Could Tory Tactical Voting upset the UNS
January 3rd, 2007
What if Tories tactically vote on the same scale as Labour supporters?
All the projections, like the ones on UK Polling Report and ElectoralCalculus, on how specific poll ratings would translate into Commons seats are based on the notion of a uniform national swing (UNS). These show, broadly that just to be ahead on seats the Tories need a 5% margin on votes nationally and to get a majority then they should be aiming for a 10% lead.
But all these calculators do is apply mathematical formulae to the 2005 results adjusted for the boundary changes. The core assumption is that in other respects things will operate like they did on 05/05/05. But what happens if they don’t? Could that make a difference to Labour’s safety nets?
In the second of a series of articles questioning the robustness of those 5% and 10% margins we look at the possible impact of more tactical voting by Tory supporters in order to stop Labour.
What if the the desire to get Labour out next time causes more Tory voters to switch to the Lib Dems in certain seats - just like Labour supporters did in 1997, 2001 and 2005 to impede the Tories?
For last time this seemed to work so much better for Labour because of a reluctance of Conservative supporters to switch to the Lib Dems in order to stop Labour on the same scale.
As part of his Gap Analysis as to of why Labour seem to get so many more seats for votes cast than the other parties Martin Baxter shows that the effect of Labour supporters being much more ready to vote tactically is almost as important an element as unequal seat sizes in giving Brown-Blair’s party its boost.
This is how he describes it: “An informative statistic is that in the 18 Conservative marginal seats, where Labour was third, the Labour vote averaged just 12.04% and the Conservatives only won 2 of those seats. But in the 16 Labour marginal seats, where the Conservatives were third, the Conservative vote averaged 17.81% and Labour won 13 of the seats.
It appears as if Labour supporters are quite ready, if Labour is trailing, to vote tactically to support the Lib Dems against the Conservatives. But Conservatives are less inclined to vote Lib Dem to stop Labour. So tactical voting by Labour supporters could be worth about 10 seats of the gap.”
So for next time there are three big questions:-
In addition a reluctance for Lib Dem supporters to go on helping Labour (tactical unwind) helped the Tories win more seats than the UNS predicted in 2005. Will that trend be accentuated next time? Probably.
CON > LD tactical voting would not help the Tories get a majority but it would not impede Cameron’s party either. What it would do is make it that much harder for Labour to stay in power or even, in a hung parliament situation, to be ahead on seats.
Adding all of this up my guess is that Labour’s tactical voting advantage of 10 seats will be a lot less than last time if it exists at all and this could have a big impact on the overall result.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
My impression has always been that most Consevative voters dislike the Lib Dems at least as much as Labour. Those that I know personally dislike them far more! It isn’t to do with how left wing they are but how ‘wishy washy’.
Though it’s impossible to generalize Conservatives by inclination prefer strong government. Labour voters are likely to be more consensual thus more open to coalition.
……And of course there is chunk of the electorate who for historical reasons will vote for just about anyone to keep the Tories out.
Roger 1. I think the Tory and Lib Dem positions on the ID card might have an impact here. The Tories seem to be opposing this on straight libertarian grounds in similar terms to the LDs. If this does become a key plank of GB’s platform then that might help the CON > LD tactical voting as I have described.
This is going to be a battle for the centre ground where Labour’s over-authoritarian, Whitehall knows best mindset will not go down well. GB stands for big government solutions to solve problems - something that is alien to large numbers of the Liberal party wing of the LDs.
Rochdale is the best known example of tory supporters voting Lib Dem in order to prevent Labour winning the seat.
More significant maybe tactical voting by the Lib Dem voters, outside of the 100 or so seats they hold or are chasing.
In previous elections there has been a tactical vote by LD for Labour. But if that moves into a more neutral situation or even positive to the Conservatives, then that could have a big influence. An “anyone but Labour” vote.
LDs also have the highest % (at 40%) of voting intentions in one Dec poll that said they could concieve of voting for another party.
Sorry Roger
Most Tory Voters I know have no strong opinion of the Liberals. its just us party members that do.
If Brown surprises us and brings in the alternative vote (AV)- something perceived to benefit Labour- will that help the LDs too?
re 5 Wasn’t there a Cameron’s joke on who you should push off the cliff if you saw a Lib Dem and a Labour councillor standing on Beachy Head. The answer is the “The Labour one because work comes before pleasure”.
6 I believe that the orthodox understanding is that AV tends to benefit whichever party is in third place once the first preferences have been counted. It is most certainly not a proportional system - rather, it is the psephological equivalent of Russian roul*tt*
7. I’m still chuckling over In The Thick of It last night; and not just because of the Conservatives ‘with tie or without?’ thing (which is excrutiatingly true to life) but because the whole programme is so painfully close to reality.
I used to imagine the corridors of power to be full of people doing the best for Britain yet instead it’s all about doing the best thing for the Sun/BBC/Guardian/Sky News (delete as appropriate) coverage tomorrow.
Mike S
I’ve thought for a while now that there is a distinct possibility tactical voting will play to greater LD advantage next time, for the reason you state. Similarly, I suspect the old ‘third party squeeze’ theory may also play differently and help rather than hinder them.
For these reasons, my opening play in the spread markets has been a small LD buy. Of course if they are advantaged in these ways the effect is unlikely to be more than a dozen or so seats at most, so they still need to campaign well, but I think tactical voting in some shape or form is likely to give them even more of a boost than is usual.
Regarding the competition, can you hold back Roger’s entry until after it has closed? It would prevent our more unscrupulous posters from cheating by opposing whatever he predicts.
9 Marcus, I tried to watch it, but I couldn’t get any sound - only the picture. Problems with the installation of my new digibox, I suspect. Do you know if it is going to be repeated soon?
9 First time I have ever watched a whole episode, Marcus. Absolutely brilliant.
S Penketh - You are correct.
Most Tory activists that I know dislike the Libdems far more than they do Labour. (Not sure why….)
However, few Tory voters seem to dislike the Libdems. Mostly the Libdems have been seen as fuzzy, wishy-washy, and harmless. (”That nice Mr. so-and-so.”)
Obviously, public perceptions represent the reality of a long-gone era. Socialists in the Labour Party? Tory Leader speaking at the CBI conference? Libdems topping their Leader? Are you serious????
Out-of-date impressions can linger for a very long time….
8. AV is unlikely to benefit the third party in any seat unless it is a very tight three way marginal.
You are right though that AV is not a proportional system. In 1997 and 2001 it is likely to have produced an even bigger Labour majority, and in 1983 may have produced a bigger Tory majority. Who it might benefit at the next election is very difficult to predict, especially if there is a high vote for minor fringe parties.
re 10. Roger has already posted his entry. It is at comment number 10. He is predicting a Brown bounce after three months of +6% and suggests that the highest Tory ICM rating during 2007 will be 38%. Last month ICM had the party at 39% and 40%.
He thinks Ming will stay as LD leader and expects Lembit to be out within three months - which must be bad news for the party leader and good news for the “Cheeky Girl” MP.
Paul Maggs is doing an analysis of the entries which I will publish in the next couple of days
Sorry, Richard, I see what you mean - of course, the third party would be the first to be eliminated, and therefore could not benefit. My mistake.
7. Labour were telling that one before 2001
I think most Labour people (who care) think it would benefit them. Not at all obvious now though, with UKIP taking votes mainly from the Tories and Greens mainly from the LDs under FPTP.
Interesting article Mike. It is of course anyones guess as to which way this will actually go. I suspect Conservatives in seats where they are a distant third may well vote that way but not in ones where they are a close third.
I also think tactical unwind will be big.
As for Labour supporters, I think many will be so dissilusioned they won’t vote at all.
I always see lots of talks about tactical vote on pb.com, so I’m a bit intrigued about what Mike and other posters consider as tactical vote.
For ex. Seat X is a Con seat with LD a near second. Labour is way behind in third place. Labour have not a council base and an active CLP and don’t do much campaign because they’re busy with Lab held seats. LD campaign hard because the seat is a target.
Soft Labour support collapse and previously Lab/LD wavers switch to LD.
Would you consider this tactical vote? Or is it just a natural consequence of party X not campaigning whilst party Y trying hard?
There is some evidence from 2005 of Tories voting tactically for the LDs to oust Labour.
2005 mean change in Conservative share of vote by winning/second party in 2001:
Lab/LD -1.3
LD/Lab -1.0
Lab/Con -0.1
Con/Lab +1.2
Con/LD +1.4
LD/Con +0.6
A problem for the LDs is that there is not much Tory vote left to squeeze in most of their Labour targets. According to Anthony Wells’ notionals there are 29 seats with LD in second place up to 20% behind Labour. The average Conservative share in these seats is 15.5%. If you exclude the four three-way marginals where the Conservatives in third place are less than 15% behind Labour (Edinburgh South, Hampstead and Kilburn, Watford and Derby North) the aaverage falls to 13.9%.
One of the few things in favour of AV is that it retains a linkage between the constituency and the MP - a key strength of FPTP. Hazel Blear’s strange negation of Cabinet responsibility in attacking her own Governments plans for local hospital closures is a result of this geographic/local acountability - in a proportional system her electoral survival would not be tied so closely to a particulade decision affecting her constituents.
I do find it strange that the LDs, whose MPs, local parties and campaigning style are built on localism, seemingly prefer systems of voting that removes localism from the national agenda. My preference would be FPTP/AV for the Commons and regional PR for a Senate/HoL, much like the Australian model.
“Will Labour supporters vote tactically to the same extent that they did last time to keep the Tories out? Almost certainly ”
In 2005 Labour % went up in some Con/LD seats.
20. Nice analysis, and one which implies that for the Lib Dems to make serious further progress in Labour-held seats they will have to eat directly and substantially into the Labour vote. Having already made serious inroads into the university and ethnic minority chunks of the Labour coalition, this increasingly means the ‘core’ working class vote. Against this background, the prospects for the Orange Book project look grim indeed.
22. very true both Hazel Grove and Harrogate recorded an increase in the Labour Vote.
O/T Jon Cruddas has announced in an interview with the Evening Standard that he has gained the 44 MPs needed to get on the ballot paper. This is good news for all his backers since it will lead to a flow of union support in the next month.
In terms of the PLP, I understand that Alan Johnson is considerably in the lead with the number of MPs (around 70-80). Interestingly Benn and Hain HAVE YET to reach 44, with Hain’s support rooted around the mid-30s for some time. It looks increasingly likely that one of those two will not progress. I have no information on Harman’s camp.
Mike - interesting article.
Is there any analysis (Andrea???) of how this stacks up on a region by region basis? At the risk of over-simplification, Con-LD battles tend to be Southern / South-Western (semi-)rural seats, and Lab-LD battles tend to be Northern (semi-)urban seats.
VFTS at 23 is correct in his(?) assumption that for the LDs to make much progress in Lab seats they need Lab switchers as well as Tory TVs. But this must also have been the case (in reverse) in 1997, 2001 and 2005 - ie there must have been Tory switchers as well as Labour TVs in many of the LD seats they won or came close in.
So - yes, this means that more of Labour’s “core” working class vote will need to switch. But these voters are by no means uniform, and what’s to say that some of them won’t be attracted by the LD’s key messages of lower income tax, green taxation, defence of civil liberties and social liberalism? Especially when Dave has been doing our work for us in making these messages popular.
24. The seats where third placed Labour went up in 2005 are:
Reydale +6%
Torbay +5.3%
Kingston and Subirton +4.4%
Brentwood and Ongar +2.3%
Cornwall North +2.1%
Ribble Valley +2%
Isle of Wight +1.9%
Winchester +1.8%
Tiverton and Honiton +1.7%
Lewes +1.3%
Hazel Grove +1.3%
Skipton and Ribon +1.2%
Harrogate and K… +1.1%
Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine +0.8%
Stratford on Avon +0.7%
Penrith & The Border +0.6%
Berwick-upon-Tweed +0.6%
Romsey +0.6%
Christchurch +0.5%
Wells +0.2%
Sheffield Hallam +0.2%
25 Betfair’s reluctance to put up a market becomes increasingly frustrating, Henry. If they wait much longer, it will have no life in it because there will be so few plausible alternatives.
Those of us with Cruddas bets should perhaps think in terms of laying them off by traditional means. Perhaps small bets on Johnson/Benn/Hain/Harman will cover the field at fairly small cost.
7 - the Poles have a similar joke involving a revolver, a Russian and a German.
26 - I should have added “Dave has been …. making some of these maeesags popular” (reduced IT being the exception).
25. HenryG, I see you ended up on “On the blogs” section on Cruddas website for your LabourHome entry about Labour becoming a virual party.
1, 5 - must agree with Stuart here - as far as I can see, most Tory voters vote Tory because of an abhorrence of the Labour Party, just as most Labour voters vote Labour because of an abhorrence of the Conservative Party. (Voters as distinct from members). New Labour’s great strategic master stroke was not to get people to like them - they’ve never had that many votes in absolute terms - but to get enough people to dislike them little enough to stop voting Tory to keep them out (sorry about the maze of negatives). Keeping party x out is a much stronger electoral influence than wanting party y in.
Also disagree with Roger that ‘Conservatives by inclination prefer strong government’ - in my view, Conservatives by inclination prefer less government, Labour voters by inclination prefer more.
And while I agree that there is a section of the electorate that will vote for ayone to keep the Tories out, so there is a section of the electorate which will vote for anyone to keep Labour out.
Anyway - suspect what Mike suggests in the article is actually starting to happen. One of the interesting things about the last election was how in so many safe and safe-ish Labour seats the Lib Dems moved forward to be serious challengers while Tory support fell away (eg Blaydon, Durham). This isn’t just about red voters turning yellow and / or blue voters dying (though there’s some of that) - it’s also about blue voters believeing that a Lib Dem vote will be better at getting Labour out. This is exactly what happened in many parts of the south in the 80s and 90s - even after Labour had hauled itself back from the abyss of 1983, southern Labour voters continued to have an air of fatalism - that Labour could never win here - and the Lib Dems profited from it, moving up in many places from an insignificant third place to be the main challenger and in some cases to take the constituency.
The counter-argument to this is why would you vote tactically for a party in third place? To which I’d reply that
a) When one party dominates a seat, comparitively few people know which order second and third in - in fact there is often the perception that th Lib Dems must be second (i.e. in the middle of the three) because they’re the centre party - not a particularly shrewd argument, but one which I’ve heard advanced, and
b) while the Tories may once have been second in Blaydon, if it is one day not to be held by Labour it is much easier for voters to believe that it migt be held by the Lib Dems than the Conservatives. And this is where I’ll agree with Roger - in that particular constituency (and others like it) there may be a natural anyone-but-Tory majority.
19 Andrea
Generally, yes. In my experience there were a large number of seats where local Labour parties have collapsed, Councillors minimal or nil. It is hardly surprising that most people locally rate labour as “having no chance”. Hence the dreaded bar charts and “Labour can’t win here” campaigning!
22 Labour % also did not fall by as much as might have done in others!
IIRC, there is some good analysis of this in the David Butler GE books, esp the 2001 edition, which has much more comprehensive analysis than the 2005 one.
21 Ted Yes - in practice we Lib Dems have found PR campaigning really difficult. I have pointed out before (I think) that our 2004 Euro campaign came nearer to hitting the spot than did 1999, which was a disaster, and this was achieved by promoting “champions” (usu the local MEP) to emphasise “local Lib Dems working for you in …. area. Lists are esp difficult for Lib Dems and wider British political culture, because of the move away from individual candidates. Where I disagree with you is that I believe STV makes a much better fit, and can involve promoting “the team” - a well known theme in Lib Dem literature and campaigns.
31 - good analysis. There is also the rather simplistic, but certainly present, effect that people like to vote for winners. That helps the LDs when they are in touching distance, or have won the seat. Which partly explains the incumbency effect (for it can’t be down solely to what a wonderful job the MP is doing - most constituents would never have any contact with them).
31.”One of the interesting things about the last election was how in so many safe and safe-ish Labour seats the Lib Dems moved forward to be serious challengers while Tory support fell away (eg Blaydon, Durham). This isn’t just about red voters turning yellow and / or blue voters dying (though there’s some of that) - it’s also about blue voters believeing that a Lib Dem vote will be better at getting Labour out.”
But isn’t it possible that parts of that Con % fall was due jus to lack of campaigning and activities by the tories (in some city seats they selected the candidate at the last minute)?
28. Before Christmas Hills had Alan Johnson was 6/1. I had a saver on him then, but if it’s still available when they reopen their market he’s worth getting on.
Only Cruddas and Johnson are worth interest at this stage. Benn and Hain should be handled with care. The loyalist PLP vote seems to be going with Johnson and not with Benn - a number of the right of centre MPs feel he hasn’t been tested with anything much yet and argue that any fool can be popular by handing out cash to poor overseas countries.
I understand that Cruddas has managed to achieve the support of a good chunk of the old ‘union right-wing’ in the PLP which is very interesting. They are excellent organisers and are very well networked locally and could also be described as Brownites.
30. Yes, fame at last Andrea.
Well, I’ve entered the comp, and rarely have I felt my nom de blog more appropriate
Presumably Our Genial Host reckons that none of us have ever heard of any Welsh AMs, since he didn’t ask us who would be the King of Cardiff Bay next Xmas 
35.”I understand that Cruddas has managed to achieve the support of a good chunk of the old ‘union right-wing’ in the PLP which is very interesting. They are excellent organisers and are very well networked locally and could also be described as Brownites. ”
Now I can’t wait for the list of names to be released!
“union right-wing”/good organisers….are people near the old Labour First?
33 - Thanks Tabman - I agree with your point.
34 - Could be, Andrea. I’d have difficulty proving either way. However, whichever it is, the effect is the rise of the Lib Dems as serious challengers in previously safe Labour seats, often creaming off the small but not negligible Conserative vote in such areas - mirroring the rise of the Lib Dems in Conservative safe seats in the 80s and 90s.
34 Andrea
Yes - in exactly same way as your earlier post about Labour (it even happens to Lib Dems!) Surely, candidate selection for the Lib Dems would never be “last minute”? Would it??!
38. Yes incredibly he has MPs from both the Campaign Group and Labour First within his support. Should make planning meetings fun.
Marcus will confirm this, but I remember that in Torbay last GE, the Labour vote went up, (I seem to remember) this reduced the Libdem vote considerably. The Labour candidate, had a strong local following, so he bucked the trend. In the S/SW in particular, Labour people having been voting Libdem tactically, to defeat the Tory; this happened where I live, I think it will continue. This government might have tried the patience of Labour voters to the limit, but they still won’t want to do any thing to advantage the Tories.
34. The two factors are probably interlinked. In the presence of tactical voting - or even in the expectation it will be substantial - paper candidates are more likely to be put up by a third placed party. This obviously increases the risk that that party’s support will indeed fall further.
Andrea is dead right about the failure of many LD candidates to squeeze Labour last time and the squeeze was feeble in many other seats. However, in some seats the LDs showed that they can do it. Over time the Labour vote in places like Westmoreland, North Norfolk and Cheadle collapsed. The challenge for the LDs is to repeat that feat in many other constituencies ( by good organisation and ruthless targeting of Labour council seats in particular) and avoid outcomes like Weston Super Mare thrown away by poor targeting of the Labour vote. As for Tories voting tactically I think the LDs will find this difficult partly because the Tories are low in the LD target seats anyway, as someone pointed out, but also because when a Party is on the up their supporters are keener to vote for it. I remember John Cartwright saying about the 1983 election in Woolwich that lots of people were switching to the Tories from Labour even though the Party had no chance of winning. ‘There was no holding them’ he said. His pleas for a tactical vote fell on deaf ears.
44 - Has anyone done an analysis of how Labour performed in 1997 in seats where they were a ‘distant’ third. That could be the best guideline as to what will happen next time in seats where the Tories are a ‘distant’ third.
Sounds like Ming’s getting the jitters.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,1981808,00.html
[44] Good point, Blue Moon: when a Party is on the up their supporters are keener to vote for it. Let me see if I can amuse Andrea further
ISTR that Labour won at least one seat (Hastings ?) from third place in 1997. Where might the Tories do the same thing next time? And which LD seats, with Labour second, are vulnerable to voters backing the perceived national winner, even though there’s no chance for the Tories in the seat itself?
(My apologies if these questions have in effect already been answered.)
40. Tim13, you can leave Nah-Eileanan An Iar selection for the last minute if you’re otherwise busy!
41. Henry, do you know if he has any plans to release the list soon?
1. Ah jaysus Roger you make a point tne you go talk some bollocks like ‘Labour voters tend to be more consensual’. Who says? What proof?
You can’t help yourself can ya….
Tim13 at 32 absolutely right - it is one of the great mysteries of LD life why we are so good (given our means) at FPTP campaigning and so rubbish at PR which we after all support.
I have always thought that we might not do that well under PR at least for the first 10 years or so.
It will be interesting to see how well the LDs do in Scotland with STV compared to the additional member version. We have struggled with this and even worse with the closed list in the Euros.
I thought that there were 10 seats which Labour won from third in 1997.
40. The number of Lib Dem candidates being selected at the last minute in 2005 was quite shocking. I blame the selection process which, for a completely unwinnable seat, is laborious in the extreme.
I was selected for my seat a year prior to the GE in 05. However at the previous election Ashford Lib Dems selected 2 months prior to the election. This time selection has been much much earlier, reflecting the parties desire I feel not to be caught by a snap election.
48… though if the LDs or anyone else for that matter fielded someone sufficiently well-known locally I reckon they could win that seat. It seems no such person exists right now though…
52 Absolutely right… the Tories have shown us how it should be done. Will the LD-bureaucracy take note?
(Answer is no btw.)
I’m agreeing with all the LDs today. Must lie down.
53 - Indeed, it strikes me as the ideal seat for an independant candidate that is local, well known in the close community and campaigns along the lines - ‘None of the parties really understand the unique nature of this seat, whereas I do and will genuinely represent the interests of the Western Isles’
[55] You’ll be in trouble with our SNP correspondent, Lennon, who will doubtless point out that the SNP have won Nah-Eileanan An Iar more often than not since 1970 …
45. Lennon, in 1997 Labour went up in all seats except in 11 seats (not considering Tatton):
Bradford West, Bethnal Green and Bow, Christchurch, Sheffield Hallam, Harrogate, Cardiff South, Orkney & Shetland, St Ives, Airdrie & Shotts, Newbury, Islwyn.
It’s a mixed bag of seats. Some were Labour seats with some selection problems (Bradford West and Bethnal Green) and some were seats where a by-election took place (Newbury and Christchurch).
Harrogate & Knaresborough and Sheffield Hallam look like the 2 best contenders for a “tactical vote” situation (note that they’re 2 seats where Labour went up in 2005…they’re probably at their core level).
Voters switching to third placed Labour in 1997 potentially saved some Tory incumbents.
For ex Wells 1992 result: Con 49.6%, LD 38%, Lab 10.6%
1997: Con 39.4%, LD 38.5%, LD 18.1%
Look at Michael Howard result…1992 Con 52.3%, LD 35.3%, Lab 12.1%
1997: Con 39%, LD 26.9%, Lab 24.9%
41. No idea Andrea. I do remember about a month ago Hain’s camp were ‘about to publish’ their full list, but hasn’t materialised. There appears to have been some difficulties in confirming whether certain MPs are supporting Hain or not:
http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/2006/12/peter-hains-misunderstanding.html#links
Andrea St Albans 97, had Labour been 3rd then took seat in 97?
58. HenryG, we’ve 24 Hain’s supporters out..if you think he’s in mid 30, there’re just around 10 backers we don’t know about.
57 - Thanks for that Andrea - some interesting nuggets there to reflect on.
Henry G, good catch on the Ming story. Shades of Charles Kennedy, one year on.
OT - have the Lib Dems have employed Toy Story’s Buzz Lightyear as their latest speechwriter in an attempt capture the younger vote?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6227089.stm
“to infinite and beyond”
60. Coldestone, Aberdeen South, Bristol West, Conwy, Falmouth and Caborne, Hustings and Rey, Leeds North West, Oldham East, St Albans, Shrewsbury & Atcham, Sittingbourne & Sheppey were all won from third place
Then there was Inverness and co which was a 4way marginal (with Labour first, but less than 4% behind first place)
64 - ‘Hustings and Rey’
I know you mean Hastings and Rye but thats a great new name for a seat…
It’s turning a bit “hot” in North Wiltshire
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2007/01/james_gray_stag.html
60. I think Hain’s crew were very much hoping to be on the ballot paper by this stage. Remember Hain was the initial 2/1 favourite for the contest. Most interesting is Benn’s difficulty. Frankly I’m amazed that he has less than Hain, though that hasn’t stopped his camp insist to Hain’s people that it should be Hain that stands down. Went down rather badly.
I remember posting with you on the Daily an age ago Andrea suggesting a situation in which Hain may not actually get on the ballot paper. At the time I thought it would be Straw and Benn that could eat into his support from the right and Cruddas from the left. I didn’t expect it to be Cruddas from the Left AND the Right!
I think Cruddas’ key strength so far has been to be fight on broad issues that transcend the left and right of the party i.e. democracy, anti-fascism, trade union and grassroots involvement and party renewal. The challenge for other candidates is that they’re bound by collective responsibility (except for Hazel who just seems to do what the hell she wants) and have pledged not to enter debates until May! Whatever you think about Cruddas, this contest would be utterly boring, pointless and tedious without him.
62. Yes, my first thought was he who lives by the sword…
65. Lennon!
(I don’t even have words for my mistake!)
67. James Gray is a disgrace, a true embarassment to the party. He delayed his wife’s operation for cancer so she could help him win her safe seat, while he was cheating on her.
For him to then go and say his Assn Chairman is doing this because “he hasn’t had an exciting life” beggars belief.
I’m sure it was very exciting for his wife of 25 years to find out he’d risked her life for his political career whilst conducting an affair.
Dump him.
68. Getting support from the old right of the party is strategically good for Cruddas. It’s not just a number thing, but it can help to sweep away doubts from some people about him (I’m thinking about Luke Akehurst doubts about some of Cruddas supporters like Laura Bruni).
Then he can avoid the Clare Short curse. If she was still in Labour Party, she could have ended up voting for him and she apparently has the record to always vote for the loser in leadership/deputy leadership contests.
However I would expect her to openly say who her favourite candidate is even she has not a vote. It doesn’t bode well for said person…in Tory race she wanted Clarke to win and he was immediately eliminated. Then she praised Ming and Libdems fell in the polls.
71 Commentator
In practice, such local scandals have little effect on the Party’s performance as a whole. Nevertheless it is right to condemn behaviour like Gray’s, whatever the Party. You set the standard in this regard.
Respect,mate.
RE 71 and 73, Yes this man Gray is a disgrace. One thing having an affair, I suppose that happens these days but to risk your wifes life? Whilst doing so?
What a git.
Cheers Peter.
I read the article, and apparently the local hunt is ringing round to gather support for Gray. I am a hunt supporter myself, but that is just wrong. I also don’t see why only Gray should be allowed to write to the members and put his case as opposed to the constituency executive putting theirs.
With such an organised campaign presenting only one side of the story to members, I fear he may stay.
If introduced to the man, I certainly would not shake his hand.
74 Benedict. I quite agree. The scandal is that he delayed her cancer op while cheating on her b/c it was on election day - HIS election.
She’d been married to him for 25 years and to do that to her… it just revolts me. Where is his sense of honour?
Why on earth are the local Hunt supporting him? If I was a member I would want to set the dogs on him, and then have him horsewhipped on the steps of his club. OK, I know that this is the 21st century and all that, but every now and again I still think that people’s personal conduct of their private lives indicates that they are unfit for public office. This is an example.
RE 76, Commentator, he obviously has not got one.
72. Yes, I think if Jon Cruddas got the vote of someone like say Tom Watson MP, the Luke Akehursts of the party would calm down.
79. Regarding the support from the Left, the best thing for him would be getting the support of the less rebellious members of the Campaign Group (I know Neil Gerrard is supporting him…I’m thinking about MPs like Cohen, Cook, Mitchell, Ann Cryer, Anderson, Hamilton and co) with the Corbyn/McDonnell type of MPs not declaring until the actual vote (will they vote, right? They would be able to spoil their ballot because they don’t like anyone
80. Agree with you about Dave Anderson. A very significant new MP and former President of Unison. Will he follow his union’s line which will probably be to back Johnson, or will he go with his instincts and back Cruddas? Time will tell.
80. Considering I find interesting irrelevant things, I would be interested in seeing how NEC members support will breakdown in the leadership race. Not sure if it’ll be possible to get it considering that some NEC members can not publicly declare their vote.
In the CLPs section of the NEC, I wonder who Ellie Reeves will back. If Hazel runs, I would expect Wheeler to support her (he’s her election agent). Among the Grassroots members, I think Ann Black support is the interesting one. I suppose candidates will try to avoid the support of the other 3 members!
I have to say that Cruddas has impressed me when I’ve seen him; maybe, with Miliband and Benn (I actually don’t mind Ruth Kelly either, which I know is a minority opinion) there is hope for a future labour party. Having said that there are an awful lot of colourless managerial types among the younger end of labour’s MPs, hardly something to inspire future generations.
Re: Tory tactical voting - they still arent doing it as much as they need to. In my canvassing experience, class ABC1 have started to consider it slowly. C2DE will never do it, because their understanding of the LibDems comes from The Sun…which despises Liberalism only marginally less than it despises NAZIism. In addition, these people often genuinely prefer Labour to LibDem anway.
There is still a fundamental “one more heave” mentality about Tory supporters. Remember, it wasnt until the 4th election defeat that Labour accepted heaves couldnt win. The Tories still dont fully get it. Now they are ahead in the polls the smell victory, and this will make them complacent. Political parties never learn from history - they only ever learn from experience. Politicians are inherantly arrogant and always think they are smarter and different from previous politicians…
Re: AV voting - the system punishes parties that make themselves unpopular to other parties’ supporters. Historically this has been the Tories, who have never given a damn what the supporters of other parties think of them (indeed, in the 90’s, Tories revelled in how much they were hated by the other parties, before they realised how tactical voting was hurting them).
AV wouldnt help Labour much now, but it would hinder the Tories, which effectly helps Labour.
Personally, I favour AV over FPTP.
82. I think Black is the most credible from the CLGA and is widely respected. She topped the NEC constituency poll (albeit on the small turnout). I can’t imagine her backing anyone but Cruddas, though at this stage I imagine she’ll keep her powder dry.
Ellie Reeves and Peter Wheeler will probably back Blears if she stands, otherwise I imagine I expect it’ll be Cruddas due to the union support or Benn since he’s ’sensible and right wing’. I imagine they wouldn’t want to go against Amicus so I imagine it’d be Cruddas.
83. Yes agree with you on the type of person getting to parliament in recent years. Someone once described Douglas Alexander as a kind of ‘middle manager from Marks and Spencers’ and I can’t help but think of that and chuckle everytime he appears on TV.
Commentator et al, I find it extraordinary that Gray should think that there was nothing reprehensible about his behaviour. It shows just how deluded some MPs can be.
I wish I was a member of his association, just so that I could vote to deselect him.
87 et al. If he survives the de-selection (possible if not probable), do you think that the Constituency Executive would actively campaign against him, put up a different candidate ‘Joe Bloggs - the true conservative’, or just go accept the memberships decision and still work for the Conservative cause in the seat? What would you do in there position? Not trying to be awkward, just genuinely interested how people view the ‘any tory mp is good as it gets Cameron closer to a majority’ vs the ‘I’d rather have a Lib represent me than this’ arguement
According to Sky, Robert Kilroy-Silk is going to be in Celeb Big Brother (starting tonight). Plenty of potential for ridicule I would have thought.
Re: Conservatives voting tactically for the Liberal Democrats
I’ve been slated a few times on Conservative Home for admitting this, but I voted tactically for the awful Jenny Willott to unseat the incumbent Labour MP for Cardiff Central in 2005, as voting for the invisible Conservative candidate would have been tantamount to spoiling my ballot paper.
“Re: Tory tactical voting - they still arent doing it as much as they need to. In my canvassing experience, class ABC1 have started to consider it slowly.”
Why should they though? I’m a middle class voter, but I find it hard to imagine any circumstances in which I’d vote Lib Dem in preference to Labour, unless it was to chuck out a truly odious incumbent.
88. I can only say that a member of the executive posted they would resign en masse if he were reselected, leaving the seat a ripe target for the LibDems.
88 Had I been an executive member who had voted to deselect him, and then if the membership were to vote to reselect him, I don’t see how I could continue to work for him, so I’d resign, and probably work in a neighbouring constituency.
When it came to voting, I think I’d spoil my ballot.
84 - this is something of a hobbyhorse of mine, so apologies for banging on about it - but can I take issue with your point that historically it was the Tories who were hated?
I wouldn’t want to claim that everyone in the country loved the Tories in the 80s - but in the country at large it was Labour who were the most hated and feared - which is why they lost elections. Guardian reading BBC types who rarely met a Sun reader or venture beyond the north circular are often surprised by this (not that I want to necessarily tar MBoy with this brush), but there was a whole swathe of the electorate whose first priority was to keep Labour out. It was Labour who cared the least about what other parties’ supporters thought of them - Labour politicians (especially their local politicians, and espcially in the metropolitan areas) HATED the suburban middle classes in the 80s. It’s easy to forget now just what nutters they were back then. Four Conservative general elction victories owed more to the electorate’s fear of Labour than their love of the Conservatives.
Tony Blair’s particular genius was to try and quite like all the electorate - and in return, neutralise the loathing which the electorate had for the Labour party. This is a lesson which the Tories have only recently embraced.
re 22. STV keeps the local link as well. What would be non-local about having a Birmingham South and Birmingham North constituency say?
85. I agree about Black. I think her topping the CLP poll was expected after looking at past results and CLPs nominations (she got the highest number of CLPs nominations).
I almost expected a bigger margin from her and second place.
I expected a better result from Wheeler (I thought he would have beaten Wolfgang).
Re Reeves…her sister Rachel seems to be one of the contenders for Leeds West.
92/93. What did executive members do in Castle Point last time? (executive voted to deselect Spinik, whilse membership voted to keep him) Did they stay or resign?
94. I agree. Looking back it was bizarre, but you had Labour candidates literally telling middle class voters that they didn’t want their support. I’m reminded of a story of Bernie Grant canvassing an entire street getting no answer or no support until the last house. The occupier was a well-spoken professional man declared his support for Labour. Grant apparently told him to f*** off and keep his vote.
91 - assuming I found myself in a Lib/Lab marginal (Manchester Withington, say), I would probably vote Lib tactically. The reason being, there is a lot the Lib Dems say that I find myself agreeing with, and there are several Lib Dem frontbenchers (eg Clegg, Laws) who I respect.
Obviously, there would be candidate considerations - there are certain Labour MPs I could be persuaded to support, and certain Lib Dems I could be persuaded not to. And if the Lib Dem made clear he was a manic Europhile and the Labour candidate was a sceptic, I probably wouldn’t support the Lib. But I’d vote for the average Lib Dem over the average Labour candidate.
RE 98, Henry G, You jest surely? What a whally!
94. 98. Certainly ‘nutter’ and ‘Bernie Grant’ sit well together. Cookie is right that Labour for many voters was largely defined by the loony left element for much of the 1980s. Having elected one of them as leader in 1983 certainly didn’t help.
100. Apparently it’s true, but either way it sums up the mindset of many on the hard left at the time.
Looking at the infamous James Gray pages, I could not help noticing that nothing less than 32% of Conservative Party members are dissatisfied with Cameron as their leader. Can this really be true?
RE 103, Tressage, no that is from the survey which does not require proff of membership other than saying you are a member.
50 Yokel. And a happy New Year to you……..
I was of course talking about collectivism associated with the left as opposed to individualism associated with the right. Not a concept invented by me i assure you! Maybe in Northern Ireland everything is measured by the size of your bazookas?
96. Interesting about Rachel Reeves. Who are the runners and riders Andrea - not my neck of the woods.
90 - I did the same in Cardiff Central for the Welsh Assembly Elections in 1999 - tactically voted Lib Dem to unseat Labour. The Labour Candidate was actually one of my University Lecturers and was defeated by a good margin by the Lib Dem’s Jenny Randerson. There seemed no point voting Conservative, even though they had held the seat up to 1992. I could absolve myself, however, by voting Conservative on the top-up list.
But Benedict (104), why should Tory members deny their membership? I thought that nowadays they were supposed to be proud of being Tory members. Perhaps I am wrong - Rik is always telling me that I am.
91. ‘Why should Tory voters vote tactically for the Lib Dems’
I would have thought it was obvious that a party scoring around 40% in the polls should have its supporters switch to one scoring around 15%. It surely clear that the only real purpose Tory voters serve is to deliver tactical votes to the Lib Dems, thereby advancing the divinely-ordained march to power of Ming’s disciples.
94. Very true my dad was an ex Salford man who could never vote Labour or Liberal
89.
Ho Ho, UKP!
Chavette: “Kno where UKIP 2night?”
RKS: ” Nah, Very ‘Arze!”
(snore)
Will he have a 24 hour sunbed? The they could alternate him with Peter Hain and no one would notice.
106. HenryG. LabourHome had a long thread about it…full of anonymous posters, making things more confusing (and less reliable).
From what I managed to understand, the regional party and the NEC are keen to an AWS, but some people in the CLP aren’t that happy about it. The final decision should be taken this month.
If it’s an AWS, the main contenders mentioned were: Rachel Reeves (she lives in Leeds now. At the time of Bromley by-election, it was reported she had moved to Yorkshire since 2005 GE. So it fits with the new info), Nicola Murphy (she worked as Special Adviser to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury before the 2005 GE and she’s the wife of Chris Leslie, the former MP for Shipley), Judith Blake (the loser in Leeds North West in 2005 GE) and another local councillor (I can’t recall the name now..but if you’re intersted, I can search for it).
Reeves and Murphy were already apparently canvassing for support.
[101] Well, unlike VftS, who claims certainly ‘nutter’ and ‘Bernie Grant’ sit well together, I sat in the same Labour Group as Bernie, and my recollection is that he wasn’t a nutter, if a little fond of the waccy baccy. Perhaps that’s why he never quite took my point that you can either believe in the abolition of all immigration controls, thereby leaving freedom of movement to unfettered market forces, or be a socialist, but not both
We were speaking favourably earlier of MPs truly speaking with the voice of their constituents, and Bernie certainly spoke for Tottenham (where he is still missed) much more than his equally left-wing predecssor (a Mancunian) or his equally black successor.
108 - Tressage - I think the point is that non-Tories could join the vote too.
Sorry, I’ve b*ggered up the numbers with the soc*alist word. My apologies to all - when the post is cleared, you’ll see I was a little worked up about an ex-colleague …
RE 108, Tressage, firstly it is people who are on the Conservative home website, or rather in contact with it, rather than a fair selection of Conservative party members, secondly there may be people filling in the questionairs who are spoilers, not members at all but stirring trouble.
112. Please send me the thread - had a trawl but couldn’t find anything.
Going from the times I’ve met her Nicola Murphy is a soulless character. With such a close fight, I wouldn’t be surprised if the councillor (if credible) would be well positioned to use their local knowledge - Reeves doesn’t sound like a proper Tyke yet.
cookie: As someone who is still “relatively” young, by historically I meant in the last 20 years!
Back then of course, the Alliance/Lib Dems were operating a policy of “equidistance” between Lab and Con.
115 - quite true but also the Tory Party must recognise that there is a significant section of activists/members who didn’t vote for DC, don’t agree with all he says and still have to be convinced. I believe DC is leading the party into the right direction but I can understand those with concerns.
108, Tressage. The ConHome survey was found to be wildly out of sync with Conservatives in general when last month ICM published their breakdown - most Tories had the LDs in second place with ukip nowhere. If you read ConHome you would believe huge numbers of Tories would vote ukip secondarily. It also doesn’t fit with the huge support of DC in the leadership election, on the built to last vote, etc.
I am cut from the same political cloth as the excellent gentlemen who edit that site, and I love ConHome’s editorial content. There is no question however that its comments are dominated by non-Conservative ukip members. The most frequent posters pour scorn on the Tories at every opportunity. You should go there, you’d enjoy it!
RE 118, Ted, I voted for David Davis, but I see what Cameron is doing and am fully behind it.
Sean Fear, re Tory tactical voting: “Why should they though”
Depends on how much you want to see Labour as not the largest party, doesnt it? If you think the Tories can win in one go, then dont bother with tactical voting. (You will be disappointed.) If you think Labour need to be ground down first, then you should consider it to reduce their parliamentary presence. Simple really.
116. HenryG. This is the thread:
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2006/10/26/6515/6248
It’s a bit surreal because of the anonymous posters and the fact that at the beginning contenders weren’t mentioned by name (but just with the descriptions like the girl who contested a London hopeless seat and then moved to Leeds or “the women who is married to a former minister and worked at the Treasury), so you had to work out who they were talking about.
The local councillor is mentioned as Alison…so I suppose it’s this one:
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/moderngov/mgUserInfo.asp?UID=229&J=2
120. I supported Liam Fox and I agree with you. DC is fantastic. I am hugely impressed.
119 - The last survey was taken straight after the Polly Toynbee row, which generated a pretty hostile reaction among Conservative Party members. I’m sure the disapproval rating would be rather lower than 32%, now.
The surveys conducted by ICM and Conservative Home actually asked different questions, and surveyed different groups, so aren’t really comparable.
Thanks for those helpful comments. Also on the James Gray pages, I see that the first comment was the following:
“Oh for the days when someone (Chief Whip please note) could offer a bottle of brandy, a loaded pistol and a quiet room.”
This seems to have garnered a fair amount of support from other contributors. And there was I, thinking that you Tories were nasty only to Liberal Democrats!
I suppose it is the “hang´em” tradition reasserting itself, despite all Mr Cameron´s best efforts.
I am not sure you are right, Commentator (119), in thinking that the contributors to Conservative Home are members of UKIP. Having had a look at it - not exhaustive, I´m afraid, because it is not all that interesting - it seems to me that they are still Conservative members and supporters, who believe in traditional Tory values and policies.
That they are attracted by UKIP, which is picking up whatever Cameron is abandoning (both in terms of policies and supporters) is undeniable. But that is something that several of us have been predicting here for some time now.
126 - Tressage Populus, YouGov, and Communicate Research have recently shown UKIP on 1-3% of the vote. They polled 2.4% at the last election which hardly suggests a huge number of Tories are defecting to them. And it seems that even if we do leek a few votes they are more than made up for by Lib Dems converting to the Conservative cause.
RE 125, Tressage, Sorry, we think the man is a cad and bounder
(I would have said something else but don’t like to swear in print) and we are happy to say so.
119 Commentator - could this simply be a difference between members potential voters? There is no particular reason to think that people who are thinking of giving Cameron a chance now have the same sort of views as people who joined when Thatcher, IDS or Howardwere leaders, is there?
126 - don’t get your hopes up. Many of the noisest anti-DC posters are UKIP/BNP, a couple are obviously Labour trolls (using personas created out of Harry Enfield/B’as***rd). There a thoughtful core value posters but these are recognisably distinct from the trolls.
The real story on party ructions today is surely Ming doing his IDS/John Major impression?
You would not be unamused to learn that for many of us, UKIP are now rather whimsically referred to as the ‘Political wing of the Conservtive Party’.
As for joining them, no chance. We want our own party back.
The key remains the opinion polls, no-one is going to rock the boat and let their colleagues down when instant execution awaits by doing so. Slowly, slowly catchey monkey territory at the moment.
As for huge support on built to last Commentator, purleeze…
(are you should you didn’t do a stint in the LD’s ?)
130. Time for a Betfair ‘Ming’s downfall’ market, surely? Could be coupled with ‘Gordon’s triumph’ perhaps?
122. Thanks Andrea. Part of me likes the gossip (!), but another part of me worries where threads like that one will leave the party during selections battles. Could make it a fair bit harder to unite teams once someone has been selected.
132 - better change my forecast entry - will Ming last longer than Cheeky Boy Lembit?
133. yes, HenryG, I understand what you worry about.
That’s why deselections are usually “painful” for local parties.
On the voting system, selling a PR system to the parties is going to be difficult. Labour were warming to the idea, until 97, then for obvious reasons went cool. Perhaps a hybrid system might be an idea, if a candidate gets 50% of the votes cast: elected, (will there be many of those?) if below, AV swings into action.
101 I don’t think Foot was ever thought of as ‘loony left’ more unworldly left.
136. - um, if they get 50% they would win anyway (under AV or STV).
137 but all those whose vote tally would be below 50% (most of ‘em) would be subjected to second choices, AV. So to be elected an MP would be the declared choice of the majority of the electors. The Falmouth and Camborne type situation would then be avoided, (from memory) when Coe won, it was almost an even three way split, so he was elected by just over a third of the electors.
138 - yes, I understand how AV works - it’s just that what you described in 136 isn’t a “hybrid” system, it’s exactly the same as AV.
AV (or its even more sophisticated cousin, Condorcet) has the merit of making each seat result “fair” but would probably produce results that are even less proportionate than FPTP - the Tories could quite conceivably have been reduced to 100-odd seats in 1997. It could create massive Parliamentary majorities in many instances - so if we want a single-member-per-seat system then FPTP isn’t actually too bad.
Tressage, what we object to is the man “hanging and flogging” his wife by cancelling her cancer operation so she could campaign in his safe seat while he was cheating on her. Would you want a guy who did that as a candidate for the LibDems?
As for members of ukip, the ones I am thinking of are declared admirers and supporters of that party. I wish ConHome had an ignore button. That way you could eliminate comments from the likes of “Tory Loyalist” and “Michael McGough” et al and just read the debate amongst the Conservatives. That way you would get a far truer picture.