How’s Gordon going to lead a party that’s on the brink?
January 28th, 2007
What’s the political impact of Labour’s cash crisis?
Of all the stories of woe for Tony Blair and Labour in the Sunday papers this morning the one that seems to have the most long term significance is this in the News of the World - the first part of which is reproduced above.
The story goes on to list the money that has to be paid back: “..£2.3MILLION to property developer Sir David Garrard in April, £1.5MILLION to Priory Clinic founder Dr Chai Patel in August, and £250,000 to curry magnate Sir Gulam Noon in October… The party must find another £1MILLION to pay back banking chief Nigel Morris in September and £2MILLION to former minister Lord Sainsbury…Before the next election it will also have to repay £2MILLION to fashion magnate Richard Caring, £1MILLION EACH to former Capita chairman Rod Aldridge and property entrepreneur Andrew Rosenfeld and £400,000 to stockbroker Derek Tullett…Added to that it owes £11MILLION to the Co-operative Bank and another £4MILLION to the Unity Trust Bank…”
It’s hard to see how a General Election could be fought by Labour with that mountain of debt around its neck and this must, surely, rule out any notion of an early election. It’s no wonder that senior figures want a cap on expenditure.
The Tories who are fundraising very effectively with their new leader will have the capability to outspend Brown’s party many times over.
Clearly a major life-line will be the trade unions but what would be the conditions? Could Gordon be forced into a policy straight-jacket that of itself would make winning the next General Election that much harder?
In addition the taunts from the Tories and the Lib Dems if the party is forced into accepting urgently needed cash on onerous terms could affect the whole political environment. It could also be used to take the gloss off Gordon’s economic performance as Chancellor.
The latest General Election betting prices are here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Labour have no chance at the next election, if it were to be held tomorrow or in 2009. The public, those not politically active, have already decided that these guys are unelectable. I have no faith in polls that still show 30%+ for Labour. They have also picked the wrong person to lead them post Bliar, Brown is despised by the population for his stealth taxes.
House prices and the economy can only turn down from here with rates on the rise, lending criteria being tightened etc
Did the greatest chancellor of modern times really not know about the state of party finances?
1. You are living in a dream land. The reason I do not come here as often now is that I always get so angry because the site is so dominated by Tory dreamers who cannot come to terms with the way the world still sees them. The electors hate you and they will never forget those awful years before 1997. I acknowledge that things could be better for Labour and I am not totally convinced that Brown is the right man - but he is going to be leader. Brown will be able to detach the party from the negatives of Blair and should achieve the support that will ensure a fourth term laying a good foundation for his successor. THE TORIES WILL NEVER RETURN TO POWER.
Ohhh…kayy.
Goodness, the papers are bad today. The Telegraph… the Indie, the Electoral Commission will tell to prosecute, Lab Cabinet Minister calls Blair in the witness box “a disaster”… handwritten notes… Guardian editorial praising Cameron to the skies… Tories to call for a law banning forced marriage…
Starting to think the next election will be a bloodbath
Just a sec. If the debt can be rescheduled over a longer period (no doubt at vast expense like those charming people who advertise on TV promising to help those with ‘a single affordable monthly payment’) and the general election cap is slashed and a cut is put on pre election campaigning in constituencies then Labour probably could affford the £15 million a constrained campaign would cost. Mind you if they are all busy giving evidence then June 2010 here we come….
2. You write like a 15-year old and, therefore, can’t remember pre-1997.
Martin Baxter has now updated his Electoral Calculus seats predictor to take into account the recent Sunday Times and Channel 4 News YouGov polls of Scottish Westminster voting intention. Andrea and I, and others, were wrong - Baxter actually predicts several seat changes! (Andrea thought there would only be 1 - Ochil - and I thought only 2 - one of which was wrong!)
Here are the predicted changes:
-Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine: CON GAIN from Lib Dem (by 0.01%!) (Note that this is right next door to the LDs problems in Gordon! Could they be facing a combined SNP/Con double squeeze?))
-Argyll and Bute: SNP GAIN from Lib Dem
-Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk: CON GAIN from Lib Dem
-Dumfries and Galloway: CON GAIN from Lab
-Dunbartonshire East: LAB GAIN from Lib Dem (Revenge is sweet!)
-Dunfermline and West Fife: LAB REGAIN from Lib Dem (by-election reverting to incumbent)
-Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey: SNP GAIN from Lib Dem (the Scottish Parliament seat is already SNP)
-Ochil and South Perthshire: SNP GAIN from Lab
Several others would finish very close (within 5%):
-Aberdeen North: Lab Hold over SNP (but only by 4.3%) (SP seat already SNP)
-Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross: Lib Dem Hold over SNP (but only by 4.88%)
-Dundee West: Lab Hold over SNP (but only by 0.7%) (SP seat already SNP)
-Edinburgh South: Lab Hold over Con (but only by 2.85%)
-Gordon: Lib Dem Hold over SNP (but only by 0.12%) (Alex Salmond challenging in SP seat))
-Stirling: Lab Hold over Con (but only by 4.75%)
http://electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlist_scot.html
http://electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/scottish-voting-intention/
Overall for GB, Baxter is now predicting (including the Scottish predictions):
1. Lab 307 (-39)
2. Con 293 (+82)
3. LD 16 (-48)
Would that be the worst Lib Dem performance in living memory?
Had an interesting day yesterday - can’t draw any conclusions froma sample of one, but I think significant nevertheless.
Spent the day in a Derbyshire former mining village, taking down a couple of greenhouses I bought off eBay. I spent the day talking to a life-long Labour voter, former bricklayer. I didn’t tell him I was a Consrvative agent/activist, but here are his views:
a) Blair is a disgrace, and this govt is far worse than Major’s or Thathcers in terms of standards, etc;
b) Brown is “in it up to his neck as far as Blair having been there for the past 15 years with him” and won’t make a bit of difference with Labour loyalists.
c) The Lib Dems are irrelevant as an alternative, largely because there is no clear policy focus (fence sitters), so “if they can’t make up their minds now, how could we ever trust them in govt?”
d) “David Cameron is the man”. “He talks sense and I like what he says”.
As I say - a sample of one is not the basis for a GE victory (especially if this feeling is only stacked up in safe Labour seats). What was significant for me was that here was an unprompted lifelong Labour voter (who abstained in 2005 over Iraq), telling me he was switching to Cameron next time. In my own N Wales Labour-held constituency, I have so far only come across Labour abstainers or Cameron attracting dormant Tories or Lib Dem switchers.
The venom with which this chap now viewed all of the Labour party, is something that no amount of spending (even if they had the money to do so) is going to reverse.
IMHO History Boys comments reflect the real fear among Labour activists that the Tories will return to power. The expectations being put on Brown by supporters are probably too heavy for any politician to meet and if this interregnum continues the Labour position might become irrecoverable.
He will however probably not be as bereft of cash contributions as the NoTW says - the Sunday Telegraph has two pieces on funding - one on the price Unions are demanding in Warwick II and another on Brown’s millionaire backers - and between those I think he will be able to raise enough, supplemented by public funding, for an election campaign early next year if he chose.
7.”Andrea and I, and others, were wrong - Baxter actually predicts several seat changes! (Andrea thought there would only be 1 - Ochil - and I thought only 2 - one of which was wrong!)”
That’s because Baxter uses proportional swing and not uniform swing.
7. You’re lucky with all the Scots polls, while none appear in Wales. But are you confusing Westminster with Holyrood again i.e does Gordon exist at Westminster if it does than Alex Salmond won’t be standing for it even if he gets not in at Holyrood as he’ll be at Banff and Buchan. TBH though most observers even you I’d think can’t see the Lib Dems below fifty, maybe a really not good night closer to forty, but Baxter really is the stuff of Rik W fantasies.
Don’t you think though re Scotland it could just be a case again of anyone but Labour with SNP/Lib Dem/Con suppporters voting for whoevers best placed to beat them.
Also BTW my theory why the Lib Dems struggle in Wales v Scotland at Westminster is that at Scotland they ousted the Tories from many rural seats as the Labour alternative while not doing so in Wales, so with things on the turn they are left high and dry in Wales but not Scotland. Fair view you think.
Can even the unions afford the sort of sums that are suggested?
1/2/7 The dreamers out in force from more than 1 party this morning .
1 This is midterm , Labour ARE unpopular but there is time for GB to turn things round interest rates to fall again and Labour to recover . Brown is not despised by the vast majority of the population just a few rabid Conservatives and Herbert Proper They are not ( yet ) as universally unpopular as the Conservatives were pre 1997 . Time will tell whether GB does turn things round . I believe he will not but at least I acknowledge that there is a possibility that he can .
2 The Conservatives may and probably will return to power at some stage , many people including myself will never forget the corrupt and incompetent government of 1992-97 but many others will or not have been about then .
7 The faults of Baxter with his Universal swing calculation compared to Anthony Wells swingometer have been discussed more than once on here . The Wells swingometer with the same figures gives 41 LibDem MP’s a more realistic forecast on those shares of the vote .
The Tories are certainly in better financial state that we are at the moment, for all the obvious reasons. I anticipate a substantial surge in Labour membership and donations once Gordon takes over, but not enough to fix the problem in the short term. However, if the polls encourage an early election, it will happen. In the present climate, I agree that going long is more likely.
I don’t really share either the extreme confidence of 2 or the opposite extreme of 4 (and 6 is a bit baffling - people who remember pre-1997 are more likely to agree with The History Boy than those who don’t). I reckon we have no real idea how politics will look a year from now. But I’ll going out canvassing in a minute so maybe I’ll learn a bit more…
11. “But are you confusing Westminster with Holyrood again.”
Errr… no I am not. (And what do you mean by using the word “again”?)
“Gordon” is the name of both a Westminster constituency and a Scottish Parliament constituency (this is pretty much common knowledge - please do at least a little homework before beginning to type!) The Westminster one is significantly larger. The Holyrood one includes a chunk of the Westminster Banff and Buchan seat.
I am not confusing the two different seats. Alex Salmond is only standing for the Scottish Parliament Gordon seat, to be contested on 3 May this year! (As indicated by me writing “Alex Salmond challenging in SP seat”.)
Hi 8, you pays your money you takes your choice.
Talking to a previously active conservative three weeks ago, he was frustrated and lost by the present party policies, he was thinking of UKIP.
But it is all academic, the general election is so far away, anything can happen in the meantime.
2 - welcome back, the Professor!
7 - if you believe Baxter on those seat changes, you’ll believe anything!
8 - “c) The Lib Dems are irrelevant as an alternative, largely because there is no clear policy focus (fence sitters), so “if they can’t make up their minds now, how could we ever trust them in govt?”
d) “David Cameron is the man”. “He talks sense and I like what he says”.”
surely some mistake. Where’s the clear policy focus with Cameron? The fact is that on many issues, the LDs have been the only alternative. They are bristling with policies and FOCUS: it is the Tories who lack this. But I admit that the LDs are struggling to be heard at the moment. This does tend to change closer to GE time when greater coverage is granted to them.
I think this sample of one is very much like “must be true ‘coz bloke down pub says”.
11.”But are you confusing Westminster with Holyrood again i.e does Gordon exist at Westminster ”
yes, Gordon exists at Wesminster level too (held by LD Malcolm Bruce). So it’s not confusing Wesminster with Holyrood again. He just pointed out that it’s the seat Salmond is contensing at SP (Scottish Parliament)level.
The only “error” that I can spot in Stuart’s post is that Dundee West is not SNP at SP level…at least not yet
16 - indeed, my “in-Law”, a life-long Tory, describes Cameron as a “buffoon”.
13. “The faults of Baxter with his Universal swing calculation compared to Anthony Wells swingometer have been discussed more than once on here.”
Mark Senior shoots the messenger once again, and simultaneously sticks his head in the sand. Lordy, are we all going to have a good chortle at the LabDims expense come May!!
The LDs are going to suffer more than Labour from the pathetic performance of the Lib-Lab coalition government in Scotland.
[7]Overall for GB, Baxter is now predicting (including the Scottish predictions):
1. Lab 307 (-39)
2. Con 293 (+82)
3. LD 16 (-48)
Would that be the worst Lib Dem performance in living memory?
asks Stuart Dickson - in terms of net seats lost, yes, easily - in terms of seats held, not quite.
Peebies who are even older than I am (not many, admittedly) will (just) remember the 1950 election which that result looks uncannily like - although admittedly Labour did (just) have a majority then.
I suspect Robin Wiggs [8] may well be on to something with his sample of one, which at least clearly shows what Brown has to do: get some clear water beneath himself and Blair, and tie Cameron to the Tory brand - that chameleon was a real blunder. If the Derbyshire brickie was saying that he can’t see a single policy of Cameron’s that is distinctively Conservative, he’s got a point.
Meantime, a question for the Tories here. Which would you like best:
(a) a campaign in which none of your opponents have tuppence to rub together while you have more dosh than you know what to do with;
(b) Labour to deal with its cash crisis by a series of further “loans” from its “angels” in the business world;
(c) The TUs to bail out Labour. (With or without policy strings - the media will claim they’re there even if they’re not.)
I suspect that the answer will be a bit of each - Labour will have some money next time, from a mix of sources, but the Tories will have a lot more. And the LibDems will have doodley-squat. That should see Cameron home with a majority of anything from 20 to 60, followed by a two-year “love in” while the other parties tear themselves apart.
At the end of that time it will be “the economy, stupid” - if it’s much as it is now or even better, a second term will be a formality; if not (inflation over 5% and rising, house prices stuck if not falling) things could get very interesting. More defections to a merged and allegedly sanitised UKIP/BNP (”England First Party” perhaps?) and a by-election pact in which Labour and the Lib Dems agree to fight each other only in seats where the Tories came third… and polls showing all four parties with about 25% support?
17 - SBS - a good example being today’s waffle in the Observer where he (rightly) identifies the main problem in denying equality of oportunity, a lack of quality education, and then fails to state how he would improve it beyond saying he would suport the teaching of “proper history” and national symbols (Faith, Family, Flag, anyone?) and then saying “and the rest is up to you”.
20. Stuart, I think I’ve to agree with Mark here. I would be very, very, very surprised to see Jo Swinson and Danny Alexander losing.
21 - I think I’d probably go for ‘c’. By relying on cash from the Unions it can be used to present GB as very much ‘Old Labour’.
20 - I can’t see the LDs losing seats in Holyrood. The 2005 GE results in Scotland were very encouraging, and the Holyrood and Dunfermline by-elections since show continued momentum. The Scottish polls are all over the place.
It is clear that there is an SNP advance. That is no surprise given the manifest talents of Alex Salmond, compared to John Swinney, under whom the parties went backwards.
I would expect there to be a net seat swap from Labour to SNP. The Tories and LDs will probably hold their own (or stagnate, depending on how you want to spin it.)
In terms of who will run Holyrood; anybody’s guess. But the way Stuart is spinning, he seems to hate Labour and the LDs so much. If he is representative of what SNP supporters truly feel, a coalition led by the SNP is unlikely, and a Lab-LD-Ind-Green government seems more likely. Shame - I think an SNP-LD government would be best for Scotland.
25.” terms of who will run Holyrood; anybody’s guess. But the way Stuart is spinning, he seems to hate Labour and the LDs so much. If he is representative of what SNP supporters truly feel,”
SBS, you can see similar feelings between Lab and LD om some blogs and that doesn’t stop both parties to enter a coalition
18. Andrea - “The only “error” that I can spot in Stuart’s post is that Dundee West is not SNP at SP level…at least not yet.”
B*gger!! I really dislike chicken counting!! And now I just did it myself…
Excuse/reason: we have been talking about Dundee West being such an obvious “sitter” for the SNP in May for so long now, that it must have just seeped into my mental image of the electoral map!!
This image of the SNP already being in charge in that seat is strengthened by the fact that Labour’s incumbent Kate Maclean MSP is standing down.
25 - surely depends on how much the LDs manage to separate themselves from Labour in the voters minds - if there is an anti administration flavour to the voting then it’ll be the SNP and to a smaller extent the Tories that benefit as the Scots LDs are a defending party, trying hard to present themselves as an opposition one.
13 - My parents are staunch labour voters and they despise Brown for his pensions disaster and so on. You need to re-evaluate your opinion on the opposition that Brown has. He could change it, yes, but he’s starting at a disadvantage.
28 - true. But it was said that in the Dunfermline by-election the LDs were very adroit on blaming things that were the fault of Holyrood on Labour in Westminster. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know if they did. But if they did square this circle, I am sure they can do it again.
You can’t say the LDs use nasty underhand, but ultimately successful tricks to pretend they are the opposition on one hand, but say that they will crash and burn as they are part of the discredited establishment on the other.
Heck, I’m still in the Far East, eating snakes, spiders and uteruses. Those with a strong stomach can see what I’ve been up to here:
http://toffeewomble.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-gourmet-tour.html
Be warned!
However I just want to pick up on Mark Senior’s point. He says people still won’t forgive the corruption, etc, of the Major government 92-97. This is a fair point, even the most partisan Tory must agree that these were not the Right’s most fabulous years in the UK; its true that Major’s government gave off an increasingly nasty whiff of decay and sleaze, even if, economically, it was actually quite competent (ocne they’d been kicked out of the ERM).
But… really… nothing but NOTHING the Tories did in those years even BEGINS to compare to Iraq. Iraq is a tragedy beyond measure. It’s a total moral catastrophe. It’s an ethical disaster that has led to the humiliation of the West, the destabilising of the Middle East, the emboldening of our terrorist enemies, and possible nuclear confrontation with Iran, and all of it caused by a lying prime minister leading a craven party.
Iraq is a putrefying wound, our national disgrace. It shames the entire British political class, but most of all it shames Labour, and the Labour leadership, and Labour ministers like Blair and Brown, and all those Labour MPs who voted for this bubonic disaster.
Think about it. In Iraq HALF A MILLION PEOPLE HAVE DIED. Compared to that, Back To Basics, Edwina Currie and The Hamiltons don’t really stack up, do they?
Fair point Tabman 22. Alas you ought to read the Observer’s main leader with its fulsome praise for Cameron. The world has gone crazy.
In the old days I used to look to the Telegraph to offer total support to the Tory leader and for the Observer to attack. Now it is all the other way round. None of the old fashioned Tory papers seem to like him yet he is the darling of the liberal press.
30 I’m not saying anything is nasty or underhand - its politics after all
Just not sure that in Scots Parliament elections the Dunfermline approach can work. the LDs could blame Westminster Labour in a Westminster election, are the voters likely to be taken in / “recognise the benefits LDs delivered over Labour’s objections” in a Scots one.
It seems to me that we can see already that there are nationalist Tories who support SNP at Scots elections and Conservatives in Westminster (diferential shares in polls), could be a goodly number of LD voters who vote LD at Westminster but object/vote against LDs in Edinburgh.
Some of have been saying for ages that there will not be a snap election because Labour just have not got the cash.
I am pleased that finaly the message is finally getting through!
(If anyone wants a link to the Telegraph story on cash for peerages etc it is on my blog
)
33 - it will be interesting. I can’t see, however, such a divergent trend as GE vote share being well up, and Holyrood vote share being well down 2 years later.
In terms of who it would benefit, this is how I see the prospects of Salmond as first minister…
1) The SNP - being in power will do a world of good to the SNP. It has recently been successfully moving away from a party based around a single policy (in the way UKIP would love to). The key thing is how Salmond would handle an independence referendum. Blair was able to shy away from referendums he thought he may lose (Euro, EU Constitution). Salmond cannot shy away, even if he may lose.
2) - The LDs - need to get out of bed with Labour sooner or later.
3) - Labour - need opposition to regroup
4) - The Tories - would find it difficult to rail against the SNP. I think they would rather bemoan a Labour led government.
5) Scotland - I do think “it’s time for a change” (as Messrs Owen and Steel said in 1987!)
re 34. Benedict - people don’t need to go over to your blog to get the Telegraph URL because here it is
15. Why are you saying Alex Salmond challenge in SP seat then. Sorry what do you mean. BTW What you think on split ticket voting so commmon in America. Could we see people say voiting SNP at Scots Parliament level and then turning round and voting say Conservative for Westminster Parliament. Could see how it could make sense to a voter who say wants/likes the SNP in charge at Holyrood but not being an SNP independence fundis voting Conservative for Westminster.
36 - Phew, that’s a relief
Re 8, Robin, We used to hold mining seats in Derbyshire. So I would not say they were that safe for labour necessarily.
36 can’t remember how to post as hyperlink
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2000537,00.html
IMHO a good article on the prisons crisis and how it could get very much worse for Reid - the police, the prison service even the Church likely to add to the pressure on him. Gordon is going to be under great pressure to expand HO spending in the next Budget which could hit his plans elsewhere.
Re last ICM Poll. 283 Tories, 266 Labour, 68 Lib Dems. Who makes up the others.
37 - Punter I don’t think that is very likely. I don’t see why a voter would want to vote for a left-wing nationalist party at Holyrood and a right-wing unionist party at Westminster. It’s certainly not something I’ve come across when I’ve been canvassing.
Re 36, Mike, Fair enough, although they could always pop over for my wise words on the subject
Re 40, Ted, yeas according to that article there are 1000 less prison officers now than in 1997, despite what nearly a doubling of the prison population.
42. Max
I disagree. I think that it is actually reasonably common, certainly in northern Scotland, but mainly for tactical reasons.
Remember that the Tories are not as “right-wing” in Scotland as they are down south. “One-nation” traditional, rural toryism still has a significant adherance in swathes of Scotland, over the free-market sort. The Scottish Tory party is very soft centre/centre-right, seen from an international context.
And the Scottish National Party are far less “left-wing” than is commonly portrayed! “Mainstream social democratic/centre-left” from an international perspective. I, for example, am a free-market, classical liberal, and am perfectly happy to be a member (and was pretty active in the past). We are a very broad church indeed, because we are, quite literally, a national movement, and are united by our desire for Scotland to once again govern herself. All other matters pale into insignificance compared to the campaign to regain our sovereignty.
42 & 45
I should have added that a significant chunk of Tory voters actually back independence! Around 15% of them, if I recall correctly. (As do about 40% of Labour voters, but less than 10% of LD voters, IIRC.)
Max/Stuart. Can some of you explain this piece? They mention a by-election, but then they seem to talk about Glasgow East…I mean the poor David Marshall is still alive and I suppose he doesn’t have plans to die soon!
http://express.lineone.net/news_detail_pa.html?sku=116996838016313193-H2
Political bettting like radio phone ins are dominated by rabid Tories. It does spoil the debate.
Politics will change with Brown because Brown (& Co) are accutely aware of what has been said and what is likely to be said about the administration and with exective power will be in a position to respond. At the moment there isa bit of a political hiatus which seems to feeding extreme Tories with over confidence.
re: Gordon (Brown). The number of references the Tories have been making to clunking (fists) in recent weeks suggests that they think that what was originally seen as a ringing endorsement by Blair for his successor has turned into a bit of a hospital pass. As wise heads suggested at the time.
Re 49, Alex, yes just so.
I did that once playing rugby on the wing. I was cornered by several opposition backs on the left wing, so I passed to our hooker, who was only about 5′. They picked him up and threw him to the ground to make him drop the ball which he did.
I didn’t do that again. Seemed a bit unfair.
[50] I trust you kicked the ensuing penalty over the bar, BW
A pedant writes: Post [50] was probably spam. It didn’t mention a blog.
45 i agree with you Stuart. In our (SNP) campaigning here we have found a small but not a tiny amount of voters who do vote differently for Westminster to Holyrood. Also a small amount either vote only at Westminster election some only for Holyrood (majority for us so far for Holyrood so far here on the banks of the Tay seem to give us first preference). I always go back to check up the ‘marked up register’ to see if they are telling fibs but no, they are telling me the truth. Could be a reason why the SNP vote share dipped at the 2005 Westminster election but a bigger sample would need to undertaken. An academics dream topic for a thesis. Now off campaigning to find more.
47. Andrea
Very interesting indeed!!
It looks as though they were going to “get” (read “bribe with a peerage”?) David Marshall to stand down, forcing a by-election!! How topical, given the fact that John McTernan, 10 Downing Street’s Director of Political Operations, and the boss for Scottish Labour’s Holyrood campaign, has just been re-interviewed, this time “under caution” by the boys in blue, as part of their cash-for-peerages investigation
Lordy, that could have been messy
53. Stuart. I wonder if they meant election and not byelection. Hoping that David Marshall would stand down at next GE and McTernan being selected in GE looks more reasonable than causing a byelection out of nothing.
53/54- or have a bye-election on 3 May.
Commentator et al, I think Labour’s basic problem is that few voters believe them now, even when they have a good story to tell. It’s similar to our position in 1993. I think a growing number of voters who may have no liking for the Conservatives just want to put this government out of its misery. The loss of a seat like Hucknall, in Nottinghamshire, is quite telling.
54. Well, the Express is very rarely known to get its journalistic facts wrong Andrea
But it would not surprise me if they had planned to force a by-election. It used to be quite a common practice in UK politics, but declined in popularity, partly due to the tactic backfiring!
56.”I think Labour’s basic problem is that few voters believe them now”
I think their main problem is that they can start to look incompetent (Home Office in particular).
And interest rate rises Andrea, with high inflation. Don’t underestimate the bread and butter issues. Sleaze - tight money- incompetence - gay rights over Catholic adoption agencies - the man in the street will not like this one bit.
It does remind you of the end of the last Tory govt with everything going wrong.
Apocryphal comments are pointless, some one of my aguaintance was stunned when Labour won the last election, ‘I dont’ understand it. she said’ Everyone I know hates them’ Of course she didn’t know everyone. All you can get is a general impression, my general impression is, Labour are unpopular yes, but I don’t think the Tories are in the sort of commanding position that guarantees a certain win at the next GE. Cameron is not that well liked by TradTories, in fact he is actively disliked by many, particularly those with UKIP leanings, they’ll probably reluctantly vote Tory, as the hate Labour. As for the Libdems, those people who vote for them will be the ususal mixture: old time Liberals,tactical voters, pox on both your houses etc. With the BNP/UKIP vote to be taking into consideration, certain change of PM, those who rush to judgement on the result of the next GE, could end up with egg and face in close proximity. The one thing I’ll stick my neck out and say, I don’t think its going to be a Tory version of ‘97, far from it.
58 and 59 Yes. You get into a cycle where nothing goes right.
60. Events, dear boy, events.
There are plenty of things which could go spectacularly wrong between now and the next GE, which will turn it from the tight, Tory-favouring contest it seems now, into an absolute rout.
Think about cash-for-peerages and Iraq, for a start. If people are charged at Number 10 that could be Labour’s Black Wednesday. Even more, if we have to slink away from Iraq and it spirals into further chaos (which seems unfortunately quite likely to me) the damage will surely be enormous for Brown/the government.
I think there must be a fair chance, at least, that by the next GE Labour will be swept from power with some venom. Too many people are starting to hate them.
That is the point though coldstone. The true extent of the “parliamentary swing” to the Conservatives, as opposed to the swing in percentage of the vote, since the last election, is probably hidden by the polls - which only concern the latter. There is no doubt some “traditional tories” are put off by Cameron and, if not indicating this at the ballot box, are almost certainly going to be reflecting this when opinion polled. Therefore the difference must be being made up in other, more parliamentary crucial, areas.
The last election is a very bad example to use to judge the extent of Labour “hatred”, when the Conservative electoral platform made no attempt to capitalise on it.
60 - I think it will be in terms of vote share, but because of the boundaries, not in seats. IMO, you are looking at a Tory majority of twenty or so seats.
Re 57 Labour would be crazy to risk a byelection.
While the news is obviously terrible for Labour this week, I wonder if the bad news will peak too early to do massive damage at the locals…
It is still many months from the elections, so if this home office and particular honours news dies down within a months I would expect to see Labour recover from what will likely be terrible polls next week.
Of course, if the honours news keeps coming - and I’m beginning to think that it will now - then it could stay bad.
66 - how can you foresee the home office news “dying down”/ Finding a criminal who has re-offended having not being sent to jail will become a stock story on slow news days for the foreseeable future.
59.”gay rights over Catholic adoption agencies”
I see David Davis has come out in favour of the opt out. On Labour side, I see that Hazel Blears has been reported to be (allegedly) on Blair/Kelly/Hutton side, whilst John Reid spoke against the opt out. Some Labour backbenchers in favour of the opt out are emerging (not very surprising names though: Geraldine Smith, Dobbin and Benton).
Also in the Libdems some pro opt out MPs are voicing their opinion: Colin Breed and Younger-Ross.
This issue can really break party lines.
OK, purely for a larf, here is the result of the UK GE in Glasgow East:
1. Lab (David Marshall) 18,775 (61%, -3%)
2. SNP 5,268 (17%, nc)
3. LD 3,665 (12%, +6%)
4. Con 2,135 (7%, +1%)
5. SSP 1,096 (4%, +2%)
Even a deeply-flawed candidate like John McTernan should have just managed to Hold that one!?! N’est ce pas?
The SNP would require a 21.85% swing to take it. Mind you, Jim Sillars managed a 33.1% swing in 1988 in Govan, and Margo MacDonald managed 26.55% in Govan in 1973, so there are precedents!
When any party has been out of power for a long time, as the Tories, (longest period of opposition for 200 years?)by their standards have, its members and supporters slide into a form of self delusion. John O’Sullivan’s book, ‘Things Can Only Get Better’ captures this well. They start to believe that every thing will go right for their party, everything will go wrong for the government, perhaps it will, who can tell, but don’t get your hopes up,’Many a slip, twixt cup and lip’
32 - Mike, exactly. And if a not very bright amateur like myself can spot it, how come the very highly paid pinkos at the Obs roll over and have their tummies tickled every time Cameron throws them a bone?
Actually, that’s a bad example. At least a bone would have some chance of having some meat on it!
[69] If there were a by-election there I’d be astonished if Our Genial Host didn’t shovel everything he could onto the SNP - on the basis of the precedents you quote.
70. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.
I’m sorry to harp on this theme, but Iraq changes everything. It’s so different and so unusual and so catastrophic it makes all previous comparisons irrelevant. We’ve never been in the situation where a party - Labour - and a leader - Blair - have led the country into an illegal, failed and disastrous war which has caused the slaughter of half a million people. At least we won the First World War.
It’s not just a bit of midterm blues, is it? Iraq ain’t the elephant in the sitting room, it’s the komodo dragon in the sandwich. And we haven’t even opened the political picnic basket yet.
Trust me. There will be a price to pay for Iraq, a blowback, Die Rechnung. I think we can see the first inklings of this in America. The wind will blow our way, too.
Have just been watching Blair on TV when it struck me for the first time.
He’s completely lost the plot / is actually mad !
The squeals of pain from the Lib Dems grow ever louder as Labour’s disintegration gathers pace.
I find it hard that Labour would even contemplate a by-election at this time. Can’t help wondering if they meant to say that Marshall would stand down at the next general election.
76. Max, I thought the same.
It’s a seat that they would probably hold comfortably in a GE, but I cant’ see the logic of the byelection.
I think the Express wrote byelection instead of election
74 - I know what you mean. I’ve had my genuinely held serious doubts about Blair’s mindset since the autumn. I find him extremely disturbing to watch now. I don’t think he’s mad in the “absolutely barking” sense - but he’s certainly got way too much belief in his own rapidly diminishing powers and abilities.
I think he’s deluded rather than mad.
Totally off-topic I know, but a light-hearted view of our current PM (if that’s possible):
http://www.whydidigowrong.co.uk/?p=489
….know what I think but tbh dreading the ‘alternatives’
:|
I hope the link works
75 You have started early on the vodka today .
80. That’s right Mark, just accuse your opponents of being alcoholics. That’ll really raise the Lib Dems game! What’s your next masterstroke going to be?
The flip side of Mike’s article is that the tories are in trouble for spending too much money.
No we aren’t. It’s for campaigning outside election periods. Duh.
Earlier this week, I noticed a poll yougov about the gay adoption/Catholic Churches row.
Overall 43% of people are against an exemption for Catholic agencies, while 42% are in favour of an opt. 15% don’t know.
Now I’ve just seen the breakdown by party.
Conservatives voters: 57% are in favour of an opt out; 30% against; 13% don’t know
Labour voters: 36% in favour of an exemptions; 49% against the opt out, 15% don’t know.
Libdems voters: 29% in favour of an opt out; 61% against the opt out; 10% don’t know.
Overall 47% of people feel strongly about the issue, whilst 43% don’t care too much. Among the tories, 49% feel strongly and 46 don’t really mind how the row is resolved. Among Labour 47% don’t care too much and 42% feel strongly. Among Libdems, 53% feel strongly, 38% not
Sean Fear makes a good point on Anthony Wells’s site re: that poll - the fact that over a third of Labour supporters want an opt out shows the Cabinet has jumped the wrong way on this one
Conservative and Labour councillors in the same boat in Mid Sussex after 2 from each party have been referred to the Standards Board with respect to the handling of planning applications . The 2 Conservatives have resigned from the Conservative group on the council see http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1145366.0.councillors_facing_witchhunt.php
85. Commentator, almost 50% of Labour voters don’t want it. If they had jumped in the other way, they would have upset 49% of their voters.
And then there’s also a good proportion of Tories (1/3) who are against the opt out
Btw, ABC1 types are for the opt out (45 to 42%), whilst C2DE are against it (44% to 39%). Is this result expected?
Not by me, and I don’t really believe it Andrea. Probably “within the MoE” stuff.
88- ABC1 are also more interested in the issue, whilst C2DE think that Parliament is facing much more important issue than this one.
This finding is predictable IMO.
73
Agree Iraq is a major issue and unlikely to go away between now and the next election.
However,in their unique way New Labour seem to have managed to piss off almost every section of the electorate,whether it be the NHS,education,military,devoltion,commuters,corporate governance,council tax payers and now catholics.
Hard to see a way back from here over the next two years,but miracles do happen.
86 Good to see the LD’s insidiously raking (non-existent?) muck
as usual Mark.
90
The layout of line three must be down to the vodka!
84 - Depends who feels strongly on it - if Labour voters for opt out feel strongly and those against really don’t care the impact on Labour support would be affected. Interesting that Liberal Democrats have moved from Whiggish liberalism - tolerance of difference and conscience - towards Political Correctness Liberalism which is intolerant of conscience and expects all to sign up to an agenda of acceptance (sorry if that sounds a little Yellow Peril) but I’ve always been more on the Voltaire side).
I would guess that reservations about the wisdom of adoption by single sex couples are not unknown outside the Catholic tradition. But surely the problem should not be whether an agency is permitted to opt out of a law, but exactly what criteria adoption agencies are permitted by law to apply in securing its primary aim of securing the interests of the child.
2. Are you ok? Cup of tea? or should that be Fair Trade Coffee personally spat in by African Farmers? Im a trained counselor you know. Here, I have a leaflet that may help you. ‘The No More Hiding Guide to The Joys and Benefits of Acting Like an Adult’……
One of the funniest posts I’ve read in some time and I thought this was going to a boring Sunday…
Thank you.
Re 51, Innocent, I can’t remember what happened next.
Re a pedant, what you mean this one?
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
RE 82. I found that Sunday Times story odd for every serious campaigner from every party knows, or damn well should know, that you can spend as much as you like right up to the moment that the official campaign starts. It is only then that the offical spending limits come in and these can be very tight in hard fought local campaigns.
All parties do it all the time and the Sunday Times was just naive. You try to get as many of those Lib Dem Focus leaflets, the In Touch ones from the Tories and the Red Rose from Labour printed and delivered before the due date.
I am surprised, Peter, that you do not seem aware of it.
97 - Funniest comment was Hazel Blears saying it’s unfair that other parties should be able to raise & spend more money than Labour. Ahh diddums.
re 8. But Labour MPs seem not to worry about it otherwise long before now they’d have gone and offered Blair the bottle of whiskey and pearl handled revolver. He might have won for you in the past but haven’t you yet realised that he’s a huge electoral liability and the longer you leave him in office the worse it is.
Re 66, MBoy, I take you rpoint about the bad news peaking, but personaly I see the press being full of it right up to the next GE.
If the Home Office were going to recover it would have started by now. As it is it lurches from one crisis to the next. The only thing good you can say is that they are managing to bury yesterdays bad news rather well with today’s (hence areticle on my blog)
Pn the cash for honours/peerages I see this going on and on as well as it is a cheap way of filling the papers with gossip whether it has merit or not. take todays telegraph story. The only news in it was that the PM had written something down. Other than that what was supposed to be on that paper adds nothing new to the debate and changes the legalities of nothing at all.
re 7 but the Westminster and Holyrood seats aren’t coterminous
Re 68, Andrea yes it can. Frankly I think it is a non issue, as I don’t think anti gay discrimination is anything but a minority interest out side of faith based positions, in things like adoption agencies. Effectively it is about ramming the views of one minority down the throats of another to very litle useful effect as far as I can see.
After all 30 years ago people though vegatarians were wierd, and you couldn’t eat where you liked if you were one. These days many many places cater for them, and no legislation has been passed what so ever.
On the other hand, here we are playing with peoples faith and in many ways taht is playing with fire. Not only that, but it could be electoral suicide.
Gordon Brown will be playing the part of the Scottish guy in dad’s army at the next election to the PLP going on about being dooooooomed!!!!!
What will Labour do next outlaw elections? Get more of the dead to vote? Let EU visitors from eastern European vote? Ban opposition? Who knows - they just keep on building the Daw higher and higher to stop the flood of public opinion sweepping them away. The Tories rightly got swept away in 97 and Labour needs to be punished and removed in power for behaving even worse than the Tories ever did.
I noticed that interest rates were mentioned in an earlier comment - just like to point out that these are set independently so i cannot see them really in the future being cut and Labour getting an electoral reward - it does not work like that any more and is one of the only decent things they have done in power. I would point out though, Labour have repeatedly raped the inflation measure and it is now as laughable and as creditable as comical alley’s assertions!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can see we will be all singing songs about Tony only having one…………..
Re 84, Andrea, got a link for that poll?
OT - but I see that the James Grey saga continues unabated… Daily Mail now has this interview with his (ex) wife. Whichever way the vote has gone on (result on Tuesday) I don’t see it being pretty at all.
Re 86, Yes mark, I have not got the low down on that one, but one of the Labour councilors is highly respected by us Conservatives, so I do have to wonder what the hell is going on. Obviously our chaps can have “done no wrong” either
I do wonder if it is the cranky way the rules operate or if there is a genuine issue of wrong doing.
The only problem, Hugh, is the independent rates committee is not that independent. Just look at who appoints them. You don’t have to give instructions, simply choose the ones that think like you do.
Who appoints, without any parliamentary scrutiny, the Lord Chief Justice? Other judges? Quango chairmen? All the other ‘independent’ boards?
Its one of the best tricks Labour have pulled, attaching the word ‘independent’ to these bodies while stuffing them with like minded supporters.
Its a new form of fealty bonding.
104. Benedict: http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/OMI070101014.pdf
Re 108, Andrea, many thanks. Tell me do you think it is important that the Catholic Church should not get any opt out?
107 Just goes to show what a currupt bunch labour are - they obviously have no shame!
They rape all the instruments of government for their own purposes. Lie and decieve about everything and have no control over basic events. God i thought Major was bad but this lot are even worse.
On a different note do you think brian haw will camp outsides Blair’s house, once he has been impeached for illegal wars etc?
Yes i agree with 110.
110 - With Walter Wolfgang to keep him company, before both being detained indefinitely under the Persecution of Tony Act
There was probably just as much blundering from 1997-2003, but New Labour and the Media were taking their Long Honeymoon, and so the bad mistakes (and there were plenty) were sympathetically reported. They scarcely mattered.
Now, the Media are seizing on every bit of bad news, every mistake is magnified, every blunder pitilessly, unfairly exposed. But, it’s the Media perception that has changed, rather than there are more blunders.
It follows that the bad news has not peaked too early — there’s as much (or as little) as there ever was. But, the Media appetite has grown enormously and feeds on itself — so there’s plenty more bad news to come.
It’s interesting to see the reaction of long-time Labour supporters. During the long Tory years of misrule, all through the honeymoon, Labour were able to bask in much popular acclaim.
It’s now very tough for them — real, harsh unpopularity in many cases for the first time in their political careers. E.g., see 2.
103
‘I noticed that interest rates were mentioned in an earlier comment - just like to point out that these are set independently so i cannot see them really in the future being cut and Labour getting an electoral reward - it does not work like that any more and is one of the only decent things they have done in power.’
Yes, but the members of the committe with one or two exceptions are personaly selected by GB from his list of cronies, including the member that gets flown in from the USA each month.
Surprising with all this stuff about education, standards etc. we still don’t have enough qualified economists to amke up a committe of 8 ?
Re 113, Gwynfa, You could say exactly the same about the Conservatives from 179 to 1992, and 1992 to 1997. I am not sure the Conservative government from 1992 to 1997 was any more corrupt or incompetent than Labour from 1997 to 2001.
114. I always get mildly annoyed when people talk about ‘cronies’.
Presumably the party you support, John, will just get unqualified random strangers off the street to set interest rtes?
56. What seat are you talking in relation about.
Gwynfa. Any new news on the WA Election front. Mark Senior is telling us to watch Bridgend about for Liberal Democrats.
114. Sorry, that is absolute nonsense.
This is a very interesting piece:
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=labour-has-lost-the-north%26method=full%26objectid=18543117%26siteid=50081-name_page.html
It rather undermines the argument of some that “the Tories are making no progress in the North”. In fact since 1997 the Tories have gained 188 Council seats compared to the Lib Dems 108.
Not good enough but better than the LDs who are always telling us how they are the challengers to Labour in the North.
118 Punter, Bridgend is an interesting seat, more in common with the VoG than the Valley seats. The Conservatives have held it before at Westminster, of course.
I have no local information, but … if Labour lose it, I’d have though CON gain was more likely than LD gain.
120. Can you tell us how the military vote splits these days.
121. Yes but in 1983! We even had one super Plaid optimist predicting a close finish in Ogmore! Still what news more generally. Seems the Tories are getting excited up north, but an internal split is causing severe problems in CW&SP. Any other seats making waves. What I’m hearing Labour should try and move the election forward as they just seem to keep sinking. The big unknown is whether Plaid can repeat the 99 Valleys breakthrough. Any word on that.
123. But, didn’t the Tories also hold the precursor seat to Bridgend in the 1974 elections, when they lost the General Elections? If so, that was an achievement.
I think if the bad news keeps on coming, then Labour will have to face the problem of very low turn-out, in which case losing Valley seats to Plaid is a real possibility.
Re 120, RikW thanks for taht. Do we know what the party split is for over all seats now? iE, we know there are 760 Labour and we know how many the Conservatives have gained, but how many do we currently have?
116
‘ I always get mildly annoyed when people talk about ‘cronies’.
Presumably the party you support, John, will just get unqualified random strangers off the street to set interest rtes?’
Just don’t call them independent!
124. Not sure what the situation was then. You know more than me. Could be very different boundaries. Re turn out, well low turn out amongst their core. The converse is it should massively motivate everyon else’s support even the less than enthusiastic to turn and administer a kicking. As I say though. Any news on individual seats you have heard about at all.
125 - exactly, Benedict. If the Tories have gained 180 having previously been 0, and the LDs have gained 108 having previously been 1000, then its pretty obvious who the main challenger is.
Rik will be drawing bar charts next! (Oh … he already has …
)
125: I’ve asked this before, but without getting an answer: why do we care so much about gains rather than totals in local elections? I looked and looked to see how many councillors each party had after last year’s elections, but only found out the answer thanks to Jon Cruddas last week. You’d never report the GE the same way (in 2005, the Conservatives made 35 gains, so were the big winners etc…)
68&84: Very interesting, thank you for posting. Is there any information on numbers who favour wider exemptions than just for Catholic adoption agencies? Am heartened to see that there is a variety of LD opinion on this, I had assumed that the vast majority would support with no exemptions.
Re 128 and 129, Yes the way locals are reported is a bit odd in that respect. Both types of figures would be useful.
Tabman, on the bar charts, of course RikW has not got your party’s legendary expertease for bar charts.
Tpfkar, Yes it is interesting to see that opinions do vary on all sides.
129. Well the variety of opinions will be helpful at the upcoming elections, at which no doubt Lib Dems across the country will be expressing completely different views on this subject to different groups of voters.
Re 131, Yellow Peril, Surely not!
128 - Tabman why dont you just read what is written instead of shoving your foot in your mouth yet again?!!?!?
My comment and the article was talking about progress. That has been the debate recently on here and on other fora. To go from 0 to 188 would be amazing progress, compared to going from 1000 to 1108 anyway, as it is harder to gain seats with no local record or base.
You are rather typical of the type of Lib Dem so many of us despise. You dont tackle the argument in question, you invent an argument to attack, that suits your purposes.
Re 133, RikW, “You are rather typical of the type of Lib Dem so many of us despise. You dont tackle the argument in question, you invent an argument to attack, that suits your purposes.”
Well, yes but labour do that too. (There may even be a deluded or misguided few who think some of our people do as well
)
GB will have to go cap in hand to the unions. That means favours not fairness. DC should have a field day. Did we really launch a ‘crusade’ for moslem women’. I hope not. Bush got into terrible trouble using that word in relation to the war on terror. On adoption, the Catholics place only with married couples; their position is therefore not anti gay, as such. Why hound them out of business? Why not let them refer non married couples to other agencies?
133 Refer you to 122.
Election, what election? Tony Blair is trying to lure Gordon Brown and David Cameron into a false sense of security when in fact he is planning to machine-gun the ‘royal family’ and install himself as emperor for life. Cash for peerages will then no longer be a problem, nor indeed will be the former inspector Yates.
Could our dear,beloved TB be so UNdeferential?
135. The ‘crusade’ for Muslim womens’ rights is IMHO rather a clever dog whistle.