Is Scotland undermining the concept of the UNS?
January 2nd, 2007
Shouldn’t there be separate polls and a separate swing calculation?
Whenever a poll comes out we all rush to make the same point that the Tories Cameron’s need to have a 5% margin to win most seats and 10% to secure a majority. This is finally getting through to the markets and now a Labour majority has now taken over from a Tory one as second place in the betting on the outcome of the next election.
Yet are we missing something? All these projections are based on the concept of a uniform national swing (the UNS) which includes Scotland where politics is developing very differently from the rest of Great Britain.
With the Scottish Parliament elections due to take place on May 3rd there has been a big surge in support for the Scottish National Party with the main three parties following a very different pattern from elsewhere. Yet pollsters and forecasters still seek to calculate national swings as though this is an homogeneous nation.
Surely the time has come for polls to separate off Scotland and for the main seat calculators from Anthony Wells and Martin Baxter to work on an England and Wales only basis.
Looking at the detail from recent polls that show separate Scottish data and generally you find that the Tory increases that we have seen nationally have not really happened North of the Border. The party seems to be at the same level or below the 15.8% of the vote that was chalked up in Scotland on 05/05/05.
Thus December’s Populus survey put the Tories on 12% in Scotland while YouGov, for the Telegraph had them at 14%.
So Conservative gains in Scotland that simply bear no relation to the political reality there are included in the calculations yet the overall Tory standings in England and Wales are being diluted by being lumped in with Scotland where they only have one seat.
From a statistical point of view there is a danger of distortion in stripping out the Scottish numbers because other weightings that apply on an overall basis might be affected as well. But it could be that Labour’s 10% “comfort zone” that the Tories need for a majority is actually 8-9%.
-
For this means that the Tories are doing badly in Scotland where it does not really matter to them - but are doing better in England where a 1-2% uplift could be crucial in many target seats.
As we get closer to the General Election the big betting focus will be on seats and issues like different parts of the Kingdom performing differently could be crucial.
The PBC POLITICAL FORECASTER OF THE YEAR COMPETITION. Entries have to be posted by 2359 GMT tomorrow night.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
We have been here before, surely, with the Scot Nats. You get lots of hype and suggestions of big gains yet when it come to the crunch people don’t quite have the bottle to go through with. I know the polls are showing small SNP leads but I will not be convinced until the votes have been counted. As to the Tories in Scotland we all know they became extinct years ago. People there won’t forgot that the country was made into the test-bed for the poll tax monstrosity.
IIRC polls in Scotland on Tory chnages have been incorrect on the last few elections and Local election bye-elections even in seats with a non existant party have shown an increase in support around 2%. It wouldn’t surprise me to see two border seats being represented by Tories in Edingburgh. also Stirling theres an outside chance and perhaps Argyll depending on how the coalition partners postion plays out.
I am surprised anyone thinks there is any longer such a thing as a uniform national swing. It has long ceased to make any sense in Scotland or Wales where four-party systems operate but increasingly there are also significant differences in swing between the English regions. At each of the last two elections, for instance, the swing away from Labour in the North-East was far more marked than it was in the South.
It does seem that Scotland is politically very different from England, and so is Wales to a lesser extent. Large swings to the Tories in the national polls are not likely to see huge seat gains in Scotland.
However, when we look at Scottish polls, they do seem to vary a great deal, and some, I forget which, do tend to flatter the SNP. I don’t think that Baxter or Wells are as accurate in Scotland as they are in England.
Personal vote is more important in Scotland, especially in rural areas. A good local MP / MSP is hard to dislodge. There are also bizarre local factors, and interesting four way splits - making tactical voting all the more key. And a lot of independents in local government in rural areas. I heard back in about 1990 that one local LD constituency party in Scotland had only SIX party members in the entire constituency. It still returned a LD MP in 1992. Not sure if the rumour is true - answers on a postcard please!
“It wouldn’t surprise me to see two border seats being represented by Tories in Edingburgh. also Stirling theres an outside chance and perhaps Argyll depending on how the coalition partners postion plays out.” - possibly, but I can’t see the LDs losing R&B or Argyll at a national level.
The differing constituencies for Holyrood and Westminster is interesting now too.
Mike has hit upon a very congent point here….
Labour has, in recent elections, won disproportionate numbers of seats in Parliament, largely because its votes have been concentrated in places that matter. In their wildest dreams, the Tories are unlikely to gain more than a couple of extra seats in Scotland, so why bother? A UNS swing of 9%, coupled with 0% or even -1% in Scotland, would indicate a swing of 10% in England/Wales, where seats ARE winnable.
Moreover, if the Tories were to write off Scotland, and concentrate solely on England/Wales, Project Cameron becomes isgnificantly easier. The range of issues that the Tories need to campaign on becomes tighter, and therefore easier to sustain, when opponents/reporters seek inconsistencies.
The Tories’ problem here is their traditional one: they are a unionist Party. (As it happens, they also have several Scots in senior positions, who would be very uncomfortable to write off Scotland.)
SBS
I wasn’t pointing out Roxborough
5 - sorry to go off topic - but I am interesting in the LD candidate defections between Xmas and New Year.
These could have been done at a time to generate more publicity. Why were they done at a time when most journalists are drunk and commentators are on skiing breaks?
I have never met any of the three defectors. My parents met John Barstow at a Tonbridge and Malling LD barbecue in 2004 (with Lembit as guest speaker!). Barstow had just been selected as LD candidate.
I know it’s just hearsay, but they found him very weak. My father a LD member (though no activist), ended up spoiling his ballot paper rather than vote for Barstow. My mother, a Tory/LD floater wanted to vote LD this time, but having met Barstow felt very unsure. Not sure what she did in the end.
My father confided to some LD councillors that he spoilt his ballot paper rather than vote for Barstow. It turns out that a number of them had too.
I may be wrong, Barstow may be a genius. But my inkling is that none of us will ever hear of him again. T&M is safe Tory, but Barstow’s result was very poor. It may be that Barstow sees that the sitting MP, John Stanley is getting on a bit, and he has plans to succeed him. From what I have heard, the Tories would be well advised to keep clear of Barstow.
You make a very good case, Mike. Unfortunately, it’s not clear where the clients for regional polling will come from.
The corollary is that there are seats which Antony Wells (not his fault - he can only work with the data he’s got) reports as Labour or marginal which will go Tory big-time at the next GE. In London, for example, Battersea, Hammersmith and Westminster North are in this category yet no one will be much surprised if the Tory majorities in these three, added together, come closer to 20,000 than 10,000. And who would bet against a Tory clean sweep in Kent?
7. ‘Why were they done at a time when most journalists are drunk’
That is going to be a problem whatever time of year you might choose.
Mike, am I understanding you right, that you are saying that Conservatives need a smaller percentage swing because we can exclude Scotland? Well if so that is I suppose good news.
Mind you fixing the lack of support in Scotland would be good too, but that will take some time.
10 - I think that things are so regionalised now that we can say
the Tories need a smaller swing because of Scotland
but a larger swing because of the Midlands
but a smaller swing because of the south east
but a larger swing because of the north west
but a smaller swing because of Wales…
SBS - I think the smallest LD party with an MP was Argyll and Bute with 100 odd.
I was told that the old Inverness seat had very few members when Sir Russell Johnston was the MP. People voted for him because they liked him and respected him, not because they were Liberals per se.
13 - correct. And the old codger was re-elected in 1992 - with a stunning 26%!
11 - not forgetting the 25 or so safe-ish LD seats which the tories used to win pre-97, but where the LD encumbants now seem pretty entrenched (eg Cornwall/Devon seats, Colchester, Harrogate, Twickenham, Kingston etc).
This is almost impossible to factor into a UNS model and Baxter shows many being lost on a relatively small swing to the tories - another UNS anomaly.
14 - 26% is impressive… Is that the lowest winning % (and if not, then what is and what were the circumstances?)
Lets put this into context Scotland only has 59 out of a total of 646 (9.1%) Westminster MP’s.
7 SBS
Just looking at John Barstow’s result etc - not particularly weak for the kind of seat he was fighting. With Labour in clear second, they suffered a 6% drop, with JB putting on 1.6% vote share. Admittedly a swing to Tories, but IMO that represented a good result given prevailing swings in Tory held seats with absolutely no additional help. And no doubt activists encouraged to go to Orpington etc! I have only met him a couple of times, but “seems a nice boy” - doesn’t have a lot of mature life experience about him. But I did feel sorry he had defected.
O/T - I asked whether any PPCs defected the other way - we know a number of Tory Cllrs have gone to the Lib Dems in recent months. Is the situation natural “churn”, or is there a “clear direction of travel”?
I am not sure if Sir Russell’s 26% is the record, but arithmetically I think it must be with four candidates. If I remember correctly, the percentages were 26, 25, 24, 24 and 1% spoilt, which equalls 100%.
My greaqt claim to psephological fame was that I came third in a Council election with 32%! The winner got 34% and the second candidate got 33%.
In a word no. You might as well come from the other end of the telescope and say ignore everything but London and the South-East, as in recent elections this region has swung more markedly one way or the other than the rest of the UK, and there are far more marginals there. In terms of seat changes it is the swing variation at the margins which determine outcomes, not the overall differences in vote share between regions. If regional effects are to be considered, there is more apparent scope for deviation within the English regions than between England and Scotland. However, the actual distribution of the marginals within regions tends to cancel the differences between regions. London and SE marginals tend to be super-marginal, so above-average Tory performance there will not necessarily produce a bonus in seats. UNS is not perfect, but it takes a lot to break it, and Scotland alone won’t.
On a historical point, it is surely a myth that the poll-tax did for the Tories in Scotland. In 1992, the very first opportunity to register a verdict against it, Scotland swung TO the Tories, while there was a UK swing to Labour… The Tory decline there is a lot more complex, I think, but I agree, seemingly terminal…
A more interesting question is: if the SNP gain Holyrood, and(an even bigger IF) a referendum is carried, will this ipso facto necessitate the abandonment of FPTP for elections in the rest of the UK. I think the answer has to be yes.
[20] I don’t follow your last paragraph’s line of thinking, Rod. The secession of the (then) Irish Free State in 1922 didn’t affect how the U.K. elected its MPs.
Mike you could also make the point that at least some LD incumbents are likely to do much better than a uniform swing would suggest. At 15% in the polls and with the Tories up 5% or so you would get a massacre on a notional 6% swing or so. I doubt it will be that simple ( actually I doubt the LDs are as low as this in reality.) Also the Tories are probably doing much better in the South than in the North. I don’t what all this means for seat calculations but couldn’t Wells and co come up with a model which comes a lot closer to political reality factoring in all these calculations? I’ve no idea whether it would produce a smaller mountain for the Tories to climb or a higher one but it would be interesting to know.
20 Rod, I’m sorry but this post makes you sound like a complete fantasist.
With all the three main parties, struggling for membership and cash surely its time to re-appraise UK politics. The conceit that all seats must be fought has to be ended, fighting no-hopers is no longer an option. Growing regionalisation must mean a more regional based political strategy. As for ending FPTP, if the Conservatives lose a fourth time, (not impossible) then standby for a conversion to the benefits of PR.
3 - Part of the explanation for a higher swing away from Labour in the North was the high number of safe Labour seats, as these saw massive swings away from Labour compared to marginals and safe Tory seats.
The bottom line in 2005 was that people wanted a Labour govt but weren’t keen on another massive majority, and many didn’t feel the degree of support that motivated them to go out and register support for Blair in seats where it was obvious a Labour MP was safe.
There was also a considerable number of people in marginal seats who wanted a reduced Labour win, and were willing to lose a local Labour MP in order for the expected Labour national win to be a less dominant one.
This will, imho, largely revert if the Tories pose a real danger of becoming a govt in 2009/10.
If the Tories seem credible victors next time around I would expect to see former Labour voters turning out again in safe seats, which won’t help Labour return MPs but will increase the national vote for Labour by 3-4%.
In marginals, I’d expect larger turnouts than in the last GE as people feel there is something worth turning out for, and this will be highly difficult to predict. It will depend largely on the tactical votes and whether they fall anti Labour or anti-Tory…
So UNS is not too helpful anymore due to the large variations in seat positions and voter motivations. The elctorate is far wiser to local situations vis a vis the national situation than it used to be, and is a more astute voter. Who this will end up favouring is anyones guess, but my gut suspicions are that it will see a greater turnout with Labour having mor to gain in the event of a tight race…
re 22. I’m planning a piece on the Lib Dems and tactical voting for later in the week.
22: Swing calculations modelling different regional swings are easy to do - the problem is a lack of data to pump into them. The regional breaks within normal polls are too small to be of use and even if they are aggregated over several months to get decent sized samples they are not necessary weighted to representative within regions.
Factoring in Scotland separately in swing calculations is a different matter - assuming you have a Scottish poll on *Westminster* voting intentions, and that Scotland makes up X% of the total electorate it is relatively simple to work out what the voting intention in the rest of Great Britain must be in order to result in overall voting intentions of Z.
A rough breakdown of the 120 top targets the Tories have for the next GE (based on Wells’ boundaries) shows around two thirds of these (80) are in the London/SE/SW/Eastern/Midlands areas. Only 11 are in Scotland and Wales. Most of the target seats in both these groups would fall on the current national swing indicated by opinion polls.
The tough area to crack IMHO is going to be the NE/NW/Yorks area where there are about 30 seats that need to be gained..with most of these in the NW where the Tory result at the last GE was not very promising and last year’s May locals also indifferent.
Unless the Tories can improve their performance in the NW significantly they are going to have to start winning a lot of seats like Brighton Pavilion, Colchester, Luton Sth, Bristol E. A couple of these long shots might come off, but…
RE 20, Rod, why would losing Scotland make a change in voting system inevitable?
Only a fool would put their faith in UNS when betting on individual seats, increasingly so for the national picture as well. I always break down into regions before projecting how the national picture might play out, as for saying that regions cancel each other out, that’s a good way to lose money. Scotland, remember, is a different country whose politics revolves around its own parliament as much as it does so around the UK. As such,the need for separating data out for it is still head and shoulders above any need for regionalising English & Welsh polls.
BTW Thanks to the person who pointed out the Darling for Chancellor price yesterday, it sounds more and more like a done deal.
RE 28, Stats, yes you are right we need to rebuild the Conservative party in the North west.
I don’t see the Midlands, East or West, as a problem for the Tories at all.
By the way, Mike, I expect that the story is probably an electoral Urban Myth, but I heard it said that Clement Freud made enough money betting on the Isle of Ely by election result in the early 1970’s to pay for his entire campaign. He was, of course, the winning candidate.
[33] I think that’s what he said in his autobiography…
25: “So UNS is not too helpful anymore due to the large variations in seat positions and voter motivations. The elctorate is far wiser to local situations vis a vis the national situation than it used to be, and is a more astute voter.”
This isn’t actually true. The 2005 election was the most uniform in recent decades. The average deviation from the national Lab->Con swing was only 1.83, compared to 2.04 in 2001, 2.67 in 1997, 2.13 in 1992 and 2.52 in 1987.
In 1997 there were boundary changes of course, so tactical considerations were all rejigged, and the swings are from the notional figures (though obviously it was a exceptional election for other reasons too). Putting that figure aside, the trend seems to be that swings are getting *more* uniform, not less.
23. 1992 General Election.
GB Swing to Labour 2.1%. Scotland Swing to Tories 2%(net gain of 1 seat). Fastasy? No, HISTORY, dear boy….
29. Historically, without Scotland we would have had hung parliaments in 1950, 1964, Oct 1974(incidentally, the Tories would have lead in Feb ‘74) and 2005. In other words 5-times more since 1945. So much for FPTP = stable government….
Under the current and forseeable balance of forces in England and Wales, you would have to say majorities would be unlikely, and outcomes like 2005 where Tories win the popular vote in England, but lose overall would be also very likely.
Ergo, FPTP would be finally discredited as a viable system for converting voter preference into representation. So why bother with the hassle? Rational minds would dump it before we got to that kind of a mess….
RodCrosby: No, Scottish independence wont for FPTP to die at all. The Tories will win the remaining UK of course, but then they will have no reason at all to reform voting. Labour will be out of power for a generation in remaining UK, and people will say why didnt they reform voting when they had the chance…but then that is true of so many things Labour should have done but didnt because they were too short sighted. The Tories will never give up FPTP while they are in power.
In Scotland snd some of England’s industrial areas, the Conservative Party had strong links with the protestant/unionist working class. As both religion and unionism are now in decline, the Conservative hold in those areas has been terminally weakened, I cannot see any way in which it can be revived. In Scotland many in the old Unionist working class, realising that the Union is doomed, have drifted into the SNP as an anti-Labour vote. In the industrial areas of England, the Tory working class are moving into the BNP.
Why should a 4th GE defeat persuade the Tories to support PR?
PR would undoubtedly lead to a coalition between Labour and Libdems for the foreseeable future. (That’s why Labour and the Libdems were planning it prior to 1997!) So PR would effectively reduce the Tories to permanent Opposition. Why then would they support it?
Even dumb turkeys have SOME idea of the concept of Christmas….
Or am I missing something obvious?
All this just underlines what a catastrophe New Labour’s Devolution settlement was. They have separated off Scotland from the rest of the UK but without satisfying Scottish grievances and the desire for Scottish independence; at the same time, through their cowardly failure to address the WLQ (’oh, no one cares about that’) they have antagonised the English and made them question the Union, too.
Nice one, chaps. Brilliant.
I think that, when the epitaph to this weird government is written, people will say that on the managerial side - the economy, etc - they were reasonably competent. But on the major strategic side - e.g. the Iraq war, the breaking of the Union - they were the most rancidly inept government in modern British history.
They will reap what they have sowed when Scottish independence makes it impossible for Labour to be re-elected in England.
re: 30, where are the prices for Chancellor, I haven’t seen a book up for that?
39 - The obvious is that labour and lib dems are currently ill suited to a coalition, I would presume that whoever was in the ascendant would be the preferred coalition partner for lib dems. Watch Scotland mext year to see that in action.
Is there any country where a coalition has been in near permanent government? Single parties, such as in Japan, yes, but coalitions are designed to fracture and be replaced with other coalitions.
39
I don’t accept that PR would inevitably lead to a permanent Lib/Lab coalition. There is no doubt in my mind that DC, when he calls himself a ‘Liberal Conservative’ is stressing the ‘Liberal’ and not the ‘Conservative’.
As for seant’s point it would be a ‘disaster’ if the UK came to an end, why? It maybe that the UK has run its course, only its ending wil prove that, one way or the other! As for the other point, it will lead to a permanent Conservative government in England/Wales (if Wales remains) the ending of the UK, will bring about the end of the presnt party system. New parties will be formed, to take the new political structure into account.
The only people who fear the future, are those who wish to live in the past.
If anyone hasn’t read it, can I recommend Anthony Wells’ summing up of the year on his site, he gives the full picture with changes of support for all three main parties, the rise of fourth parties isn’t particularly touched on but it shows why no party is racing ahead and are treading water at best. More than anything it shows why we shouldn’t look at parties in isolation from each other but in comparison to see what trends there are.
http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/925
38 I would anticipate a rise in sectarian voting over the next generation, although it will probably be Christian/Muslim rather than Protestant/Catholic. How that plays out in party political terms is anyone’s guess.
The decline in the Orange vote is certainly a factor in Conservative decline in the areas you mention, but there seems to be much more to it than that. If Edinburgh was located in the South of England, it would be solidly Conservative.
28 The North West and Yorkshire/Humberside is absolutely crucial to Conservative fortunes. The Party needs to gain 35 seats up there to win an adequate majority.
45. I think a regional A list for candidates for seats in that area would be an excellent idea.
43. Of course. Politics would be transformed. Under FPTP the Coalitions are by necessity WITHIN parties. Under PR, this isn’t the case, so we could have had New Labour and Old Labour, pro and anti-Europe Tories elected separately, etc…
btw, David Owen would have been PM for the past 20 years!!!
::plays the Everley Brothers:: Dreeeam, dream dream dream, dreeeeam…
Coldstone, I think the ending of the Union would be a disaster for many reasons - not least because Britain is such a successful, peaceful, prosperous, powerful, and stable example of a multiracial, multicultural polity.
Under the Union of the Crowns we can all prosper and thrive in these English-speaking islands - and have done so. Separating off the two, three or four nations would give the impression that Britain had failed, when I think the opposite is palpably the case.
I also think the seperate nations would also be spiritually poorer, especially Scotland and Wales. Smaller European countries tend, in my experience, to be rather narrow, crabbed, smug little places - Denmark, Swizerland, yes, even Ireland - they hug their prosperity to themselves while adopting a moral snobbishness towards the big countries that have to face the larger issues.
Plus all four countries have a much greater clout in the world - the UN, the EU - when they act as one. And so on and so forth.
But the main argument is the spiritual diminishment that would ensue if we divorced. Yes we might have satisfied the chippy grievances (’thw whingeing Jocks’, the poll-taxing Sassenachs etc) but we would have lost something much nobler and greater.
RE 43, Coldstone, “The only people who fear the future, are those who wish to live in the past.” Is a very trite statement.
The problem is that things are as they are because of experiance built up from the past and frequently statements like that lead to change for chnages sake with out much benefit.
Nationalism is a drug. The adrenalin induced by “justified” hatred of another tribe or nation is addictive. Like with any addiction, the addict cannot be told the error of their ways - they feel too good.
Have you ever seen the smiles on peoples faces when they are indulging in hatred of another people?
Once started, Nationalism is very difficult to contain. Scottish Nationalism must run its course.
Nationalism rarely has happy endings and Labour will be the second biggest losers.
The Libdems and Labour are both Left-of-Centre major Parties. They are therefore natural coalition partners (assuming that Labour moves back towards its roots after Blair has gone.)
The Tories are the only major Right-of-Centre major Party. It’s hard to imagine any circumstances where they would have enough in common with the Left-of-Centre Parties to outweigh the similarity of political outlook between Labour and Libdems. A Westminster coalition between Tories and Libdems or Labour is therefore almost inconceivable.
It has been suggested that PR at Westminster would lead to coalition government on the German model (i.e. with all 3 major Parties participating from time to time). However, this is not the case.
The roots of the Tory Party are further Right than those of the CDP. Similarly, the Libdems have many activists who are further Left than the Free Democrats (Germany’s Liberals). The distance between the Free Democrats and the SPD is very similar to that from the Free’s to the CDP. This just isn’t the case in the UK, because the Libdems are not midway between the other two Major Parties. Indeed, many Libdem activists find Tories and their political philisophy distateful. (Just ask ColinW!)
Maybe Cameron can drag his Party far enough to the Left to make it an acceptable coalition partner for one of the Left-of-Centre Parties. However, that would leave such a huge gap to the Right-of-Centre that a new Party would surely fill it, and the Tories would dwindle to insignificance. I conclude therefore that the Tories will not let Cameron drag them that far.
So, I find it impossible to imagine any Westminster coalition that included the Tory Party. Tories surely would conclude that it is better to have a chance of forming a government once every 20-30 years than never being in government.
Re 47, Rod, “btw, David Owen would have been PM for the past 20 years!!!”
is the best argument I have heard against PR ever.
See:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/11/lord-david-owen-is-liar.html
Needless to say I am not a fan of his.
Perhaps the best strategy for Labour would be to incourage immigration to Scotland - there is plenty of space and it would dilute the Nationalist vote
32 - That’s what Hague, IDS, and Howard probably thought too - keep the traditions going
35 - I have figures of 3.5 standard deviation for 2 party swing in 2005? Also, what are the figures for the other elements of swing? Con-lib, lib-lab - and of course the ‘others’?
Lib Dems are not left of centre, they are centre, increasingly so with the ascendance of such as Clegg, Laws et al. I wouldn’t vote for a party which I thought was going to introduce centre left policies (or indeed one which enters into a coalition with such a party).
What *is* inevitable is that the lib dems would split pretty swiftly under PR into a few different parties, I have little in common with the soft left lib dems on here, equally so with those who hanker after the SDP (see up thread). That said, the same would also happen with the tories and labour over a short period of time.
52 People would vote differently under PR, though. Look at the distribution of the votes for the European Parliamentary elections, for example. I’m not saying that would be replicated exactly at Westminster level, but it surely indicates that support for the big three is nothing like as solid in reality, as First Past the Post makes it appear.
Re 57, Sean Fear I am not sure how seriously you can take the European results as they seem to me to be a natural place for protest votes.
56. Paul, you seem like a perfect candidate for the future party I’m setting up - The Classic Orange Liberal Gambling Geeks. Care to discuss plans over dinner? I hear there are some great steak houses in Islington…
56 - The “ascendance of such as Clegg, Laws et al.” is largely irrelevant to the long-term positioning of the Libdems. What matters is the political instincts of the Party members. Over time, the Leadership will eventually move back towards the centre-of-gravity of the activists (or else the Leadership will be replaced). The hatred felt by many Labour activists towards Blair demonstrates this.
The churn between Libdem and Labour voters demonstrates the political closeness of their activist base, and support. The Libdems are a Left-of-Centre Party, despite CK’s attempts to brand them otherwise.
57 - People do vote differently under PR, but this would not help the Tories. In fact, it would cut their vote significantly. The Right-of-Centre is particularly vulnerable to leaching of support towards single-issue groupings. (E.g. hunt supporters, hospital-closure-opponents, EU-opponents, bypass opponents, etc.) Moreover, most local election “independents” vote Tory at GE’s. These might also drift away from the Tories at GE’s.
So, the Tory vote would almost certainly drop under PR. Yet another reason why I find it impossible to imagine the Tories supporting PR.
56. Re- not supporting LDs if they came up with “left of centre” coalition/policies.
I know a lot of people who voted tLD at the last election for whom the reverse is true. The name Sedgemore springs to mind… Anyway that will be the big issue for the LDs at the next election, so it’d be good if they got their story straight.
I can imagine the campaign in Rochdale/Withington/Leeds now.. ” A LD vote is a vote for a Tory PM”… and I assume my tory colleagues feel the same way in their LD marginals.
4&13. You are both correct and that is why I can’t take the Scottish polls seriously. They consistently underestimate the conservative vote, and also it really can be misleading to ask them which “party” they support because it does not mean they will vote that way locally.
I grew up in that constituency and just about everyone I knew voted for Russell Johnston. When he retired everyone returned to their natural party of choice. IRRC at the next GE it was interesting to see the vote split almost 4 ways between the parties.
Something similar is happening again with the new libdem MP Danny Alexander who I know will get the vote of a few conservative/SNP supporters in that area.
60. I agree. Just because a handful of minor members support free market economics doesn’t get them off the charge. The Lib Dems are a party of the left, and have been ever since the merger with the SDP.
They are led by Menzies Campbell who said as much (’I am a politician of the Left and proud to be so’.)when he stood for the leadership and won resoundingly.
You could argue that they are to the left of the current Labour leadership.
Pacifist, collectivist, redistributive, pro ‘the European Experiment’, anti big business, and Radical in the original sense of the word - how left wing can you get?
60 Well, yes, but the experience of the European elections, and London Assembly elections suggests that Labour and the Lib Dems see their support drop sharply with PR as well. FPTP forces you to choose between two alternatives you may not like very much. PR gives you a much wider range to choose from.
Afternoon all and belated New Year greetings :).
Re: 61 - It is, of course, a lot more complicated than that and both Conservative and Labour parties are “broad churches” wherein different strands of opinion are to be found. To expect every LD in every seat to say exactly the same is foolish and naive.
There are undoubtedly aspects of policy in any party with which individual members disagree or have issues. There are passionate supporters of hunting in the LDs - there are those who are passionately opposed. There are Conservatives who would hug hoodies, there are others who would send them off for three years National Service.
Belonging to a political party is far more than simply agreeing with a set of policies. I sometimes think those who defect at the drop of a hat (or poll rating) should remember that.
63. Marcus, you claim Ming said during his campaign: ’I am a politician of the Left and proud to be so’.
Are you paraphrasing?
I can only recall him saying: “I am a creature of the centre left”, and specifically using the term “centre-left” in all his interviews.
One such is this: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/interviews/story/0,,1685651,00.html
This is somewhat different from the “of the Left and proud to be so” quotation.
Of course this argument is a little futile given the meaningless of the left-right two-dimensional spectrum. People tend to mean completely different things when alluding to the left / centre-left.
*meaninglessness
55: 3.5? Where from? My figures were average deviation, not standard deviation, but the standard deviation figures are 05 - 2.40, 01 - 2.60, 97 - 3.35, 92 - 2.79, 87 - 3.16. Your one isn’t Steed swing is it?
The mean average deviation in the change of the vote for all three of the main parties was 2.81 in 2005 (Conservative deviation from average change was 2.29, Labour 2.99, Lib Dem 3.14) - again, this is the lowest in recent decades (2001 - 2.88, 1997 - 3.07, 1992 - 2.89, 1987 - 3.07).
Having PR would actually mean that my vote mattered!!!
56 - Of course the lib dem split in Scotland since 1999 under PR has been huge!
PR encourage medium sized parties (especially in Scottish AMS or STV with 4/5 member seats) and the Lib Dems in Scotland are a pretty good size for coalition politics (so are the Tories). The danger is large parties like Labour and the SNP which are big enough for wings and factions and PR makes possible spin off candidates/parties and fringe parties to get the votes of the large parties.
We are all minorities now…
Marcus, you are talking nonsense. Your Ming quote has already been corrected by Julian H. Also the Lib Dems moved to the right upon merger - the SDP were much more business oriented than the old Liberals, and many “Orange Bookers” are old SDP. Finally, the Lib Dems are definitely not “collectivist” - not even close. They are probably the most individualist of all the parties, believing in freedom of the individual against the state much more then, e.g., the Tories.
“They are probably the most individualist of all the parties, believing in freedom of the individual against the state much more then, e.g., the Tories.”
That is certainly not true of many Lib Dem councillors/activists, who are as enthusiastic for state intevention as any Labour or Conservative councillor.
68 - Could be Steed swing - it comes from the appendix 2 of the Kavanagh/Butler 2005 guide, table A2.1
And sorry, yes this compared differences in deviation in 2005 compared with 2001 and not within 2005 alone.
However, the original point is the same - that a two-party swing doesn’t reflect the more astute electorate and votes moving to third parties as anti-Labour protest votes by voters safe in the knowledge that Labour would get re-elected but who wanted to register their anti-Blair annoyance.
Where are the figures you quoted from - I’d be interested in reading the reports that accompany them.
72. Got to agree with you there. In Bury the Liberal answer to everything is more state control, for drug taking and drinking, quite often flying in the face of the national policies.
69. “Having PR would actually mean that my vote mattered!!!”
PR gives you the kind of government we have in Holyrood. It is hard enough to get the Labour government in Westminster to take responsibility for its actions never mind the unedifying sight of the Labour and the Libdems fighting for months before an election after governing in a coalition for 4 years.
A lot of people are disappointed at the way Holyrood has performed and one of the main reasons has been the diluting of individual party manifesto’s which has led to compromised deals. I hope that ONE party is large enough to govern without a partner, it won’t be my choice but a least I will be able to judge the success/failure of that party and vote accordingly.
70 - With a non-PR UK there would never be any splits, with a totally PR UK there would be, a split in a non-independent Scotland but not the rest of the UK would be crazy.
With regard to ‘centres’, lib dem voters usually appear to be further to the right than activists and leadership, as such it is the activists who are unrepresentative. With labour the leadership was (and is) to the right of its voters. This disconnect with voters is more dangerous, although the ‘mixed messages’ from the lib dem centre vs locally is clearly a problem.
59 - Julian, I’m sure we could split off some from other parties too. The only times I get to Islington are if there’s something interesting at Sadler’s Wells or The King’s Head I’m afraid!
Pimpernel - no reports, they are just Excel’s average and standard deviation functions used on Pippa Norris’s dataset on her website for the 2005, 2001 and 1997 elections (as far as I can tell the swing figures on the dataset are Butler swing), and the Keele university datasets for 1992 and 1987.
[60] + [63] Well, a wish is not a claim upon reality.
I do not accept the labels that you would wish to put upon my party. The primary ideological impulse of the Liberal Democrats comes from J.S. Mill: the development and furtherance of Liberty.
We do not accept the collectivist solutions of Socialism- which is why we have always opposed the Labour Party. You would like to casually dismiss the Libertarian debate in the Lib Dems, because it suits your political agenda. However the reality is that “Clegg, Laws, et al” are winning the argument inside the party. A more sharply ideological approach is what is now emerging. For example you can now credibly argue that on tax, the Conservatives are subtantially to the left of the Liberal Democrats. Neither do Lib Dems snub the CBI- as Cameron just did. The “Repeal act” that Clegg proposes applies not just to civil liberties restrictions, but to restrictions on business as well.
The party’s approach to the European Union is now genuinely sceptical- as opposed to being in favour of complete withdrawal (as many Conservative MPs and candidates now openly advocate).
Many of my Tory friends admit that ideologically they are now pretty close to the Lib Dems, but are prepared for one more heave- but without the core ideology, any Cameron government is likely to be expediency and not principle- the mirror of New Labour- and this worries many.
If you wish to paint the Lib Dems in false colours, that is part of the chaff of politics- but I don’t think it is a credible tactic, when over the past two years, we have actually got our act together ideologically- and the Tories have drifted into focus group led mush.
It can’t be 2007 already can it?! Hope you all had a good one.
74-LDs believe in genuine local decision making, by people with local knowledge rather than directed from Westminster. So there’s no inconsistency with local decisions going against general policy. Another example was the LD Islington council approving an academy: although opposed by the national party, with the funding, facilities, and local support for the project, it made sense to approve it.
With LDs splitting under PR, I think there’s only a danger if it got to the point where we could choose either of the main parties to enter into coalition government with. Were only one of the others large enough, I suspect that the allure of power would be enough to hold things together. And like all parties, there is a broad church element of LD membership, with an anti-war element, civil libertarians, environmential campaigners, big government people, social jusctice fighters, paicifists etc, minorities groups etc etc. So yes there will be wings like any parties. I might not be a ‘typical’ LD, but every time I hear Lab/Tories taking about their latest immigration clampdown, I know I’m in the right party, even if I don’t agree with all activists’ views.
Anthony - whilst you’re here, you don’t really refer to fourth parties in your round up, do you know how much the average polling percentage has changed for them, as per your other graphs? As no main party seems to have gone up in vote share over the last twelve months I was wondering if that had been affected by any fourth party increase.
UKPaul - I should try and do a proper detailed post at some point - probably highlighting the fact that while the BNP and UKIP get all the attention, the Greens have actually been quietly building up a solid little lump of support hidden amongst the “Others”. I haven’t collected all the figures for the minor parties in a nice spreadsheet as I have for the other parties, so I have to collect all the data up first.
80 - Thanks, this does appear to be the real spanner in the works at the moment, it means that it is easier to pick on one isolated party and show how terribly they are doing.
The important question, of course, is how those votes would change, if at all, at any election, are they merely temporary repositories or something much stronger?
78. Thanks for that comedy turn, ‘captain’ Oates. The bit about the Lib Dems being ’sceptical’ about the EU was especially entertaining.
As someone who has lived and worked in most parts of the UK, I do not fear and will not mourn its passing. I feel the UK has come to the end, (along with the political system that has served it)of its useful life. The UK has served its purpose, its time to move on!
63.
“You could argue that they (Lib Dems) are to the left of the current Labour leadership.”
along with David Cameron, Atilla the Hun, most Labour Party members. . .
74.
“quite often flying in the face of the national policies. .”
The Lembit position? But at least they have policies to fly in the face of, unlike the bury blue bonsai brigade!
re 71 Mboy “Finally, the Lib Dems are definitely not “collectivist” - not even close. ”
Er ?
THE LIBERATOR “is a liberal political magazine published in Britain was founded in 1970 and is produced by a voluntary editorial collective”
http://www.liberator.org.uk/
Wage slave strangest suicide bid I’ve seen going from 4 cllrs to 22 and close to taking over the council
[83] Derision is not exactly logical refutation is it WW?
http://www.libdems.org.uk/documents/policies/Manifestos/2004EuroManifesto-small.pdf
Page 8- How the EU could work better.
83. Do you not think that when Ming says “The EU would better reflect its peoples’ priorities if it stuck to legislating only when necessary” there is a touch of sceptical about certain EU activities?
Is his suggestion that there should be a “Powers Audit” of the EU ensuring that “only where issues are most effectively addressed by collective action, should the EU act” not a tad sceptical?
86. “The Lembit position?”
Can we please avoid such phrases?
90. Edit again: scepticism
Happy New Year to everyone. Does anyone know if there is a scottish parliament election predictor resource on-line??
Re 89 and 90, I agree the Lib Dem position has appeared to change to become much more sceptical of the ever closer union idea and also against the tendency to regulate in Brussels. A position I agree with.
I also think that a lot of Conservatives do as well, the only issue being between those who think reform is likely and those who don’t.
Returning to the subject of Scotland, surely it is an imperative for Gordon (and Ming) to do everything to keep the SNP out of power in Scotland to reduce the risk of independence and the end of their HoC careers and their party’s hopes of HoC power.
For the Conservatives, independence does not threaten their power in the Hoc (just the reverse) but is a policy that they have argued against.
If The LD and Labour had any sense, in Scotland they would switch most of their Assembly campaigning resources from attacking Lab/LD/Conservatives and onto attacking the SNP.
Labour and LD would be better off losing AM seats to the Conservatives than to the SNP.
HF Labour will not, in this scottish parliament election, lose more than 2 constituency seats at a push to the Tories!! Libdem/ Tory maginals are also fairly scarce.
Sorry wage slave got my japanese mixed up, thought you said Kamikaze
HF:
Collectivist a political programme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
Collective a none-hierarchical business structure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective
The basis of the ideology of Liberalism is individual freedom cf: Mill and not collectivism cf: Rousseau. The fact that the Liberator functions as a Collective does not necessarily make it Collectivist in ideology (although of any part of the Lib dems it is Liberator that would be the most collectivist in ideology, the fact is it isn’t).
[93] Yes- Fair point Benedict. Lib dems still have some hopes that teh EU can reform- many Tories have given up.
P.S. How’s your blog?
78.”Neither do Lib Dems snub the CBI- as Cameron just did.” That is not true. David Cameron took the only window of opportunity made available to him from the MOD to visit the troops. I still think it was odd that it suddenly became the only slot available and have said so before.
“The party’s approach to the European Union is now genuinely sceptical- as opposed to being in favour of complete withdrawal (as many Conservative MPs and candidates now openly advocate).” Must admit to being surprised at this news, when did the Libdems change from being Europhile to Eurosceptic, and how is that more genuine than the long held views of many Eurosceptic conservatives? I love the way that as you seem to shift onto this ground you try and give many conservatives a sharp shove to the right!
Re Scottish independence and the Tories, I agree with Matthew Parris’s column last week - that the Tories under Cameron should do some blue sky thinking on this issue.
Neither the English nor the Scottish are happy with the present Constitutional arrangement, it seems. So maybe Cameron should come up with some bright and sparkly new ideas - e.g. quasi-Federalism - that will liberate England, succour Scotland, and meanwhile stiff Labour down South - while saving the Union. It seems obvious to me.
I don’t believe most Scots want full independence, but I do think they want more autonomy. Similarly, I don’t think most English want to dissolve the Union, but they are chafing under the present undemocratic system. So a new approach might gain the Tories support in England AND Scotland, but to do it they need to abandon their unthinking and unmoving Unionism.
Do it, DC. But hurry up, the elections are in May.
99.
Why the hell do the troops want to be visited for pure press/publicity purposes by posturing nerds like Blair and Cameron? Aren’t we meant to have a separation of functions of politics from the head of state etc? Our political system is getting far too Saddam-like.
RE 98, Yes Cicero, it is not a disagreement over where Europe should go, but whether it is ever likely to go that way, and if not would we be better off out.
Mind you the debate is confused by our civil servents gold plating regulations, as well as padding them out whilst adding on stuff they have been trying to sneak in for years on the end without any one noticing. As they always blame Europe, clearly people don’t know how much of our regulations come to pass.
Many thanks for the enquiery over the blog. I *cough* don’t normally like to mention it, but it is going well
You can see for yourself here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
HF - now you really are stretching it! You think that Liberator defines the Lib Dems? LOL!
The Liberator “collective” are the Lib Dem equivalent of Labour’s Campaign Group and the Tories’ Cornerstone Group. I.e., they are all old-school die-hards who oppose nearly everythng the party does.
101. “Why the hell do the troops want to be visited for pure press/publicity purposes by posturing nerds like Blair and Cameron?”
That should be obvious, they were left fighting the taliban/insurgents in Afghanistan with insufficient troops, helicopters, food, ammunition and sod all support from some of their Nato allies and it all slipped under the media radar for months. Even the sudden sharp increase in fatalities in Afghanistan did not seem to wake the media up to what was happening.
In fact it only made the news when members of the Para’s sent mobile phone footage to the BBC to highlight just what was going on!
Remember John Reid saying that there might not even be a shot fired, or Tony Blair our troops can have anything they need? How can the opposition parties do their job if they don’t go out and see for themselves just what is going on?
I think that the troops WANT as many politicians as possible with the requisite amount of media attention to that brings to highlight the problems they are facing.
103 M Boy
That’s hardly true that Liberator people oppose “nearly everything” the Lib Dems do. Liberator is widely read - and, yes, it represents a radical liberal streak in the party, - but unless you accept Cicero’s very partisan view that the Lib Dems “have got their act together ideologically” in the last 2 years (apparently meaning a move to the economic right) - Liberator type views have a pretty wide base within the modern party. I do accept that it has now become fashionable among the current crop of Front Bench spokespeople to make Eurosceptic type comments. This, to my understanding has developed from Orange Book thinking, whereby there was a move a couple of years ago (?Mark Oaten inspired?) to ensure the public saw us as a party as being to the right of NuLab (difficult, I realise, but…!) Many of us find this sort of thinking not to our taste!
Can I request that we have no more New Year greetings please. can I point out there is a significant ethnic minority in this country and across the globe who are not celebrating New Year at this time as their calendars are different and I think we should respect that…..
Thank you….
78. 103. 105. Lib Dem splits laid bare today, it seems….
Re Cicero 97 I clicked on the collectivist link and thanks you made my point for me as wikipedia states that “Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective”. Liberator therefore meets the needs of collectivism.
Re 103 Mboy, Since many leading lights in the Lib Dems such as Rennard, Hughes etc write in the Liberator, it is not very far away from the bulk of LD activists else why would they bother?
108 - no more collectivist than is David Cameron when he says (rightly, for that matter) that “there is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same as the state”.
HamiltonNat said “HF Labour will not, in this scottish parliament election, lose more than 2 constituency seats at a push to the Tories!! Libdem/ Tory maginals are also fairly scarce.”
My point is about tactics. Labour and LDs share a common enemy that threatens their chances of future power in the UK/England. They should not be wasting a single sentence on attacking Tories in Scotland in any media that cuts across constituencies.
Labour and LDs should approach each Am constituency on the basis of avoiding splitting the anti-independence vote.
30. Yokel and I discussed this yesterday and felt Darling looked a very good thing.
41. Best betfair price on Alistair Darling to be next Chancellor is 2.5 (but only to the tune of a fiver!). However http://www.stanjames.com have Darling at 2/1 to be the next Chancellor on 31st December 2007. This looks pretty big.
Stan James also have a market on the next Cabinet members to be sacked or resign. Pat Hewitt looks big at 18s bearing in mind the political difficulties of the NHS at the moment. I also recall her insisting that no trusts would be in deficit at the end of the financial year and should that be the case, she would resign. I’ve placed a small sum on her.
The prices in full:
Tony Blair 5/2
John Prescott 11/2
Gordon Brown 11/2
Margaret Beckett 8/1
Jack Straw 16/1
Tessa Jowell 16/1
John Reid 18/1
Patricia Hewitt 18/1
Des Browne 20/1
Alan Johnson 25/1
David Miliband 25/1
John Hutton 25/1
Douglas Alexander 28/1
Ruth Kelly 28/1
Hazel Blears 50/1
Hilary Benn 50/1
Peter Hain 50/1
Alistair Darling 66/1
Stephen Timms 66/1
Hilary Armstrong 66/1
Jacqui Smith 66/1
Baroness Amos 100/1
Lord Falconer 100/1
It will be no surprise to anyone that I’m not entirely in agreement with Mike. Whilst it’s true that Populus showed the Tory share to be 12% this month it was 21% in the previous month which suggests the MOE on such small samples is very large.
Similarly the CR poll found that the Tories in Scotland were on an unlikely 24% whilst the LD’s were on 8%!
The problem is that since the last election there have been very few polls done on Westminster voting intentions in Scotland. Indeed only one has been carried out in the last six months and it showed a slight improvement in the Tory vote.
I don’t doubt we are not doing as well in England but I certainly don’t think we’re going backwards.
111. Actually I think she said the NHS wouldn’t be in deficit rather than no trust. Still, she’s pretty friendless and with even Ministers campaigning against local closures and the Tories being ahead of Labour on the NHS (with no policies), I think 18/1 is an attractive price.
111. Anyone want to back a snap 2007 GE would do well to back it this way and get a fantastic return on an accummulator - just a 1p stake should see you never having to work again.
Am I right?
111/114 Ah I see my error as TB would have to be the one calling the election..
114. Afraid not! Bookmakers won’t allow accumalators on related markets like this. If everyone resigned en masse, I imagine they’d void all bets.
116 - or they might apply dead-heat rules to the whole market, but in any case you wouldn’t be allowed multiples.
111 Henry G (and Yokel)
There are few posters I respect more than you two when it comes to placing political bets, so your little exchange yesterday had me scurrying to the Chancellor market and readjusting my position.
I had layed Darling on the basis that GB might split the Treasury function and want to place D, one of his closest allies, in one of the Big Cabinet Posts. It seems I may have misread the situation and I have now adjusted so I am just about neutral if, as you predict, he does becomes next Chancellor.
I have layed Balls big time. Any reason to think I’m wrong?
I agree with you that 18-1 is big for Hewitt but predicting which will be the next apple to fall is a bit of a guessing game and the price isn’t SO big it will make me open up an account with SJ.
Happy New Year to you, but not to Yokel, who doesn’t approve of that kind of thing.
104.
“they were left fighting the taliban/insurgents in Afghanistan with insufficient troops, helicopters, food, ammunition and sod all support”
Ah! You mean “just like they would have been under the Tories.”! And remind us please of when DC said “No Iraq invasion without a properly-thought-out-and-resourced-occupation plan? Missed all the papers I read.
114.
Erm NO minister resigns when a General Election is called. They keep supping from their state gravy-boat till the day after the election, and have ‘ministerial responsibility’ while they whizz around the country playing politics.
Tim13: The dawning of Euro-scepticism in the party has come from the realisation that devolving power to the lowest sensible level applies not just to local government, but to the EU (an indeed every organisation) as well. It is illogical to do things at EU level that can be done more effectively at national, regional or local level. Whether or not Lib Dems support the EU taking action in an area should depend not on whether they agree with that action, but whether that is the lowest sensible level to act. The test of this should be whether they would accept the EU doing something in that area that they didn’t agree with.
There has been a realisation in many Lib Dems that the party has been agreeing with what the EU has been doing not because the EU is the right body to do it, but because the EU has been much more liberal the UK govt. This is the wrong basis to support a migration of powers. The EU will not always be more liberal than the UK. There has been a mania for support of the EU among liberals and Liberals because of this, and it is dangerous because when the political tide turns in the EU (it will - tides always turn) we will find ourselves with an over-powerful EU, legislating in bizarre areas just because it can.
They key word is “Subsidiarity” (i.e., Federalism, which almost all liberals believe in) which is enshrined in the EU treaties (or ‘Constitution’, if you like). In latter years the EU has been abusing subsidiarity, horribly, and Lib Dems should be opposing this vocally, and are beginning to. And it should not just when it is politically in their interest to also - abuse of power should be opposed by liberals even when that abuse benefits them…that is, after all, the mark of a true liberal.
HF: Committing articles to something does not imply agreement with the publication. Or do you think that Labour ministers who write in the Telegraph are neo-Cons?
118.
“I have layed Balls big time”
And I thought this was an Yvette-free zone!
118 - I’m still backing Balls as next chancellor. The reason being, if Brown does want to split the function of chancellor, I’m unconvinced he’d do it straight away; and Balls is the most obvious ‘mini-Gordon’ to hold the fort in the meantime. Also he’s not Scottish - Gordon’s much more sensitive about the WLQ than Tony, and I suspect he’ll be reluctant to appoint a Scot to the second most senior position in government.
I’ve no money at stake on it, though.
118. Happy New Year PtP.
Laying Balls is wise in my view. Brown wants to be seen as collegiate and Darling is proven and loyal. It would be extraordinary for Balls to be promoted to Chancellor at this stage and he is a typical ‘false favourite’.
On Hewitt, of course you’re right, it is very hard to predict these things, but I think she’s worth a small punt at that price. Probably 7 or 8/1 would be more accurate.
119. “Ah! You mean “just like they would have been under the Tories.”! And remind us please of when DC said “No Iraq invasion without a properly-thought-out-and-resourced-occupation plan? Missed all the papers I read.” ?? I think you are moving the goalposts on your own comments.
I simple replied to 101.
123. The Patrick Hennessy piece in the Sunday Telegraph was one part of the concerted press briefing by the Brown camp over the last few days. Makes interesting reading and reinforces my confidence that it will be Darling he appoints, assuming he becomes PM.
“Strong favourite to become Mr Brown’s Chancellor (probably one of the least-wanted jobs in history — along with whoever follows Sir Alex Ferguson as Manchester United manager) is Alastair Darling, the Trade Secretary. As one of Mr Brown’s most trusted allies, he would offer the City and the business world much-prized continuity and security, but as a Scot might be regarded with suspicion by the English voters so vital to New Labour’s continuing success at the ballot box. Mr Balls would be likely to be appointed his number two, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
But report