Why the form-book says Ségolène
February 12th, 2007
Has a woman ever failed when she has got so close?
Before the weekend the publishers of my book now called “The Political Punter - How to make money by betting on politics”, emailed to suggest that I write an additional chapter with my calls on the 2007 French Presidential election, the 2008 White House race and the next UK General Election. No pressure there then!
For by the time of the French election at the end of April and in early May, the book will only have been out for a week or so and many will read it after the French result is known and where my “forecast” will be exposed for all to see.
After much deliberation I decided that I simply could not simply write “Sarkozy” on the basis that the current interior affairs minister has a clear margin in the polls - things can change in the final two and a half months.
Then the thought struck me that the unique feature about Royal is her gender and much as I researched I could not find a case of a woman getting into the position that Royal is in today who has failed.
Just looking at the countries of the world that have had women leaders, the UK, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Iceland, Sri Lanka - to name but a few, the female contenders have won the first time their electorates have had the chance of voting for a woman.
So why should France be any different? There is another reason why Ségolène is worth a punt but that would be spoiling the book! In the betting you can get 11/8 on Ségolène doing it. Those look nice odds.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
“Just looking at the countries of the world that have had women leaders, the UK, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Iceland, Sri Lanka - to name but a few, the female contenders have won the first time their electorates have had the chance of voting for a woman.”
Ah, Mike, how could you forget…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell
famously reducing her Tory party to just 2 seats…..
As the London Times cartoon waspishly noted: “perhaps they can take turns to rebel…” (It was 1993, and they were drawing parallels with John Major’s gathering problems)
Well, it wasn’t really Campbell’s fault that the Tories got wiped out, but she still does break the pattern. (On the other hand, since she was already Prime Minister, she doesn’t follow the same pattern, either.)
It was
“…the first time their electorates have had the chance of voting for a woman.” though,
wasn’t it?
Wasn’t there a Swedish opposition party leader who nearly became PM (but not quite) a few years ago? And a Japanese one?
1 - the Canadian example is perhaps the worst campaign by a government party in history. If you think the Tories did badly in 1997: imagine that at the start of the campaign they had been in striking distance of Labour, then proceeded to more than halve their support and finish behind not only Labour and the Lib Dems, but also the SNP and UKIP.
re 1. Rod - that’s a very good point but Campbell did not become PM at a general election. She got it after a leadership contest in her party which is a different thing.
As I say it is when democracies are given the chance of voting for a woman leader for the first time they do so. I perhaps should have emphasised more that it is when the power of whether to have or not a woman leader for the first time is in the hands of the electorate that they tend to do do.
re 6. I should have written The experience is that almost without exception whenever the proposition is put to electorates that their country should have a woman leader for the first time then they have voted for the female candidate. When it comes to the crunch at the final stage of an electoral process voters seem to like the idea of having an elected women leader.
re 6 “…Campbell did not become PM at a general election.”
So I guess the Canadians were lucky, eh!
Maggie never looked like this, though……
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/h4/f1/17-v3.jpg
Much as it’s an interesting string of results - and you could add India (the world’s biggest democracy) to the list, I wouldn’t have put quite as much emphasis on it as you’re doing. Of course, if you’re just testing the water to see how people here react before writing your chapter, that seems an eminently sensible approach. In any case, I can’t think that someone who’s been as consistently successful at political betting as you have would make a punt solely on such a crude stat, even if it’s one that’s worth bearing in mind.
It would be helpful to have our Parisian friend’s view on how her launch went yesterday, but the impression I’m getting of her campaign so far is that it’s not the most slick or professional. Despite that, her ratings are holding up quite well. Whether they can continue to do so under similar conditions for the next three months is a different matter. By contrast Sarkozy - a much more experienced politician - is presenting a very assured appearance. He might not be terribly popular individually (but then who was the last French president who was), but if he looks like a man who can get things done, that may be enough.
Another trend to consider: in the history of the French fifth republic, only one socialist has ever become president. The division on the left does not help their cause, though this time the right is almost as split - between the centre and far right and between Chirac, de Villepan and Sarkozy’s camps in the mainstream. Sakozy’s might be by far the most important electorally, but a few percent here or there often decide these things. Conclusion: Sarkozy should get it, but Segolene’s support is stubbornly high and if she can avoid gaffes could just sneek in.
10. Forgot to add a comment about the betting. 11/8 looks about right to me, rather than value. Bayrou might be worth a shot though. He’s unlikely to win - I really can’t see someone outside the big two doing that - but if Royal does continue to be gaffe-prone, he’ll be the biggest beneficiary and close in on a place in the second round.
re 10 & 11. One thing I have noticed is the slightly patronising tone of parts of the French media to Royal and her campaign. There is just a flavour of Callaghan’s approach to Maggie in 1979. Whether it’s from the Sarkozy camp or the press really does not matter - it’s the sort of thing that could just encourage women voters. Her comment on Chinese justice was certainly a gaffe but I have not seem many more of those. And the condescending bit about “of lack of experience of foreign affairs” could, if not handled correctly, sound a bit sexist.
Interesting thoughts Mike, but if this is true, why is she behind om all the most recent polls? She seems to be presenting herself as ‘person of the people,’ holding back on policies until public cosultations etc, but Sarkozy seems to be a strong opponent, and not prone to making mistakes or being particularly weak where Royal is strong.
The story that caught my eye this morning is the Obama vs Howard scrap on Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6352785.stm
Is Howard really that secure on Iraq he can condemn outright an opponent of the war in another country? Could be Obama’s first real test.
13 - Howard’s strategies are right out of the Karl Rove school of thought. Do anything to make your opponent look untrustworthy. You’re either with us or with the terrorists kind of mentality.
In the past it has worked a dream. Will it work again this time? Will people finally see through it for all it is - i.e. a scandalous distortion of reality, manipulating people’s emotions with the weapon of fear?
re 13. Get your money on Obama! We all know how Americans love it when foreigners start interfering in their elections as the effort by the Guardian in 2004 orchestrating emails to Ohio showed.
9 - only in the fevered imaginations of half her cabinet
Mike - France already had a female Prime Minister, Edith Cresson in 1991-1992.
As I am probably the only one here to have watched the complete speech of Ms Royal yesterday, I’ll try to give you a dispassionate summary and my impressions.
The speech was very long, more than two hours. Thus it was difficult to keep a momentum during all that time and some parts were really boring.
However, she managed to shed light on a set of propositions especially focused on housing, support to the young and environment.
The fiscal part was quite short, centered on the idea that transferring more power from the central state to the regions would induce reduction of costs. She proceeded then to make numerous social(ist) promises : raise “small pensions” (threshold undefined) by 5%, raise the minimuw wage to 1500 euros a month “as soon as possible”, build more social housing even in cities wher mayors resist such planning, 0% loans of 10,000 euros to all Frenchmen reachnig the age of 18, creation of a “right to employment” for the young, through the creation of 500,000 jobs by regions (the soc ialists control all regions but 2), give a free guarantee to mortgages for low-income households…
I won’t list all but you get the point : Ms Royal wanted to energize her core (left-wing) vote with this program. Her strategy is still to try to keep aboard (or more exactly, to get back) the centrist electorate with quite tough propositions regarding young offenders, such as “military-run humanitarian missions for youn violent offenders”, and the protest vote with her proposition of “popular juries” where citizens chosen by a kind of lottery would have to evaluate and “judge” their MPs work.
The reaction to the speech was enthusiastic from her party, and quite good from the media. But the other candidates, especially the centrists have already begun to criticize the incredible cost of such a programme : 80 to 100 billion euros a year (the current deficit is 40 billion euros), and pointed that many contentious subkects (such as the pension, th e35 hours week or any kind of taxes) have been left out the speech and the programme, except from the announcement of future negotiations with the unions.
My analysis : she avoided the potential wreckage of her campaign, but she has still a lot to do to come back as the front-runner.
Mike - although not yet a punter - my ‘money’ has been on Obama (and Sarkozy sorry) for some time!
12- Actually Mike all polls published with the gender divide show that women are less convinced by Ms Royal than men. It is linked to the fact that traditionally French women are more conservative in their vote but not only : many women are irritated by the over-use of the victimization strategy of the Royal camp.
“One thing I have noticed is the slightly patronising tone of parts of the French media to Royal and her campaign…Her comment on Chinese justice was certainly a gaffe but I have not seem many more of those”.
Frankly Mike, I think it’s sexist to play down the foreign-policy weakness of someone with the chutzpah to seek the French presidency just because she is a woman. France is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has troops on the ground all over the world including 2,000 each in Lebanon and Afghanistan, and has a nuclear arsenal among the world’s top five. Constitutionally, the president takes lead role in these matters unencumbered by parliamentary oversight. Within two months, Royal has gaffed over the US, Israel, Lebanon, China and Canada and had failed even to read up on her country’s submarine nuclear force. She is absolutely fair game in this area. Also don’t forget why she was so vulnerable on foreign policy; it’s because she had nothing at all so say on the domestic front.
Coming back to your wider point, those of us predicting a Sarkozy win are not so stupid as to do this because he’s ahead in the polls three months before the election. For my part, it is because she was only holding a small lead in absence of any policies whatsoever. Now the policies are out and, as I suspected, they are a list of socialist retreads with a few ségolisms thrown in. She may well get a short-lived bounce from yesterday’s speech but very soon people will realise that she’s just a spray job over the PS jalopy and not the “new thing” centrist voters had hoped.
I haven’t been on the “wacky baccy” but Nu Labour’s ratings would soar if a female were to take over from Gordon Brown.IMO.
Any nominations ?
Couldn’t do much worse than Gord
As long as the miracle economy appears to be strong sterling will remain strong. After all Gordon has many plusses to keep sterling as the number one currency in the world as against the Euro, Yen and $. Here are just a few:
1. Trade deficit worst since 1697
2. Government debt 86% of GDP
3. Unemployment at a ten year high
4. Insolvency rates and repossessions up sharply
5. Civil Service payroll at record compared with private sector
6. Manufacturing bases shrunk to almost 20% and falling
7. Housing market dependent on sub-prime and irrational lending practices to keep going
8. Inflation 50% above limit (on the most ludicrously optmistic view of CPI)
9. North Sea oil running out making us a net importer
10. Money supply at record levels to underwrite Browns out of control spending
I think Sarkozy deserves to be favourite (his first and second round intentions support it) and he has already seen off a considerable number of rivals on his own side. Royal has a charm that must give her a chance though.
And yet both Sarkozy and Royal seem high risk candidates to me. They are both gaffe prone, and could blow up at any time. Bayrou is doing well (up to 14% in the last opinion poll I have seen). He has some momentum (newspaper headlines talk about the “progression” of Bayrou). He might be worth a tenner - largely because he will be teh benefiiciary of any serious gaffe by the other two.
She looks like she’s selling choc ices at the local Odeon
Anyway stuff the politics she’s much the most attractive candidate. Who would you rather invite for dinner?
FYI : Betfair is down this morning..
I share Mike’s view that Royal will win though not just for the reason he gives. As the deadline approaches, voters on the left are going to come under huge pressure not to allow Le Pen to make it through to the second round. Indeed, one of the trump cards that Royal can play against Sarkozy before the electorate as a whole is that he has failed to contain Le Pen and even engaged in a Dutch auction with him last year when he called the Maghrebin and Malian youth of the suburbs ’scum’. That may enable her to emerge from the first round as the leading candidate. Lots of the 18 per cent of Le Pen-istes will desist from voting for Sarkozy. A smaller fraction of the non-PS left will sit on its hands. Segolene wins.
13 & 14. Not surprisingly, John Howard’s attack on Sen. Obama has dominated news coverage in Australia today and led tonight’s bulletins.
I think the domestic significance of Howard’s comments lie in this thesis. Australia’s alliance with the United States is our ultimate insurance policy in the event of attack. It is a prime minister’s first job to protect that alliance, no matter what else is going on.
If voters (and remember it is an election year this year in Australia) decide that Howard, by his attack on the Democratic Party, risks the US alliance by appearing to be capable of working only with Republicans, then it could do serious, serious damage to his credibility on national security issues. In a party leader even slightly less savvy than Howard, it would be politically fatal. It certainly was for Mark Latham.
I think John Howard’s criticisms of the Democratic candidates were deliberate. His relationship with Bill Clinton when president appeared to have little warmth (Hillary?) also.
Watch to see what the next Newspoll says about his standing as preferred PM. If his figures keep heading south vis-a-vis new Labor leader Kevin Rudd for the next 2-3 months, and then don’t show any sign of heading north, he will be in real trouble at the next election.
Neil Vickers: “he called the Maghrebin and Malian youth of the suburbs ’scum’”. No he didn’t (see: “La Vraie Nature de Nicolas Sarkozy” by Michaël Darmon, which covers the “racaille” affair in great detail).
As you also say, Le Pen may make a comeback and force socialist voters into Royal’s arms. But that looks less likely than a seepage of formerly socialist voters to Bayrou and - believe it or not, but the recent polls show it - loss of workers’ votes to Sarkozy. This election will be no means a landslide for Sarkozy but she hasn’t got what it takes to secure the leftist (PS, PC, Green and Trot) base and reach out to the centre that a second-round victory requires.
If John Howard is so concerned about Iraq, why doesn’t he double the size of the Australians measly contribution, of only 1400 troops.
25- Neil
Actually, I think that you are doubly mistaken.
First mistake : the “vote utile” (useful vote) is already used ad nauseam by the Royal camp. The thing is that it is not an offensive but a defensive point : it is not an argument to enlarge her firs-round vote, thus trying to get over 30%, and over Sarkozy, but only to try to not get under 20%, the danger zone from Le Pen. Sarkozy does not need to do this as he has a bigger core vote and therefore appears stronger.
Second mistake : Don’t believe left-wing propaganda, Mr Sarkozy NEVER called “Maghrebin and Malian youth of the suburbs ’scum’”.
He visited Argenteuil (an impoverished and very crime-prone suburb, dominated by criminal gangs), and was asked by an Algerian woman (from her window) “Please Mr Sarkozy, we have enough, deliver us from these guys, delivers us from that racailles” (which is not exactly “scum”, but can be traslated as “vile thugs”,I guess, the name that wannabe gangsters of the suburbs give themselves (often in the inversed spelling of “caille-ra”.
Sarkozy answered : “Yes, Madam, we will help you, we will get rid of thos “racailles” “.
Since then, this incident have been spinned endlessly by the left as an “insult to all young people from the suburbs”, a shameless caricature…
mike Interesting article but what of India and Israel? I appreaciate Israel may be more difficult because before they voted on who would be the PM anyone could have been PM depending on how the negotiations went, but they too both had female heads of the executive.
All good and patriotic Britons must fervently wish for a Segolene Royal victory. I’ve just read her policy proposals, and there is no doubt that, if she won and if she implemented them, she would shove the French economy down the toilet, put back the nation’s liberalisation by 20 years, and make the EU virtually ungovernable, leading to its probable break-up into various groups.
All these things are, of course, highly desirable, from a British point of view.
Oh yes, and she’d also probably screw the euro, making holidays in the nice bits of her country even cheaper.
Go girl!
Mike These international parallels are plain silly. Each contest is different. There’s always a first time and this is it. You obviously haven’t folllowed just how dreadfully she’s performed. I also think that in a world where terrorism is such a danger she’s at a distinct disadvantage. That’s why Clinton has been so desperate to acquire foreign policy and defence credentials; Sego hasn’t any and it’s too late now. Sarko, on the other hand, has his two spells as Minister of the Interior. I’ll say one thing for her though; I liked her implied willingness in yesterday’s speech to be more prepared to raise human rights abuses with the ghastly Putin.
Neil Vickers- that is my understanding of French politics- depending where the Le Pen supporters go will decide the president. In 2002- there would have been a real possibility of Jospin winning if he made it into the 2nd ballot- Le Pen’s faction falling roughly 60:40 to the socialists; bizarre you might say, but this is France after all. There are similarities with the BNP more likely to take support from Labour in the UK in some of their strongholds (but would revert back to Labour in a run off with the Tories).
I think Royal is good value at 13:8, and my tip to win quite decisively in a narrow second round vote (if you catch my drift), but Sarkozy’s strong immigration line may appeal to the Pensistas.
I know that Chris from Paris is the authority here, and gives some excellent insights into the election (17), I think (like many of us here) he may still be slightly coloured by whom he wants to win.
28 coldstone- Barack already said he should send in a further 20,000 Aussies to fight the good fight.
The more I see of Barack the more I like- what Howard was thinking of in picking a fight with a potential US president, god only knows!!!
A speech over 2 hours long? How ridiculous!
coldstone: Yes, that’s exactly what Obama said, too…
OT. The Scottish Lib Dems have pledged to abolish the Scottish Prison Service !!!!!
Some of Scotland’s most notorious prisons in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen will be turned into luxury “green” apartments. Scottish murderers will be sent south to ensure the ethos of the “Glasgee Kiss” spreads to soft English prisons.
The Lib Dems proposal to abolish Scottish crime was critisized by Alex Salmond who said :
“An independent Scotland would ensure the special nature of Scottish crime continues to be nurtured, protected and cherished. Why should the English benefit from the spoils of Scottish crime !!”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6352461.stm
Chris is authoritative on this issue because his insights are sound, and not because he happens to live in Paris. That makes anyone who posts here and authority on British politics…not.
30 bendict- Mike was talking about the first time a country gets the opportunity to vote for a woman they invariably vote for her.
Israel and India have already hacve opportunities to vote for women, and did so, in Golda Meir, and Indira Ghandi.
To examine the impact of yesterday’s speech, here is the starting point : my own poll of polls (an average of the last poll of each of the 6 pollsters) give this result :
first round
Sarkozy 32,5
Royal 26,75
Bayrou 12,66
Le Pen 12.25
second round
Sarkozy 52,5
Royal 47,5
So the situation is pretty clear for the moment : Sarkozy enjoys a clear lead both in the first and second round.
Another important point is that Le Pen stays low. If you exclude CSA, the only pollster to give him 16%, all the others give him 12% or less, which is quite low. Historically, Le Pen voters are always understated in all polls, but our pollsters have tried to give more and more importance to the “shy Le Penist” criterion of analysis of raw data.
Another point underlined by most French pundits is the very low level of the total of left wing (centre-left to far-left) candidates : 39,33 % in my poll of polls. This is not enough to obtain a victory in the runoff even if the centrist candidate’s voters will probably split their votes. This is the crucila aspect of Ms Royal’s campaign : try to energize her core vote but also try to reach out to centrists : basically she needs all Bayrou voters to vchoose her in the secound round, which will be difficult if she appears too left-wing.
37 Tim. Exactly. We could especially do with some genuine insight from Torbay and Harpenden !!
34. and perhaps this was a dog-whistle on race issues by the man who invented dog whistling. Gawd - I hope he gets beaten
..but Chris 39. How would things look if Royal comes out on top in the first round? The left is not going to let an April 2002 happen again. The fringe candidates are going to be squeezed something rotten.
..and I am convinced there is something in the gender issue.
Royal is special in that she keeps putting her foot in her mouth. Maybe is Sarkozy was like Kerry - but he isn’t. He’s sharp and appears to have won a majority of the electorate back over.
If anything, she’s the Kerry here.
O/T - but we have been discussing Australia in another context - I’ve just been looking at “Cricinfo” and I’d say that those who wish to back Australia to win the Cricket World Cup might find now a good time to do so.
O/T but I see the latest Yougov poll gives UKIP 5%, which is quite at odds with their dreadful performance in recent local elections.
33- Indeed Tyson, I have already flashed many times a big disclaimer : I am a Sarkozy supporter. But I maybe one of the very few, for example, to have made the effort to watch Ms Royal’s whole speech yesterday, because I try to base my analysis of the campaigns on the facts.
You point out a very important factor : what will the Le Pen voters do in the second round ? They despised Mr Chirac and would certainly have voted at least as much for Lionel Jospin in 2002 (back in 1995, the split was something around 45% Chirac 25% Jospin, 30% abstention).
All polls show that they have a better image of Sarkozy. The current estimate is that 70% of Le Pen voters vould vote Sarkozy in a runoff against Royal. This could be undermined if Sarkozy appears to reach out too much to the centre or the left (some high profile left-wing celebrities, especially some former Mitterrandists support Sarkozy).
41 Mike S. I wouldn’t bet against the Howard of Oz ….. unless a certain former schoolboy spliffer decides to do a manifesto for another Howard !!
Good points Chris. Royal’s waning star has forced her - with yesterday’s speech - to start a first-round presidential campaign. And that requires shoring-up the disappointed left-wing vote with a classic PS programme with a few royalist grace notes.
Sarkozy, on the other hand, has already moved on to a second-round campaign of “ouverture” to UDF voters. He feels sufficiently secure in his right-wing base do this and he’s already had some success in securing endorsements from UDFers Christian Blanc and André Santini. A second-round endorsement from Bayrou himself will be tough but you can be sure that Team Sarkozy already has a cabinet position ready for him.
34. Obama’s grasp of foreign affairs is outstanding, the Aussies don’t have much more than 20 000 troops in their Army…..
On the Freench election, I’s not be surprised if the margin between Royal & Sarkozy doesnt narrow somewhat in the coming weeks. Having said that, if I did have money on it it would be on Sarkozy.
RE 38, *Cough* Tyson the point was he left those two examples out. Bizarely as Middle East politics is something I learn’t first hand I already knew that!
42- Mike - Well if Royal topped the first round, I think it would be almost all over for Sarkozy : he needs to appear the front-runner and the only rea president-in-waiting, so a second place in the first round would be hard to brush off.
For example in 1995, Jospin was wildly celebrated for having topped the first round (withe around 23,5%).
But, as in 1995, the problem for the left and Royal, as I have pointed out in my last post, is the meagre total of all left-wing candidates : all far-left or environmentalist candidates’ votes are already squeezed. Indeed, the “useful vote” already boosts Royal’s poll ratings.
42 Mike what basis do you have for thinking that she will come top in the first round? The fear of Le Pen is low at the moment so people on the left feel freer to scatter their votes. Her speech last night was a move to the Left designed to shore up her vote in the first round and I suspect she may be successful. However, she’s left herself wide open to Sarkozy because there wasn’t one word on how she would pay for a litany of spending promises. The Right are already hammering her on tax and they’ll go on doing so.
Thanks to Tim, Chris and Tyson. I shall have to rethink!
Neil, I can’t remember the last time I saw someone say that on a blog. Good for you!
A few points - firstly Royal/Sarkosy, I think it will go to the wire and it depends on whose campaign plays the dirtiest, Royal has made gaffes but Sarkozy is an implosion waiting to happen. Whoever makes the biggest mistake, or is smeared to greater effect, will lose.
Howard/Obama, Howard is loathsome and someone who I can guarantee to be on the opposite side of on most issues. As such any attacks can only make me like Obama more. It will help Obama in the US to be seen as a big player and it will hurt Howard at home and hopefully his government will go down the pan.
Yougov appear to be overstating the UKIP vote dramatically and they have to make adjustments, maybe it’s the type pf people who have signed up or sampling problems but they are clearly inaccurate and this throws their whole poll into question.
56. Certainly the UKIP rating on YouGov is some way out of line with the other pollsters. This could also mean they are first to spot a rise in support…but as Sean notes this does not tally at all well with the real votes cast in recent byelections. So overstatement seems more likely.
[56] I don’t see why UKIP shouldn’t poll 5% in response to the standard opinion poll question about a hypothetical General Election which isn’t going to happen, even if they are performing abysmally in Council elections. Apart from their organisational difficulties and/or ineptitude, they basically are a single-issue Party in people’s minds, and it’s an issue that has sweet nothing to do with local government.
It’s probably something to do with internet polling. Yougov regularly detects a rather larger vote for both UKIP and BNP than non-internet pollsters.
That said, measuring support accurately for minor parties is very difficult.
58 - I disagree, their support is negligible outside of Yougov, it’s either been infiltrated or they need to tweak their methodology.
ICM - 1% (3 voters)
MORI - less than 1%
Populus - 2% (15 voters)
CR - 1% (9 voters)
Yougov managed to find about 75 UKIP voters, now if that doesn’t suggest something is wrong I don’t know what does.
It would make sense for UKIP to infiltrate YouGov, what with it being the house poll of the Telegraph.
59 It is embarassing to admit you support the BNP and are a racist, surely that effect does not exist for UKIP.
62. Did Mike Smithson not up his yougov revenues by profilling himself as an unemployed NuLab voter ?
Theoretically a party could up its polling by registering niche profiles…
60. Especially as UKIP themselves only managed to find eight in Bedworth last week. Far more likely that the BNP are at 5% than UKIP, methinks.
Mike, isn’t there some way you could redesign this site into comment streams so all the UKIP obsessives could stop hijacking every other thread?
64 - BNP at 3% on Yougov, other polling organisations put them at 1 or 2%. There are reasons for not admitting though, as opposed to UKIP. The BNP figures are also backed up by actual votes.
66 - We are being *anti-UKIP*, questioning their supposedly high poll rating, not pro. If you want to find UKIP members go to ConHome where you can observe EU-obsessives at your leisure, they are all over it like a nasty rash.
65. I think you will find that ukpaul, myself and others have actually been in the forefront of complaining about UKIP-obsession in the past. There is a real poll figure to discuss here, though, rather than the insubstantial ramping and hype that has dominated UKIP discussions before. So I think it merits some discussion.
I’d certainly consider BNP at 5% as being more plausible than UKIP being at a similar figure. Yougov overstated UKIP at the Euro elections of 2004, but, to their credit, were the first polling company to identify that UKIP were likely to do very well.
I don’t care whether you’re pro or anti-UKIP. This is a French election thread.
I can’t help but think that Obama’s poor handling of the Iraq story will just underline doubts about his inexperience. Personally, I reckon the nomination will go neither to Hillary or Obama. Polls at this stage in the game aren’t worth anything.
Re. France - we have the latest poll graphs up on my site. They show a pretty steady Sarkozy lead for the past three weeks (pretty much since he launched). It will be interesting to see how Royal’s speech affects her ratings this week:
http://sportinvestor.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/french-election-2007-sarkozys-lead-remains-solid-despite-scootergate/
70 - New around these parts? THreads are *never* on topic, it’s the free wheeling nature of the discussion that keeps the debate going, often alighting on areas otherwise ignored or unconsidered. Anyway, I didn’t mention UKIP it was post 45 by Sean Fear.
Re UKIP. I have asked Peter Kellner for his view of why YouGov seems always to have big UKIP figures.
72 ukpaul. Very true. I’m fed up with all this betting and political nonsense. This used to be a genial Scottish history site and it has all gone to pot …… recently.
72. True. I am afraid I have no interest at all in French elections at this stage. Yesterday’s thread, ostensibly about the poll, became one on Cameron and drugs. It always happens.
39 chris for paris- I really admire your stamina in listening to a 2 hour speech- still nowhere as long as Castro’s which could stretch to a good 4 or 5 hours listing the achievements of the great socialist revolution.
If I were French I would probably hold my nose and vote Sakozy (not telling anyone mind). As a foreigner, I am extremely curious about Royal, and would like to see more women as heads of state. I would have voted for Merkel quite enthusiastically in Germany.
76. Sarkozy could be France’s saviour - their Maggie Thatcher. Royal would be an unmitigated disaster for the country, if she means half what she says.
I simply can’t believe the French, who are generally quite clever, will continue to vote for guaranteed decline. They know the country needs sorting out.
Sarkozy will win.
77: I’ll only believe it when roger appears and tips Royal.
And the idea of Mike intervening to ensure that topics stay on thread? More chance of Gordon Brown speaking out against gay adoption by Iraqi catholic foxhunting BNP supporters!
seanT- just revisiting the thread last night (briefly and apologies) I saw Cameron’s personal statement later, which effectively owned up to the indiscretions of youth (he was young and did things he regrettted bla bla). I personally thought he would have been much better keeping to the before politics line and not giving an inch, or alternatively declaring pretty much his whole history, and taking the fallout
The middle ground- kind of admitting to something a long time ago is dangerous, extremely dangerous. Whilst the story I think will give him some useful media exposure, and a poll bounce (people’s sympathies coupled with an upping of his street cred), what if other things start coming out now? See Guido’s blog which is asking for people who attended raves for stories of Dave and Samantha who were supposed to be there.
Cameron, by referring back to his youth (and learning his lesson), to then trying to defend further stories in the future might start to find himself in an untenable position. A corrosive drip drip effect.
It will not be the story that kills Cameron- it would be the way he handles it- yesterday he shifted away from his position at the leadership contest to leave this flank cruelly exposed from future charges of deliberately misleading, and this (complete non) issue could perhaps fatally wound him.
And, as a fervent anti Tory poster, it would be disastrous to see Cameron go on a story like this. Needless and nonsensical, and would put the Tories back into the throes of the moralist rightwingers.
Tyson,
He didn’t admit or say anything new. In the leadership election he used the line “young and did things I regretted”. He said nothing yesterday that was not an identical repeat of what he said in the leadership election - on which basis he was overwhelmingly elected.
77 - Seant you have a touching faith in the French to see sense. Whenever I go and see my mum who lives in rural France they really don’t seem to realise how fast and how steeply their economy is declining. Nobody there seems very keen on the Euro though, and most prices are still shown in both Francs and Euros so there is hope - vote Royal, she breaks the Euro and the French get their economy back from the death grip of the Bundesbank (you can change the label but the philosophy is the same).
Anyone know why there’s been a bit of a run on Ruth Kelly as next chancellor - I’ve made a few quid but am mystified why it happened now.
82. She was tipped by David Smith in the ST business section yesterday..
82. As long as he’s kept away from the Equality portfolio…
84. ops, “she”…I didn’t want to suggest Ruth is not a true Lady
83 - Fair enough. A simple search didn’t bring up the article, but as long as it wasn’t Gordon betting on her its fine.
86 Or Roger
86. Pregethwer…here’s the ST mention:
“Ruth Kelly, well down in the lists at 66 /1, could be one to watch, though. As a former economics journalist she obviously has an excellent pedigree, and she worked at the Bank before becoming an MP and junior Treasury minister. The Treasury spoke well of her, before her subsequent travails.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article1364134.ece
Sorry, but we weren’t able to add your signature to the petition, because our site is extremely busy at the moment. Please try again in a few minutes’ time.
If a female was in charge this would not happen
I’m backing Ruth Kelly
Re 79, Tyson I agree Cameron should have kept up his “everyone is entitled to a private life before politics blah blah line”.
He has left himself open to answering further alegations which he could otherwise have ignored in the same way.
80 Commentator- I defer to your knowldege here. The fact that a story has now broken out which dates back to when Cameron was 15 has put him in this position though. From what I read in the paper, and in Cameron’s statement, I was left thinking that this was what he was referring to (ie the 15 year old story) in his choice of words.
It would have been much better for Cameron to face the worse case scenario first, either by a story in the press, or just a personal full and frank admission of his past. After all he is secure of his leadership of the Tories, the public would admire him for his honesty, and his street cred would rise no end. It may even prompt a rush to the press of politicians of all creeds to spill the beans on themeselves.
Why risk it on the spectre of further stories (not this one) that will be corrosive, not because of the nature of the stories (who cares), but because people may start to think they have been misled. And the right wing tabloids will have a field day, and over a longer time.
90 On the contrary the “everyone is entitled to a private life before politics blah blah line” is pants.
IMO Much better to say that he did it, regrets it and we move on. He should also say that if people judge that he is unfit for office on this basis then that is fine with him. He should also clarify his position on cannibis and hopefully attack the reactionary elements in his party.
I would much rather have someone who has vices and makes the odd relatively small mistake than a holier than thou. I just wish Cameron took this line. He would gain respect with me.
benedict- apologies about a previous post questionning your knowledge of female PM’s, especially the middle east.
Going back to Cameron- it was stories that had been put in the press, things like close friends had been told by Cameron that this incident at 15 was an eye opener and chastener. Already puts him on the back foot- even on such trivial matters as charges of spliff smoking at Uni some 5 years later.
Personally, I like Boris Johnson’s response when someone said that he hadn’t taken drugs- “What an outrageous slur. Of course I have taken drugs!!!” Puts this silly business in perspective.
90.-93. YAWN
93. The Cameron story is already dying on its feet, though. The overwhelming reaction is Ho hum, so what. Its Dog Bites Man. Student smokes dope!
What is bizarre is how the papers thought it was huge and all splashed it as a front pager. Wishful thinking, I reckon.
Now, if it was cocaine that would maybe have been a proper story. But these rumours flying around have yet to see a shred of evidence attached to them.
I think the story will end here unless there is a major provable new allegation, and I don’t think it will effect the Tories’ or DC’s position either way. For all the weirdo authoritarian loons like Snowflake and her pinafore clutching outrage, there will be people who will think Oh, so Cameron’s human, had a few problems with his school, likes a laugh. Good on him.
The vast majority of people won’t give a fig either way.
79,91,&93.”Puts this silly business in perspective.” Then why are you wasting so much time harping on about an alleged teenage indiscretion from 25 years ago?
I would love it if politicians from all parties were a hell of lot more honest and straight forward on the issues that matter today.
‘He would gain respect with me’
Thank goodness there is so little self-importance on this site.
90-95 Too right. Surprised that this wzas still running during my lunchbreak. I just wish people could play it straight and admit that it the general scheme of things that it was his the act of smoking cannibis that was not a big deal rather than the fact he did some time ago.
Could have been a “clause 4″ moment for Cameron if he had gone for it.
97 There nothing self-important about giving people respect. Quite the reverse. Sorry you find the concept so alien.
As long as the last line Cameron took was 1 minute before he took a penny from the taxpayer or from the Conservative party then this is a non-story.
What’s worse - drugs (self harm) or sexual harrassment ?
If anything I reckon this will INCREASE DCs popularity - especially with the
Johnathan “Much better to say that he did it, regrets it and we move on.”
I think the point about politicians being entitled to their pre-politics days remaining private is an honestly held belief which he feels strongly about. From the point of view of most people running for office or supporting candidates it’s a popular point that has won him grudging respect even from the other parties.
We really don’t want to end up where America has ended up, with it’s public being deprived of some seriously talented representatives because of a press trawl through their past - the wording of every public apology statement being picked apart for the exact symantics of every explanation.
Why should DC - or anyone else - have to explain what he did, or did not do before coming into public office?
I think he is right to fight the press on this; and I hope he goes on with it.
Politicans are supposed to be representatives of the people, warts and all.
94. Yes you are.
Tyson but if you had watched the news yesterday, they reran the clip of him being interviewed on tv during the leadership election, he said then “I have done things in the past which were wrong and which I regret, but I think that politicians are entitled to a private life…” Etc.
So he has not made a single additional comment yesterday vs the leadership election.
I’m afraid I don’t really agree with Mike’s theory - I think it’s more coincidence than a trend that, when the electorate is presented with a female candidate in with a chance, that female inevitably becomes head of government. In ‘79, for instance, people preferred Callaghan to Maggie, and I’m completely of the opinion that had it not been for the winter of discontent, Thatcher would have lost an election to Callaghan. I think that without the WOD, people wouldn’t have woken up to the need for ‘change,’ and wouldn’t have embraced Thatcher at all.
In Germany, Merkel only scraped victory in the popular vote by the narrowest of margins. However popular she may be now, she seemed to hinder the CDU in the election, not help them. It was a very phyrric victory and there was no guarantee whatsoever that she would end up as Chancellor afterwards.
I think the French election will be close but Sarko will get it.
101 It is an interesting one, which as a candidate myself I have to think about. I couldn’t agree with you more that we wouldn’t want to be deprived of real talent and that we need real people with a few warts.
In an ideal world, we would be able to be honest about where we came froma nd what we’ve done. I think, especially in extreme cases, I feel I have a right to know about a polticians past. I would not vote for a convicted fraudster for example.
What I object to is the media hysteria and certain people’s faux outrage at what Cameron did. In no way would it make less likely to vote for him.
I just wish that he had the guts to say that it was the act itself that was not a bar from office. I reckon that he would have got some support and could have change the tone of the debate, rather than the weaker defence he now has.
I hope you understand that I really am not having a pop at Cameron over this, I just wish that we could all be a bit straighter about things.
Well I have managed to avoid making any comment on the new Conservative policy of soft on drug taking soft on the causes of drug taking so far . I was having lunch with a lady today ( a normally staunch Conservative voter ) and was surprised with the vehemence she now expressed to Cameron over this issue rivalling snowflake in her intensity . She has had in the past a great deal of problems with her son ” experimenting ” with drugs and to her is an issue of first importance and not to be dismissed as a youthfull indiscretion . Jamie may be correct in that it will increase Cameron’s popularity but I doubt it . The majority of people will not care one way or the other but I suspect that there a few people who out of personal bad experiences will no longer support Cameron .
Oh, Mike, I can also think of an exception, albeit rather qualified. In Austria in 2004, Benita Ferrero-Waldner lost to Heinz Fischer for the post of President. However, the role of President is largely ceremonal in Austria (and that’s the qualification).
As far as Cameron is concerned, yep, I believe it may upset a few on the right of the party, but I doubt it will have that much impact. At the end of the day, they’ll probably still drift back to the Tory fold come election time, and even if they do vote for UKIP or similar, I doubt it will be enough to lose the Tories that many seats, especially if come election time the swing voters have warmed to the Tories enough to give them a go.
It’s a non-issue. There’s much more pressing stuff that you could attack Cameron on if you wanted.
Re 92, Jonathan, fair point.
RE 93, Tyson Apology accepted. You just have to love borris, don’t you!
Jonathan but most people do *not* think it is the act itself that is OK; only that he did it before he became an MP.
We accept young people do foolish things. But once you enter public life you have signed up to defend the laws you now pass, amend etc.
If I knew any Tory MP was *presently* taking drugs I would demand their resignation. Drugs are not OK. Cameron is against leaglising dope except when prescribed by a doctor.
He did wrong things before entering Parliament. So did most MPs I suspect. But once you are an official representative of your party - even as a candidate - the clock starts ticking.
Re 95, SeanT i didn’t catch Snowflakes take on the subject. Proably just as well as I may have said something unkind!
82. Pregethwr. Ruth Kelly still available at 66/1 with Ladbrokes for next chancellor. I’ve had an interest.
110,Hi,Benedict,hope you’re well.If you scroll through yesterday’s thread (the very long onw with 441 responses),from about 200 on,you will witness one snowflake melting before your eyes..:lol:
Re 112,
Thanks Patrick i have not got the time now but may well look it up later 
Commentator DC’s position is perfectly reasonable but it’s the public who decide whether a politician’s previous conduct matters or not. Politicians can try to assert a ‘right of privacy’ before they enter politics but if the public feel that they want to know about someone’s earlier life so as to form a judgement about their fitness for high office the politician has to accept it. As it is I don’t think people care about marijuana use either at school or university ( although the reminder about Eton probably wasn’t very helpful. Thus if that’s all there is DC should have nothing to worry about. If there’s more well-we’ll just have to see.
110 - snowflake’s posts were a prime example of AI software taking on a life of it’s own. I can see the desperate programmers trying to adjust the parameters whilst the snowflake’s inference engine gets further and further away from coherence and stability. A hilarious performance, but the Labour Party developers need to go back to the drawing board as their are some fundamental design flaws.
I don’t think Mike researched this post very hard; in one of the examples he cited, New Zealand, Helen Clark (a woman) lost to Jim Bolger (a man) in the 1996 election. Before the 1999 election Bolger was deposed by his own party for Jenny Shipley (a woman), who went on to lose that election to Clark. It wasn’t until 2002 that a female leader defeated a male on in a New Zealand election.
104, 109, “In an ideal world, we would be able to be honest about where we came from and what we’ve done.” Great sentiment and I agree with you, but unfortunately the public can easily be confused, intentionally or otherwise, by a mischevious media.
I have been scrupulously honest about where I came from and what I’ve done. For example I had included the story of the small business in which I had lost everything ten years before becoming a candidate in my election leaflets.
It didn’t stop the Daily Mirror in the lead up to the last election running an ‘expose’ of me as one of a ‘Dirty Dozen’ Conservative candidates to have had a business go bust; as if it were some sordid secret.
commentator- I know of one (very) prominent Tory frontbencher who dabbles, or was at least dabbling when I met one of his friends before Xmas. I bet there are many on the Labour benches aswell, certainly many of the researchers and policy wonks.
Drugs are rife- in Parliament, in the city, the legal profession, teachers, social workers, the police, and especially in our universities. Why, because they are good fun to be honest. Why people drink alocohol, or eat chocolate, or have sex for that matter. The fact that they are illegal doesn’t stop millions of people regularly indulging. And to be honest it shouldn’t make us think any less of anyone.
Problematic drug use is another thing- but no worse than many other addictive behaviours.
I think issues of personal morality are important- it is just I cannot count drugs in here. Betraying your partner, walking out on your kids, lying to save your skin, putting people down, taking advantage of others good will, bullying, saying one thing and doing another- all these things are far more important than what someone does for personal pleasure without affecting anyone elese.
Mark Senior: So, who will this outraged Tory woman be voting for at the next GE? Oh, yes, Conservative - right? Unless the staunch Tories outraged by Cameron’s youthful drug-taking (or not) vote for someone else then it simply doesn matter how outraged they are. And since on this matter UKIP are reasonably sane (Farge has alluded to legalisation being worth trying) even they wont be a threat. Only the BNP still want to hang drug users.
119 Probably Green as she lives in Brighton Pavilion .
120. Or Libdems…
Cameron’s actual offence was trivial, the problem is, is there more to come. Is there some one out there, an old friend who might be prepared to shop Cameron over some other, perhaps more serious drug use.Archer was betrayed by a one time friend for money, could happen to Cameron. The ‘drug thing’ also provides ammunition to Cameron’s real enemies, those in the right wing press Heffer/Hitchens/Phillips who really hate him, the Dacre Axis.
see this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=435577&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=256
111 - I backed Ruth Kelly ages ago on the basis that Brown might like a female chancellor and she was the only credible candidate. I got about 90-1. I thought the money was wasted after the private school/gay adoption problems but glad that a journalist has enable me to make a small profit on a small investment.
118 “…personal pleasure without affecting anyone else.”
well, that’s the problem with the Leisure Drug Industry, Tyson - it does affect other people. For example, the cocaine industry is the cause of untold misery and human rights abuses in South America.
If anything it’s the transparent insincerity of claiming to “regret” his experience that grates here. The vast majority of my acquaintances have smoked the odd joint, as have I, and for the most part we have enjoyed the experience. As Barack Obama says, “that’s the point”.
It doesn’t, despite the allegations from some on here to the contrary, sound like Cameron has ever been addicted to cannabis; so why pretend that there’s anything here to regret?
118. Another nice thing about this site is the notable lack of fantasists and name droppers.
coldstone 122- Melanie Philips is a mad as they come. Could you imagine being in her brain?
I guess this story is a salutary reminder of why Cameron is trying to walk such a perilous game with the right wing fraternity.
122 Thanks for the link.
Melanie Phillips,
“By using drug liberalisation to make the Tory Party seem cool, Mr Cameron risks making drug use itself seem cool.”
What a nut job. Come on Cam. take these people on, you’ll get a load of support! It took Nixon to go to China, it will take a Tory leader to put this lot to the sword.
OT - a very sensible commentary on the current state of the polls here from Anthony Wells:
http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/943
I was irritated with the ignorant comments I heard on R4 this morning from some so-called “expert” pontificating about how the Tories should be 15%+ ahead of Labour by now. Anthony’s article puts this in perspective.
[127] That’s a tad harsh, Tyson. Deeply unhappy, yes. Unable to tell the difference between her opinions and cold facts, yes. But “as mad as they come” - not yet.
124. Those problems mainly come from the fact that such drugs are still criminalised and illegal, so rather than regulated production they are made by unscrupulous gangsters.
Augustus Carp 124- this represents the sheer lunacy of the debate. The prohibition of drugs does cause immense amounts of human misery- it fuels and inflates the profits of orgianised crime. It sponsors international terrorism. It leads to huge amounts of petty crime and prostitution across the world.
A kilo of heroin costs roughly the same as sugar to produce in the right conditions. Yet it achieves 15k on the black market- where does all this cash go. Not into the exchequor. Heroin is a relatively clean substance, aside from being toxic in high doses, the other significant side effect is that it rots the teeth. Not like alcohol or tobacco that poisons vital organs.
Yet prohibition forces wretched addicts to buy the stuff at inflated prices, never knowing the purity of the supply, or what it has been mixed with. Would you consider taking a paracetemol without knowing the dose, yet hundreds of thousands of predomiantly young people take this chance every day becuase of prohibition. It leads people to commit multiple crimes, to destroy their bodies through prostitution to feed their addiction.
The prohibition of drugs is the problem, not the act of taking them which all human civilisations have done.
It is interesting to note that these days the legal/illegal drug boundary is really blurred. Smoking under certain circumstances is now illegal (i.e. in public).
Perhaps there is genuine scope for reform of the restrictions imposed on other addictive drugs. Whilst we tighten the law on tobacco you could …
127/128. I feel compromised.. I agree yet I once got a very pleasant e-mail from her and I find it hard to loathe someone who’s been nice to me.
So, here’s a new one for me, Melanie Phillips illustrates an interesting point.
On the WeedCameron hoo-ha, pah, who cares, but what I think Phillips hints at is that he’s doing the reverse of what both Thatcher and Blair did, which is identify themselves squarely with the concerns of the aspirant middle/lower middle class.
Cameron, by contrast, seems to be positioning to appeal to the new priviliged/educated middle class, pace chocolate oranges, food miles, carbon trading, volunteering, hug a hoody and so on. These people are those who would a generation ago might have been expected to be one nation Tory by inclination, but were chased off the reservation. With cameron, he’s doing his best to ingratiate with people like us, but isn’t talking to the Hyacinth Bucket tendency.
134 That’s a remarkably narrow section of the population to target.
132. So the solution would be a heroin NHS, then, with pure narcotics supplied free at the point of use to anyone who wanted them, financed by taxation?
132 If you want to legalise drugs, Tyson, that’s fine, but the point I was making was that as long ass they are illegal (for whatever rreason) their use oppresses the workers in the third world.
135.Sean, judging by the polls it is a little more than our “core vote”.
135? is it though? If I were channelling