take over a country. We knew that to do this we would have to kill thousands of people. We did it. End of argument.
The rest of your comment needs no further rebuttal, because its asinine crassness is summed up in your own sentence:
“The short, minimally costly in human life war was a great success and the dancing Iraqis proved it.”
The dancing Iraqis. THE DANCING IRAQIS.
130 Sean. Thanks. I think we pretty much agree on most aspects of it - just the final analysis of the acceptable punishment. I respect your position - indeed I started my comments earlier this afternoon, by wishing for a different judicial punishment but also respecting the right of a sovereign nation to mete out its own judicial punishments providing that both the trial process and punishment broadly conform to international norms.
I guess that the scale and deprivation of Saddam’s crimes would put capital punishment broadly within international norms, if not within UN/EU principles.
Sean, frankly, your responses make me doubt you have been educated to any great degree. You seem to have no basic grasp of what logic actually means, or of the difference between opposing the taking of human life for anything except self-defence and the defence of others, or of intentionally taking human life versus unintentionally taking it.
In a war there is not necessarily the intention to kill anybody at all. The Iraq war was one such example. There was no intention to kill a single human soul, even Saddam Hussein, who on the very eve of war was offered 48 hours to leave Iraq with safe conduct guaranteed to iirc, Syria.
The intention is not to kill anybody. At all. And just war - the Iraq war, of course, being a prime example of a just war - is about the principle of defence, of oneself or of others. You do not go to war to conquer but to liberate and save. The fake concern for “thousands of Iraqs” shown by appeasers like yourself who would have been delighted to see them marched in their thousands to Saddam’s acid baths and rape rooms, fine if they are killed deliberately by Saddam, but not if they are killed accidentally by us, I suppose, is repellent.
And yes, the dancing, whooping, celebrating, statue-felling, shoes-on-posters-of-Saddam slapping Iraqi people were the best judges of the rectitude of that war. It was not when we liberated them from Saddam that we failed them, but in our (well, the Americans’) failure to secure the aftermath. The violence since has been Arab on Arab.
Execution is not about the principle of self defence. It is about the principle of revenge. The prisoner is already in your hands. The intent is to kill him, and not out of defensive reasons, but as punishment.
134. With due respect, that’s bollocks. “There was no intention to kill a single human soul, even Saddam Hussein” - tell that to the people enjoying an evening out at the restaurant the evening before the ’shock and awe’ campaign started. Fifteen dead, was it? Something like that. And Saddam was meant to have been one of them - because he was explicitly targeted.
Besides, while it’s possible and desirable to govern according to a set of general standards, the idea that it’s possible to consistently apply absolute principles to all places in whatever context without logical contradiction is just wrong. Government is never that clean or that clear and even if it were possible, it would very soon run up against public opinion, which also contains inherent contradictions.
Execution is not necessarily about revenge, though it may be; it is about punishment - as you rightly say. I do not like the death penalty, and would oppose its introduction to Britain, but we are not talking about a British case and we are talking about a man who was guilty of a great number of terrible crimes. Iraqis on all sides expected the death sentance and had it not been passed, it would have raised many questions about his future. These considerations should not normally play any part in justice, but in his case they probably did. That may not be logically defensible, but it is politically understandable - and probably right.
Those mentioning abortion as an example are not comparing like with like.
An embryo is not a human being (unless you believe in God, and life at conception, in which case you cannot support execution either), any more than a little finger is. Sure, an embryo can, under the right circumstances, become a human being - but so in the age of cloning can a little finger, but this does not make little fingers human beings.
An embryo in a womb is just a parasite organism, and is part of its host until seperation. Its host can do what it wants to anything that is part of it.
Of course, if you believe that a god imparted a “soul” at conception, then you can argue logically that abortion is murder. However, in order to use this as a basis for law you must prove that both the god and the soul exist.
PS Commentator I agree about Rik lack of understanding of logic.