What do we think of Frank Luntz on Cameron-Brown?
February 22nd, 2007
Is the US pollster right on the language that both men are adopting?
This, I know, is getting into dangerous territory because two words that lead to the biggest explosions on PBC are “Frank” and “Luntz” - ever since the US pollster’s famous “focus group” screened on Newsnight during the Conservative Party conference in October 2005.
In this week’s edition of the Spectator, out this morning, Luntz is the author of the cover feature on how both men use language and how Gordon is having to catch up with Dave. No surprise there then I can hear you say.
His argument is interesting and the piece is well worth reading.
Luntz write: “… Today’s voters will punish their leaders for trying to score political points at the expense of getting work done. Message: reach across the divide with words and intent when there is success to be had, progress to be made and prosperity to be achieved…Incredibly, Mr Cameron, a relative novice, is defining the words and themes that the Chancellor uses and, by extension, his political agenda. And it shows. That is why — as my research has consistently demonstrated — the British people aren’t buying into the new, ‘cuddly’ Mr Brown, the one who listens to the Arctic Monkeys in the morning before heading off to a photo op at a nursery school. They know it’s not the real him.”
In the Labour leadership betting the Gordon price has eased sharply in the past 24 hours to 0.24/1. This is down a touch on last night when I got £400 on the Chancellor at 0.25/1. The announcement that veteran Labour figure, Michael Meacher, is going to mount a challenge has had almost no effect.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It may well be the case that GB is very different in private to how he comes across in public but it seems very hard to change the public’s perception of an individual.
Michael Howard was said to be very different in private (humourous, charming etc) but was never able to convey this to the wider public the same may be true of Brown.
The attempts that GB has made so far - artic monkeys fan, England fan, weird smiling thing - don’t particularly suggest that he’ll be very good at turning his image around.
Michael Meacher, what’s the score with him then?
It is absolute fantasy land to think GB would ever win an election. NuLab, of which he is as much to blameas his neighbour, will be punished by the electorate regardless of what he might or might not do in his first 100 days. he is proven loser, turned over by Bliar for 10 years. Just like the rest of us.
They use to say that John Major was good in small groups! What nonsense about Brown, most people will never meet him and i don’t doubt that he is alright in private. He is hardly going to fart in fromt of people or blow party whistles in peoples faces.
My only worry for Brown like John Major is that Brown will need even smaller groups of people to get on well with……..like himself!!!!
As for Meacher, is he not the idiot who was an environment minister who went on a countryside alliance process in about 1998?
Still cannot get over that! What a tool! Joining a protest that he had ministerial responsibility! Labour certainly did get a good media then, when you contrast it to the Hazel Blears incident!
I think Meacher is good for Brown, he makes Brown look like a right winger in comparison, maybe that is why meacher is doing it?
If Claire Short had not chickened out of the Labour party, she would have been a good anyone but Brown candidate. Having said that it was always thought she was more of a Brownite than a Blairite! Interestingly if Robin Cook had lived, he would have been a good challanger he had a good intellect and whilst not appealing to me - you could see past the scottish thing. I do think we were robbed of a good politcian their, even if i do not agree with his views! He had principle as well!
I think that (as usual) Frank Luntz is right on the money. Despite him being disparaged by various posters on here he has generally been proved right so far!
Interesting article, I think it is becoming clearer that the Conservatives in general and Cameron in particular are setting the agenda. It will be intersting to see when Gordon takes over whether he manages to start setting the agenda. The only time he has tried so far (World Cup Bid) has generated precious little momentum or publicity. Its going to be a fascinating year with the Labour leadership, scottish, welsh and local elections.
That Brown - first 100 days does not stack up. What has he been doing for the past 10 years as the second most powerful person in government? Again demonstrable evidence that his skills at talking to the public are naff! I can see the old chesnut of too little - too late being used there!
1. Not sure that’s wholly true. GB has managed to convince most people he is a family man.
8. Probably one of his biggest achievements - who said he was no good at spin ??
I believe that the real issue for many people at the GE will be personal debt and interest rates. This appears to me to becoming a more and more serious issue that will only get worse as time goes on. As yet increases in interest rates are not hitting businesses too hard like they did at the end of the Tory years. Personal debt is now a much bigger issue. If Labour lose the GE it will be because people are looking for someone to blame, not because Cameron offers them a better alternative.
I think that once Blair has gone people will warm to Brown. One of the big differences between Blair and the previous Tory PMs is the exposure that other cabinet posts get. Blair is much more presidential. Where will Brown fit in? I certainly wouldn’t want to be his Chancellor with Brown looking over my shoulder the whole time.
Cameron will not be PM after the next GE. The thought scares me even more than Blair. Brown on the other hand is not as scary.
Personally I’d like to see Simon Hughes as PM but then I’ve been back in my constituency preparing for government for far too long!
Are Brown’s first 100 days going to be when Parliament is in recess?
10.Thatcher was presidential, Major was more collegiate.
You are entitled to your opinion about Cameron but what is scary about him? I think he very reasuring.
Your judgement is somewhat suspect by citing simon hughes. He is a champion fence sitter it would seem! Does not seem to have made his mind up on anything and ran a homophobic campaign against Mr Tatchell it has been alleged!
In additon given what the LD’s served up as potential prime minsterial material at the last election (”not fit for purpose”!!!) and the subsequent leadership election. Think you had better watch your tongue on Cameron!
10. You are right about personal debt though. I suffer from that too and a lot of middle class kids are upto their eye balls in debt and cannot even get on the property ladder. They do shit jobs, which they could have got without university education! I would not want to be 18 again!
Mike Sole @ 10 — indeed (though I’d extend it to social conditions generally). But Brown is no mug which is why I think he’ll immediately move to scrap expensive projects like ID cards.
Brown is said to want a return to cabinet government. Let’s hope so. Trouble is, it will doubtless be spun by media lemmings as a divided cabinet with a weak PM.
11. Brownites are in fantasy land with the first 100 days thing!
That is the mindset of an opposition going into government for the first time! Like 1979 or 1997 in this country but a continuation of the party in power - Bloody silly!!! He would be better off doing nothing - rather than rushing more pointless legislation through. If it was essential it would have already been put through parliament. A case of Too little - Too late!!!
Good point about the parliamentry recess!
Frank Luntz has labour friends?
don’t underestimate Brown, he will fight a tough battle
o/t Word up dis is da Home Sec comin atcha like cleopatra
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007080715,00.html
it appears the sun continues its campaign to find Reid’s brain
Like Max says at 1, I’ve always found Michael Howard personally to be a kind, pleasant and charming man. Put him on the telly though and he comes across as sinister and creepy.
When Michael became leader there wasn’t really a charm offensive type thing, but there were certainly attempts to soften his image, photo shoots with Sandra, the stories about them playing table tennis together and so on.
Did it work? Did it buggery? Michael’s public image was still creepy denizen of the night, becoming party leader didn’t do squat to change a public image that was already deeply ingrained after he’s been in the public eye for so many years as Home Secretary.
Just because Michael didn’t manage it doesn’t mean it isn’t possible of course. Gordon Brown could end up doing a far better job and completely transform how he’s seen. It will be a difficult task though.
17. I think that Brown will appeal to some former Labour voters but they will be in all the wrong places. Blair has had a personal vote across the marginals. Brown does not appeal to this vote. Cameron does! That is why i think Labour could come unstuck! I don’t doubt that Gordon is a doughty fighter but so was Hague (though to be fair they (Tories)imploded at one stage in the 2001 election)for the tories & Howard. They got support in all the wrong places again and this is why Labour have got 55% of the seats on 35% of the vote.
18 Interesting point, Anthony. Can anyone think of a politician who has successfully re-engineered their personal public image?
20 - Blair
Although as it’s been in the wrong direction I’m not sure if it counts as successfull…
20 – Michael Portillo is one who springs to mind.
19. But the Tories have to win in places that they havent been popular in for a long time, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham. It will take some fighting to pull these people round.
I think the problem for Gordon is that he is a political obsessive. He therefore has the tendency to overthink things and to delve into the minutiae, and it is why he has been reasonably successful as Chancellor. We are all happy for him to obsess about the public finances, however the qualities required for a national leader are somewhat different. Blair is not a political obsessive, he has no need to go into the minutiae, he is a broad sweep person. This is required in a leader, to give them that sense of being able to take the longer view etc. Brown will not in my opinion be able to stop being an obsessive and will struggle when he makes the transition.
23. Yes winning seats in the cities will take a hell of a fight, its probably with that in mind that Cameron is in Manchester today. I think that there is a lot of Conservative activity below the radar which compliments the bigger picture repositioning by Cameron. It more and more looks like a very comprehensive battle-plan being put into effect.
re 23. This is the list of Tory targets and hardly any of them are in Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle or Birmingham.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/conservative-target-seats/
Wonderful news about the price I’d back now if work would let me, it’ll have to wait when I get home.
26. Comprehensively had my argument squashed there! I will maintain that people will still take a lot of persuading to get a Tory majority
26: ‘This is the list of Tory targets and hardly any of them are in Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle or Birmingham’
But they are the difference between a hung parliament and a majority. Going by that list the Tories have to pick up at least twenty seats elsewhere to get a majority.
http://the-daily.org/2007/02/22/segolene-bouncing-back/
Segolene Royal now within two points of Sarkozy according to CSA poll.
26 I had forgotten how small some of those majorities are. Just an extra 2,000 Conservative votes in each constituency (i.e. 1,000 people changing their votes) will deliver the Tories an extra 41 seats.
3
31. Yes - people tend to forget how close Michael Howard came to delivering a real shock result at the 2005 GE…Labour held on by their fingertips with around 25 seats held with majorities of 1500 or less.
33. Indeed and that was before Cameron ‘decontaminated’ the Tory brand!
Mike it is a good article. It matters less the point you are trying to make and the words you use and much more what people hear.
If an old man who has been walking around for the last 20 years shouting the end is nigh, carried on saying it, would any body listen? On the other hand if someone who had made sense before said the same you might. You would hear different things.
33. - yes, but all UK elections end up looking like that really. Labour are only 1500 votes short (in each case) of winning another 30: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/labour-target-seats/
NB I realise these are adjusted figures, but the point still stands.
Michael Howard should have embraced the “something of the night” tag, instead of fighting it. At the first Blair jibe he should have responded that with a shady Nulab government the country needed a leader of the opposition who could see in the dark.
4 - Martin Day - what do you mean by “you could see past the scottish thing”?
Just catching up with the news today. Does Meacher have enough support to trigger a leadership contest or is he trying to get a debate going which might lead others to throw their hat in the ring?
OT. Cwiss Eubank awwested in Whitehall after pwotesting the war in Ewark :
Mysic Moon is Cwiss Eubank and I claim 12 monocles and a lisp.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/london/england/6387231.stm
38. It did not become the sole persona defining quality. Maybe it was because my view was formed back in the 90’s but with Cook, it was his excellent debating skills & contribution to reforming parlaiment, particularly the commons. Elected members should not be doing other “jobs” and hopefully he instigated a move away from this by changing the hours! The way he took apart the tories pre-1997 and held them to account was also good. Also Cook resigned on an isue of substance i.e. Iraq.
The interesting thing about Brown is we are told he is a man of substance but i only see him as a brooding grumpy old scot!
I am pretty postive about the Cameron lead Tories, it is my kind of tories. Not like the position of 2001 & 2005, which i dramatically showed my didain for(Although i did still vote Tory - If only to help maintain an opposition!) This is why Cameron has the Blair factor in my opinion as he will win seats like Blair that Brown cannot!
40 Oopps link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6387231.stm
If you extropolate the Guardian’s 13 point DC lead with GB as PM into seats on uk polling,as a Labour voter it makes pretty bloody reading..
Anthony. The difference between Brown and Howard is th e particular baggage that Howard brought to his new office. He was without question the most disliked minister under both Thatcher and Major.
Brown though he might seem dour and even humourless he was never seen as the evil vampire that Howard was. Indeed his image was so historically bad that when Sandra stood next to him not only did it not soften his image it actually damaged hers!
The last death throes of the Blair reign present his opponents with an interesting conundrum.
As someone who will be challenging a sitting Labour MP at the next election, I rather hope that Blair goes on for as long as possible, because each passing week makes my challenge stronger.
However, as a citizen of this country I hope that he goes as soon as possible, not least because having a deceitful warmonger as PM is not something that I feel very comfortable with.
I suspect that Blair still clings to the home that the public will beg him to stay; it just shows how deluded he has become.
(By the way, for those of you on pb.com who have wondered who “barry” is, I feature on Dispatches on Channel 4 next Monday)
44 - are you sure you dont mean that the difference between Brown and Howard is that you like Brown and you didnt like Howard?
I think before taking Luntz at face value we should consider that he is a Cameron advisor and school chum who has single handedly been responsible for his career path to date. If Brown wants a lift from Luntz I suggest he puts him on the payroll as Cameron has done.
44. Brown is associated with a very big negative - Tax rises!!!
He is only associated with negatives. If he disagreed with Iraq, he should have resigned and fought Blair. Maybe 100+ British soldiers and countless Iraq’s killed due to a war that was pointless in it’s objective. If they really believed WMD was their, they could have bombed it and sent SAS squads in there to despatch key scientific figures etc.
48. Sorry if Brown opposed it maybe 100+ soldiers plus iraqi survillians maybe still alive?
I must say though that when Brown takes office he will get some of the best PR and advertising brains in the business working for him. I’m sure the first advice they’ll give him is the advice all agencies would give to their clients; Concentrate on your strengths. Your USP. Don’t try to find a new image. Get the public to want what you have to offer.
And if Luntz doesn’t think this’ll work then it’s no surprise that he concentrates on smoke and mirrors.
40 & 42
This is the reason that Nulabour will get a bloody nose at every election from now on.
What has happened to freedom of speech under Tony”Stalin” Blair.
Can any poster defend the Nanny State we now find ourselves in ??
Meacher is back in to 100-1 on Betfair. If (when?) he gets a nomination paper in it’ll go smaller. McDonnell, incidentally, is 280-1. Perhaps in the interests of those of us with a position he should back Meacher!
Martyn Smith
(PS does anybody know why smilies don’t work on this site?)
48/49 And If the Conservatives had not slavishly followed Blair’s line on Iraq , some British soldiers and Iraq civilians may not have died . The party that you say you voted for in 2001 and 2005 are just as guilty for supporting the war as Brown .
Roger’s comment (@ 5.15pm) is clearly defamatory of Frank Luntz, suggesting as it does that Mr Luntz is in receipt of money from David Cameron and that his public pronouncements are compromised by this covert financial link.
Lord Bonkers’ Diary 315
10 December 2006 (16:13:06)
Monday
You will often find me in New York, perhaps enjoying a Nick Harvey Wallbanger in one of Manhattan’s more exclusive bars. A few days ago I visited a club where the famed comedian Woody Allen has been known to appear and, sure enough, he turned up that evening. Some of you will be familiar with Allen’s work because our own Dr Evan Harris regularly recites one of his monologues word for word at the Glee Club. Funnily enough, Allen’s party piece consisted in a word for word recitation of one of Dr Harris’s Conference speeches. The audience joined in and a good time was had by all. Yet, was it just me, or did I gain the impression that my fellow revellers had heard this particular turn a little too often?
Tuesday
Catching up with business after my sojourn in America, I call in at Cowley Street to give Lord Rennard the benefit of my advice. Whilst there, I pass the kitchen and find Miss Fearn busy rubbing in. She tells me that she is baking a cake for our erstwhile benefactor Mr Michael Brown. I reply that I find this a fitting gesture: if a chap stumps up a couple of million for your party, the least you can do when he finds himself in the jug is send him the occasional Genoa cake or Victoria sponge. Amongst the dried fruit and candied peel I notice a sturdy metal file: Miss Fearn has always been blessed with sound common sense and a warm heart.
Wednesday
A highlight of our party’s Conference is the early morning prayer meetings organised by the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum. I seldom attend them myself, being occupied with the eggs and b at that hour, but those who do assure me that their outstanding feature is the virtuoso performance put in upon the organ by none other than our own Professor Webb. Hearing of this, I have long tried to persuade him to come to the Hall to play upon my own steam instrument, which was installed by my grandfather to mark the arrival of Gladstone’s first ministry. Webb finally accepted my invitation last week, and I have had men stoking the boilers ever since to ensure a fine head of steam. Whilst I tucked into the kedgeree this morning, Webb serenaded me with a selection of favourites: “Kumbaya”, “We Shall Overcome”, “D’ye Ken John Peel?” and so forth. I had just requested “The Land” when a low rumbling noise was heard. I urged Webb to ignore it, and was waving my napkin in lieu of a ballot in my hand, when the organ exploded. Fortunately, no one was hurt, although Webb sported a blackened face when we finally dug him out of the wreckage. The result is that I have given up the day to telephoning for estimates to have the blessed contraption repaired.
Thursday
The talk nowadays is all of “road pricing”; here in Rutland we have been doing it for years. It happens that in order to drive between our little nation’s two principal cities – Oakham and Uppingham – it is necessary to cross a narrow neck of the Bonkers Estate, and in order to dissuade people from undertaking unnecessary journeys, I levy a toll on each vehicle passing that way. I am not one to blow my own trumpet (as my regular readers will know), but I can claim to have been concerned about this global warming business for longer than most: after all, I have been charging a toll for years.
Friday
Perhaps because of my efforts to combat global warming, the day dawns cold and blustery; I therefore resolve to spend it in my Library amongst my papers. I soon turn up an old issue of the Radio Times carrying an article on the programme “I am Rather Well Known. May I Leave Now Please?” Though long forgotten, this was quite the thing in its day and frequently challenged “What’s My Line” and “Muffin the Mule” for pride of place in the ratings. IARWKMILNP (as it was popularly known) featured a number of celebrities of the day staying in a country house and suffering various indignities – an unsuitable choice of wine with the fish course, being obliged to go for a country walk when they would have been quite happy with the newspaper – to the amusement of the viewing millions. It was quite a coup when I was able to arrange for Clement Davies, then Liberal leader, to take part in the programme. That year the other contestants included such luminaries as Sherpa Tensing, Pat Smythe the show jumper, Gilbert Harding, Dame Anna Neagle and Wally Hammond. Unfortunately, poor Clement was voted out in the first round when the viewers’ postcards were counted; I have always suspected low dealing from Muffin the Mule’s agent, as he had hoped that his client would take part. Nevertheless, our victory in the Torrington by-election came shortly after IARWKMILNP was shown, and I flatter myself that the show played no small part in it.
Saturday
Association football is not what it was, what with all these foreign millionaires taking over. Chelsea is in the hands of a fellow called Abramovich who made his fortune buying and selling polonium; West Ham has just been purchased by an Icelandic biscuit magnate; Aston Villa has been sold to an American called “Randy Lerner” (what can the board have been thinking of?). In Rutland these matters are on a more stable footing, with the teams having remained in the control of the moguls of the pork pie and Stilton industries. This has done much for their financial stability over the years, though perhaps less for the players’ waistlines. So it is that today I travel to watch the Oakham Dynamos, only to see them soundly defeated.
Sunday
I read that one of Blair’s confidants is feeling rather sore at being hauled in for questioning by the boys in blue and hopes to live to see the Prime Minister himself enjoying hospitality under similar circumstances. One of the best things about being the possessor of a well-established peerage is that one does not live in fear of Scotland Yard’s finest knocking on one’s door and demanding to know how one came by it. I am proud to say that my ancestor William de Bon Coeur came over with the Conqueror (even if some historians maintain that he was obliged to return to Normandy shortly afterwards).
Lord Bonkers, who was Liberal MP for Rutland South-West 1906-10, opened his diary to Jonathan Calder.
52 Because no-one here has anything to smile about, perhaps.
“I must say though that when Brown takes office he will get some of the best PR and advertising brains in the business working for him.”
If they were the best PR and advertising brains then they wouldn’t have been so stupid as to wait until he became PM expecting to remove what has already taken root.
Tories and Iraq, ‘The if only we had know’ defence looks a little threadbare when you read this.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-18264773-details/Howard+under+fire+over+Iraq/article.do;jsessionid=dn2CFVjBX0bmYnv9Rc9fJSwfnKTy2YqCLMLySxPQQTHTS6qmnVv6!2002087560!-1407319226!7001!-1
And then again there is this.
The Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Howard has called for air strikes on Iraq following Baghdad’s refusal to hand over documents to United Nations weapons inspectors.
Paddy Ashdown: “The right thing to do is to make a careful judgement”
Mr Howard said that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the US President, Bill Clinton, should attack without warning and try to remove Saddam Hussein from office.
“It is beginning to look as if yet again, and very predictably, Saddam Hussein is not keeping his promises,” he told BBC Radio’s Today programme. “If that’s right, I hope Western leaders will keep their promises and take action.”
“The West must show it’s resolute” - Michael Howard speaks to BBC Radio’s Today programme
Mr Howard’s comments came after the Iraqi Government rejected a request by the head of the UN weapons inspectors, Richard Butler, calling the demand “provocative”.
Iraqi officials said some of the documents did not exist, others had been destroyed or had already been handed to the UN inspectors.
Howard: ‘Far too many empty threats’
Mr Howard urged Western leaders to take a firm stance and criticised the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, for making “empty threats”.
“It ought to be a prime objective of western policy to get rid of Saddam Hussein,” he said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair was said to be studying “extremely carefully” Iraq’s refusal to hand over the documents. “We regard this response as a bad sign,” said a Downing Street spokesman, who stressed that the UK was fully behind the United Nations Special Commission (Unscom) team.
“We are monitoring the situation extremely carefully. Iraq’s already chalking up black marks,” added the spokesman.
‘Cook walks tall, acts small’
But Michael Howard insists that action is required.
“Nothing is easy in this matter but the trouble is that throughout a long time now, particularly from Robin Cook, we have had far too many empty threats,” he said
coldstone and co.
Let’s please not go down this route, or the (valid) argument on Black Wednesday/the ERM debacle will be levelled.
The party in power carries the can, whether it looks fair or not. So it was for Black Wednesday. So it is for Iraq.
60
Quite agree, but don’t let the Tories pretend it was WMD or the dodgy dossier that led them to support the war. Howard made it quite clear he supported regime change plus! IDS also.
UKPaul. I doubt it would have been appropriate for the Labour Party’s ad men to have worked on someone’s image who hasn’t even stood for the job yet. Even Maggie didn’t get the treatment untill she had become leader. These days though image makers have far better information on what sells and how to sell it. Anyway I don’t think a few months will make any difference. A lot of people have only a vague idea of what Brown would be like as PM though he already has quite a few positives.
41 - Martin Day - I may be wrong, but that suggests that you associate Scots people with “grumpiness” and “brooding”, and that you see being Scots itself as a negative characteristic if not somehow “balanced out”. Awful, awful, awful.
54. Do we know whether Luntz is advising Cameron?
Cameron would have to be very stupid if he isn’t employing him, and he has certainly been speaking Luntz’s language…
62. Will “the best PR and advertising brains in the business working for him” be the same ones as are working for Tony Blair - who is consistently rated most negatively of all leading UK politicians?
As a rule, I don’t trust Luntz’s methods for accurate predictions, but I do think they’re useful in identifying what people think other people will think. That’s a key thing in identifying whether a party or person has cast off or acquired a nasty image.
Re 62 Roger, Maggie was a nobody who was never ever going to be leader of the Conservative party, let alone PM. In fact she was certain that no woman would be PM in her lifetime.
On the other hand Brown is a very senior cabinet minister who is expected to be PM.
50
‘I must say though that when Brown takes office he will get some of the best PR and advertising brains in the business working for him. I’m sure the first advice they’ll give him is the advice all agencies would give to their clients; Concentrate on your strengths. Your USP. Don’t try to find a new image. Get the public to want what you have to offer.’
Roger,how do you know that he isn’t already using them now?
Whoever he’s using clearly doesn’t have a clue about PR,what with the Arctic monkeys,Britishness crap together with Brown pretending to be an English football supporter its laughable,not to mention the Gazza goal.
A good start would be to get someone to improve his presentational / public speaking skills and to get him to do something about his appearance which is apparently a major turn off for women.
Why doesn’t he just try to be himself or maybe that’s also a problem for him?
53
‘And If the Conservatives had not slavishly followed Blair’s line on Iraq , some British soldiers and Iraq civilians may not have died . The party that you say you voted for in 2001 and 2005 are just as guilty for supporting the war as Brown .’
Does the same apply to the Lib Dems and Labour in terms of their ’slavish’ support for the UK ERM entry, black Wednesday et al,or is that a bit too inconevenient?
So who exactly is it that Stephen Pond Pound talks to in the House of Commons if noone he talks to has ever heard of Michael Meacher?
Hmmm…just as the left’s candidate struggles to secure the required nominations to get onto the ballot, along comes Michael Meacher to divide the left vote further. If neither McDonnell or Meacher can persuade the other that they should be the left’s candidate, then they have little hope of persuading anyone else.
Great day for Gordon Brown really - so many attacks across the media on the left of the Labour party, reinforcing the successful and heavyweight image that is GB’s strength.
As for Luntz, well I could have written that! People think Cameron is more likeable than Brown…..surely not?!
Anyone betting on the weekend rugby.
70 - That’s my view of Luntz, that he gets paid a lot of money for telling people the blindingly obvious.
Labour seats hammered on Spreadfair - FWIW this is an all-time low. Certainly there is a massive opportunity for anybody who believe they could win from here.
Any news of how things are going in Calderdale byelection?
Just had my back bet on Gordon matched on Betfair at 1.27. One born every minute isn’t there… Lay price now out to 1.28.
68, john,
We’ve argued that (equivalent) case before, which I why I tried to short-circuit it up at 60 - it will just get messy on both sides and no-one will be happy.
Let’s just stick to what I said at 60: “The party in power carries the can, whether it looks fair or not. So it was for Black Wednesday. So it is for Iraq.”
Arguing whether Iraq will be perceived to be less of an issue for Cameron or for Brown or will be cancelled out is a valid argument on a politicalbetting website; arguing the rights and wrongs of what would have, should have, could have happened over Iraq is off topic. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t discuss things that are off topic, but this particular subject has been done over and over, and no-one ever changes their ground. It’s a pointless argument to start here - we may well all want to discuss it over a drink at the next pbc party, but there is a real danger of it pulling the current discussions into the swamp where dwell the Creatures of the Night.
Let’s not go there.
71.
I have a feeling England may turn the Irish over. I was so sure the French would do the same thing i bet on them in running and won tidily.
I have to say its more risky bet by far betting on the English to do the job but Ireland have a habit of fluffing their lines and England aren’t as bad as they look against Italy.
I’m still deciding myself on whether to put money down but I’ve had th feeling since before the Ireland/France game that Enmgland were going to pose a really problem for Ireland.
Any thoughts?
Iraq could well be a comparative non issue come next election
74. It’s not been a very pleasant day weather-wise which should act as a dampener on the vote as well as the ground.
78 - maybe. But if anything happens to Prince Harry…. I think that could push a large section of the population over the edge.
77. I fancy Italy against the Scots. The Italians have a mean pack and outclassed Englands only their backs letting them down. I still think Scotland are in reality a woeful side, that was fortunate to encounter a truly rubbish Wales side last time out I think.
Michael Meacher is an advocate of some of the wackier 911 conspiracy theories
79. Thanks David
82. Alex, we know…if you’re interested, they have also been briefly debated on previous thread
83 - Oh yeah. Sorry. I notice someone reproducing the old “terrorist’s passport” urban myth
Well, that’s another £ 400 quid down the tubes, Mike ! Still I bet that you’ve got all the other angles covered so that you will not be out of pocket !!
82 Whereas Tony Blair is an advocate of the even wackier loons who run the White House and Ppentagon!
Blimey - 0.19 to 0.25 is a 30% slide in his probability in a day or two. Okay, so it is back now, but there will soon be some other names in the frame. By the time all the runners and riders have shown their hand, it certainly will not be a shoo-in for Brown.
Your post about the Simon Hoggart could be very prescient yet..
81. I’d have to agree.
The Italians are perfectly capable of beating the Scots on their day. The Welsh are so bad at the moment that, ironically, I’m quite sure they’ll beat Italy and save their skins from a wipeout simply because its a battle of desperation. I’d certainly be interested on betting the Welsh when they play Italy, especially if Italy beat the Scots.
I believe that The English looked better against Scotland than they are and looked worse against against Italy than they are and perhaps represent an interesting yardstick by which to judge the Scotland/Italy game.
Scotland / England / France treble for me.
re 78. You wish.
There was an article on 5live just now about UKIP having to pay £300k back to a donor who’d donated illegally. Does anyone know more of this? It’s not on the main news sites yet?
91. David, I found just this little piece: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23386555-details/UKIP+faces+legal+action+over+donations/article.do
90: You feel yokel is a partisan of any particular party? Haven’t noticed - seems sturdily independent to me.
92. Yes, that’s the story. It’s a lot of money for a small party to find if they can’t get Paul Sykes or someone similar to cover the gap.
93. no, but it’s a false hope to think that Iraq will be forgotten easily by many of us, or that those who connived to lead us into this disaster will be forgiven.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/22/nukip122.xml
More details from Telegraph.
UKIP look in deep trouble.
No comments on the awful YouGov telegraph poll on Brown? Now rated behind the Tories on economic competence, a plunge of almost nineteen points in a year I think they said.
Idly Googled the Calderdale by-election and found in the first entry that we have unpleasant lurkers…
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/calderdale-illingworth-mixenden-election-22-366446.html?s=cd80a0a7dd2c872b83905c0e3d2e47ea&
Just to clarify: I’m not suggesting any of our usual posters are Stormfront fans - they have obviously cut/pasted the discussion from here.
A new poll, Commentator?
97. Labour was behind the tories in the “which party is more likely to run the economy well” question in December yougov
98 -Nick, the only time I do want the Tory to win and defeat them.
100 - I have repeatedly stated I am no fan of Labour. But the economy has remained goodish under Brown, despite the Tory front bench’s desire for a recession under Brown’s tenure. I didn’t agree with it at the time,but Brown was pretty stingy with cash up to 2000. Ken Clarke would have spent more.
I’ll grant you that Brown has been lucky, but all Chancellors have luck. Weren’t Howe and Lawson the first Chancellors to have a lot of North Sea Oil money at their disposal? And when Brown came along, there was not a lot left to privatise to raise revenue. He did however get the 3G windfall, and spent it wisely reducing the national debt. Remember the LD proposal of investing it in Euros. Enough said!
It may be true that after such a long period of stability, nobody would dare take too many risks with the economy, the way Lawson did. I’m sure I trust Brown more as Chancellor than Osborne. But if Brown leaves no. 11, and the Tories move Osborne, as they surely will, I’m not so sure who I would trust more.
99. Nick, it has been mentioned on ConHome. The voting intention question apparently shows a stable 5% lead for the tories
103: Thanks,andrea. Better than the horrors of ICM
98/99. I don’t know if any of the comments lifted were mine, but I’ve not divulged anything the BNP wouldn’t have known earlier. As part of a bug polling day opernation, John’s last minute leaflet had a bar-chart (sorry, it’s not just Lib Dems who can use them), with us just ahead of the BNP and Labour some way back based on canvass returns - so not necessarily the most scientific poll.
Even so, they know they’re in with a good chance - they do hold the other seats after all, although one of their number being convicted of benefit fiddling won’t have helped their chances, nor the fact that he only got community service.
With a bit of luck, the poor weather will have kept some of the waverers at home, and with the BNP being more of a protest vote that should affect them more than the established parties. Still, I wouldn’t like to call it at the moment.
Labour has won in Canderdale!
Judy Gannon, Labour, 1104
Thomas Bates, BNP, 1034
John Hardy, Cons, 525
Michael Elder. Lib Dem, 150
Sean loftus, Ind, 68
105. Well that was a supremely badly timed post - and rather misleading as well. Apologies.
Result:
Judy Gannon, Labour, 1104
Thomas Bates, BNP, 1034
John Hardy, Cons, 525
Michael Elder. Lib Dem, 150
Sean loftus, Ind, 68
Labour majority 70.
Oh good, the BNP lost. Who said it was a fight between the Tories and BNP?. The Lib figures are poor, tactical voting to keep them out I presume.
105/107 Another poor result in the North for the Conservatives - result last May BNP 1075 Lab 840 Con 682 LibDem 296 Ind 124
Whoever predicted a Tory win should be considered a slightly more doubtful pundit than the poster who came last in the last PB.Com competition!
Wonderful! Thanks David. And you can push off into the Atlantic, Stormfront lurker
I would of course have liked John Hardy to have won, but very pleased the BNP didn’t.
Edmund was wondering if the Independent candidate is in anyway related to the former member of the Irish Dail who went with the rather grand name Sean Dublin Bay Loftus and won a seat in 1981 or 1982?
Update from “David Miliband Supporters Club”.
A feature on the Labour Leadership on Newsnight tonight following Michael Meacher throwing his hat into the ring. David Grossman reporting. He refers to all sorts of circulating rumours and states that if Miliband were to stand his youth would be a great advantage to his candidacy.
My own view is that were Miliband to stand his odds of succeeding against Gordon brown would be between 2/1 and 3/1. The bet is a double. First he has to stand. Realistic odds of this 5/1? So the double odds are about 18/1. But the first part of the double is within his own power, assuming he good get the 44 signatories. Here’s hoping. I think if he did stand the media bandwagon that would get behind him would see him to victory.
108/110. Yes, hand held up and head bowed. I’m doubly annoyed as had I waited a couple more minutes, I’d have seen the result before making the post and had I not been writing the post I might have got the result in before Andrea!
However, it’s obviously good that the BNP lost, if only by a few. There was a comment a couple of days ago about tactical voting between the major parties when the BNP stood a chance of winning and while I haven’t got the details of where the Labour vote came from, it may be that 150 each from the Tories and Lib Dems have voted tactically to keep the BNP out. Still, I’m glad there wasn’t a market on it, so no-ones lost any money on this bad tip.
A bit too close for comfort that result, anyway, it looks as though enough tories and lib dems were able to hold their nose and vote labour (as I would in that situation) to keep the BNP out. That, at least, is a small comfort.
The % changes compares to May 2006 (calculated pretty fast..so I could have made some mistakes) should be:
Lab +10.5%
BNP +0.3%
Con -4.4%
LD -4.6%
Ind -1.8%
“it looks as though enough tories and lib dems were able to hold their nose and vote labour”
I don’t see any evidence for that at all. If anything the Tories with recent polls the Tories would have been the beneficiaries of any tactical voting to keep the BNP out. It looks more likely that the Tories aren’t liked in the North. What’s new?
Hug a Hoodie comes back to haunt Cameron (see the newspaper review for the reason behind this post!)
115.”I might have got the result in before Andrea! ”
I posted it without checking…I even mispelled Calderdale name
118 - Great timing roger, just as good as David’s!
(Andrea pretty much proves it with the figures in the post just above yours)
Great result - turnout slightly up on 2006 too. To be fair I see it as a stop-the-BNP vote and we should respect the tactical votes and not claim they’re all zealous fans of the government. But given that we know the Tories were claiming they were the best-placed to stop the BNP, the electorate was quite smart to spot where they needed to go.
Miliband in to 10/1 with Betfair.
Re:Calderdale
Fantastic win for Labour.
Although I got my prediction wrong. I always thought it was between Labour & BNP (despite certain poster’s comments on here).
Terrible result for Tories(I don’t believe they told their supporters to vote Labour). This is exactly the kind of seat they should be challenging for in the North.
Maybe the May elections won’t be so horrific for Labour after all.
BB
123/4 True, but still somewhat sobering that over 1,000 people in a ward are prepared to turn out in inclement weather to vote for the BNP, even after the publicity about benefits fiddling. David Herdson’s theory about protest voters doesn’t seeem to apply.
Thankfully the non-BNP voters who did turn up coalesced in sufficient numbers around the Labour candidate to stop the BNP winning the seat.
There’s a real problem in contests like this, the other parties can’t state that people should vote for the best placed candidate to beat the BNP because it just reinforces the BNP “they’re all the same and out to get us” line. Thankfully people tend to see who the best placed candidate is and vote accordingly (and does any non activist really believe canvass returns?!?).
The BNP vote is still worryingly high though, there is clearly a core who are going to vote for them now, whatever is revealed or thrown at them.
91 - The problem is not UKIP having to pay £300k back to a donor. The donor was off the electoral register for 14 months, but is back on now. If we returned the money to him, he could simply donate it again legally now.
The issue is that the Electoral Commission want us to have to forfeit the money to the Crown.
Technically, they probably have a case. But - they allowed the Lib Dems to get away with something similar.
126 - If parties cannot honestly back whoever is best pl;aced to defeat the BNP, they can at least stop pretending they have a chance of winning and just shut up instead.
This Tory spin could well have helped the BNP to win. Luckily the people of Calderdale saw through the Tory lies and mischief and voted solidly for Labour.
“Maybe the May elections won’t be so horrific for Labour after all.”
In Halifax wards the locals weren’t horrific for Labour also last year. So maybe it’ll differ according to the area
87. The implied slide in probability is about 4% - nowhere near 30% !