Why Dave can go on ignoring the core Tory vote
March 16th, 2007
The huge disconnect between the party and its supporters?
Looking at the table above, which is from data just published from the latest ICM poll, you could easily conclude that David Cameron and his close-knit team are mad to have made climate change into such an issue and one on which they are proposing unpopular policies.
For as can be seen just 11% of Tory supporters rank this as the most important issue at the moment compared with between 23-25% saying health, crime or immigration.
Of Labour supporters 15% rate climate change as their highest concern while with the Lib Dems the proportion is 23%.
-
Yet this emphasis on an area that is not rated very highly by Tory supporters does not seem to be affecting their desire to vote for the party.
The second table from the same poll compares current voting intention with how respondents said they did on May 5th 2005.
So the Tories are retaining 96% of their 2005 vote but are also picking up sizeable chunks of Labour and Lib Dem supporters. This might be partly because of the Tory moves on climate change.
Notice that the total of 2005 Tory supporters saying they are now opting for UKIP is precisely zero. In fact the poll found just 2 people in its sample of 1,010 who said they would support the anti-EU party.
-
As I have argued here before there is nowhere else that Tories can go and the Cameron gang can take the party in almost any direction they want.
This might not go down well at the Daily Telegraph or on CONhome but until traditional Tories start abandoning the party then the leadership has nothing to worry about.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Firstly, a couple of points on the poll and the effect Cameron is having. If anyone had said two years ago that one in nine Conservative voters would rate climate change as the most important issue facing the country, they’d have been laughed at. Whether this is Cameron changing existing Conservatives perceptions of what needs to be dealt with or whether these are converts from another party - the Lib Dems - who have always been keen on tackling climate change but recognise that the Conservatives are currently most likely to get something done, it demonstrates the real effect that Cameron’s already had.
The second point is about where the Labour vote’s going (and from the poll, a quarter of it is going). The largest chunk - though still a minority - is moving straight across from Lab to Con. That to me says a lot about potential tactical voting at the next election. If people who voted Labour in 2005 - when they weren’t popular - are now switching straight across, that’s likely to mean that the anti-Tory tactical vote will be nothing like what it was in 1997 and 2001, and to a lesser extent, 2005. Surely part of the reason for that is that the Conservatives, and Cameron in particular, have been talking about the issues that make him and them less threatening to people who last voted Labour or Lib Dem.
A couple of words of warning though. Firstly, the issues question is forced. The totals add up to the high nineties per cent or more. No-one thinks tax is most important, or pensions, or Iraq, or sleaze, or transport? Forced questions can produce the results you want them to. Secondly, there’s no ‘did not vote / will not vote’ in the voting intentions question, and that’s at least as important in the dynamics.
There’s a small formatting error there - the last table overlaps the text. Might be helpful to cite the poll source too so we can all nitpick about “but in Table 5 it shows…”.
Cameron’s relatively recent conversion to liberal values on climate change is IMO not really about climate change, any more than his decision to support the Government in yesterday’s decision on anti-gay discrimination by religious bodies is about adoption; they are both primarily “we are nicer now” signals, though welcome in themselves to folk like me. I think some of his party are genuinely converts, though. Eleanor Laing sounded convinced on the discrimination issue yesterday. She made what I thought was a moving speech, and John Bercow was excellent too - even Dennis Skinner was impressed (”A Tory speech that was really worth waiting for - if you live long enough you see everything!”).
DC’s assessment is that, as with most Labour voters in 1997, dislike of the sitting government will overcome the reservations that many Tories feel about this sort of thing. That will work so long as many voters continue to feel as irritated with the Government as now. But there is a definite softness in a segment of the Tory vote that is keen on ’strong, serious government’, and people in that group are often more impressed by GB (and John Reid) than DC at a personal level. They’ve not switched yet but there is a latent risk.
Mike couldn’t find this poll on the ICM site - which is it? These polls do depend on what questions were asked earlier in the survey. As the “issues” add up to 98 or 100 presumably these were suggested answers, you weren’t allowed to choose Iraq, the Economy or the hair style of the leader of the opposition.
Sorry, Witan, just picked up your question two thread ago on the mass turnout of Tory backwoodsmen to try to block the anti-discrimination vote: you wondered what I meant by “mass”. The committee met at 855 in the morning on a 1-line whip day, but there were nearly 50 MPs present, the large majority of them non-member Tories trying to block it. They took up the bulk of the 90 minutes of the sitting with one point of order after another (e.g. questioning whether it was right that civil servants were sitting on the floor as there was no space left), with the result that no commitee member got to speak except for one who got in during the last 30 seconds. Eleanor Laing shrugged them off and John Bercow confirmed that the Opposition had in fact been offered a full debate on the floor of the house but had not taken it up (undoubtedly because the leadership didn’t want the hardcore types ranting in public view). If you have a look at Hansard you can verify all this for yourself.
Your point was that Labour in turn had had a mass rebellion on Trident the previous day. Yes, we did. It’s a separate point.
The funy thing in the next election will be the core votes strategy pursued by Labour - a class based, “not for the likes of us” strategy.
Cameron will be reaching out to new voters, Labour will be trying to bring back it’s core votes. If it didn’t work for Hague, IDS, or Howard why does team GB think it will work for them?
Meanwhile, Luntz returns to the charge in
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2035405,00.html
OT. The NEC is set to approve next week the timetible for leadership and deputy leadership elections. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6456945.stm
Nick - click on the table to go to the ICM pdf of the poll.
Sorry Mike if I click on the ConHome link in the article (I admit I do sometimes look at ConHome to cheer myself up) you get the ICM data set.
The first six questions asked - the only questions other than how you would vote, were on Climate change/environment. This would surely influence the result.
The sample also seems odd in that voting in last election (54% of the sample voted for the 3 main parties - 50% Labour, 28% Conservative and 21% Lib Dem - so massive adjustment has been made to account for the “missing” Tories the 154 interviewed who said that they voted Tory were adjusted to 194.
Why did the sample find so few who admitted voting Tory last time. It seems more likely that given the unpopularity of the Government then more people would have forgotten that they voted Labour.
5. It did work for Hague. It stopped the party going down the plughole.
A core votes strategy was necessary then against an relatively popular (fuel tax aside), incumbant government. If a party can’t compete in the centre because it will be overwhelmed by the opposition, then it has to sure up its core vote or it risks losing a purpose for being there. The same factors were there to a lesser extent in 2005, as while Blair was far less popular by that point, the main point of his unpopularity was one the party couldn’t exploit. Besides, can you imagine Howard doing touchy-feely?
But that doesn’t affect your point about GB. He needs core votes plus. I suspect he’ll want his ‘plus’ to be the economy and public services: “we’re delivering; don’t put it at risk”. And to do that he has to be seen to be delivering in two to three years’ time.
4.”just picked up your question two thread ago on the mass turnout of Tory backwoodsmen”
Burrowes, Bone, Leigh, Brazier, Reedwood, Cash..the beginning of the meeting was a (right wing) Tory love-in.
Then Angela Eagle complained… “I have never known a group of Conservative MPs who have been so rude”
And Fabricant replied: “You should come to one of our dinners”
But that exchange is worthy:
Mr. Redwood: Many of us want to ban discrimination, but we do not want to ban the freedoms of conscience and choice at the same time. The majority of clothes shops in this country discriminate against me, as a man, because they sell clothes only for women. I see nothing wrong with that, because, fortunately, there are other shops that sell clothes only for men—[HON. MEMBERS: “Come out, John, and be honest about this.”] We should not say to all women’s clothes shops that they have to sell clothes that are suitable for normal men.
Chris Bryant: Ah, normal. You would not stand a chance.
11. Yes, it’s amusing how they try to hide their evident disgust for gays and the so-called ‘gay lifestyle’ that they have to hide behind pathetic arguments like the one above.
At least this government has had the guts to stand up to the church and the Daily Mail et al and state that discrimination against anyone is wrong - end of.
O/T French elections
A new poll and yet another stratgy for Ms Royal
For the first time the Ipsos tracking poll has put Royal and Bayrou at the same level :
Sarkozy 29(+0.5)
Royal 23 (-1)
Bayrou 23 (=)
Le Pen (-0.5)
second round sarkozy 53.5 royal 46.5.
They extended the menu (http://www.lepoint.fr/html/ipsos/index.jsp)
on the page to include “certainty of the vote” figures :
sarkozy is leading with 76%, followed by le pen with 63% (a huge fall from 80% some days ago, maybe linked to sarkozy’s “signals” to lepenists), royal with 60% and bayrou with 46% only.
I suppose that this poll will include bayrou/sarkozy figures for the second round if he continues to stay at royal’s level (but they need three days of polling to have a first figure).
‘But there is a definite softness in a segment of the Tory vote that is keen on ’strong, serious government’, and people in that group are often more impressed by GB (and John Reid) than DC at a personal level. They’ve not switched yet but there is a latent risk. ‘
Any actual evidence for that claim, or is it yet more wishful thinking?
re 9. Icarus - the massive adjustment is what happens in every poll that uses past vote weighting. The reason is that Labour supporters tend to be more likely to respond to unsolicited randomised phone calls than those of other parties.
Thus since the last election Populus and ICM between them have found about 45% of those responding to the “how did you vote last time” question saying Labour. The actual share was 36%.
They don’t adjust for all the difference and include a hefty element for “misremembering”.
Even with this approach ICM and Populus both overstated Labour and understated the Tories on May 5th 2005. NOP, which got the last election completely right, also uses the same methodology.
Yes understood, admin, but my point is that these impressive looking numbers are based on only 154 Tories interviewed (and for that matter 114 Liberal Democrats). The margin of error on these polls must be massive.
O/T French elections
New (and risky) strategy for Royal
Ms Royal has yet again changed her mind about her campaigning strategy. After the call for the support of the party two weeks ago and the inclusion of a group of “elephants” (party barons) in her campaign team, she attacked them last sunday for not rallying enough around her and tried to energize her core vote by denouncing bayrou as a “right-wing opportunist”.
But on TV yesterday night she announced that she would retake a “free” position from the socialist party, arguing that people liked it better when they fekt that she could have a non-partisan approach.
The very big risk of this strategy is contained in the figure blue moon quoted yesterday : polls show that only 37% of voters think she has the standing of a possible president (compared to 60%+ for bayrou and sarkozy). Therefore her main (and almost last) asset is to be the only credible candidate from the left and therefore enjoys tribal (if very unenthusiastic) support from the left-wing core vote… Of course, a more centrist attitude could help regain some votes from Bayrou if (and it is by no means sure) centrist (or confused) voters think her more credible as a centrist than him. However, she risks to shed more votes to the far-left which will have 5 candidates (half of the field!). And those small candidates will gain much more exposure after the beginning (next week) of the official campaign with totally equal access to the media for all candidates, even supposedly “small”.
Another worry is that it is at least the fourth change in her campaigning message since the start of the campaign…
Nick Palmer that is shocking news indeed, MP’s not all following the PC line.
Is it not the case that their are Labour MPs who are uneasy about gay adoption too, but your report suggests they were not prepared to voice those concerns in public at the committee. Opposition, such as that from the church’s is perfectly legitimate, isn’t it? And parliament’ s role is to represent all shades of honestly held opinion in its debates.
So why do you seek to pillory those that express those opinions, rather than those that hide and do not fulfil their duty to their conscience let alone tot heir electorate.
18 Apologies for the typing. Far too early in the morning.
“Many of us want to ban discrimination, but we do not want to ban the freedoms of conscience and choice at the same time.”
I find myself agreeing wiht a quote from John Redwood - something I thought I’d never say - does anyone have a number for a good psychiatrist? Although you can play up the old Tory stereotype, I’d have thought this issue was not so party political as e.g. Trident, and looking back at the debate on these regs, one of the saddest things is the tensions caused snd exacerbated between faith groups and wider society, and also the myth being propogated that all Christians care about is sexuality.
And to repeat a question from late last night, I see Dawn Butler on the list of Trident rebels, but thought she was a PPS in the Dep of Health. Cananyone shed any light on this?
Myth? If the churchs spend their time going on and on about sex, you can understand why people think that it really matters to them.
That religions are allowed to discriminate between people (men and women in the C of E for example) because they are religions and therefore different from the every other sort of organisation is in my view wrong.
21. And the fact that Catholic adoption agencies were willing to place kids with SINGLE gays, but not gay couples is frankly bizarre.
11. Very good. Our friend Bryant made a less successful quip of late according to Private Eye.
“Bryant…showed what a peculiarly duff heckler he is by trying to make a wisecrack during the speech of Julian Lewis…At that very moment Lewis was trying to pay tribute to three former colleagues who had died. ‘I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman finds that amusing’ said Lewis witheringly. Ex-vicar Bryant gave a gormless grin.”
22. Catholics in demonising sex shock.
20.” I see Dawn Butler on the list of Trident rebels, but thought she was a PPS in the Dep of Health. Cananyone shed any light on this? ”
No, she isn’t a PPS. She stopped being a PPS on May 2006 (she was PPS for Jane Kennedy and Kennedy resigned as minister in May 2006)
21. Does that mean the Church should administer communion to Satanists as well as its believers, then?
Tpfkar, would you mind dropping me an e-mail to julian.harris.81@googlemail.com ?
17. Another thing which Segolene said yesterday which I presume would be a focus of her campaign if she is in the run-off against Sarkozy was her claim that the riots we have seen will be nothing compared the the riots that will happen if Sarkozy wins.
Mike Smithson @ 15 re weighting — a bigger problem is that the so-called random samples are taken from a pool in which Labour supporters are already over-represented. Sampling is from published phone numbers but Tory supporters are more likely to be ex-directory. ICM should fix this rather than using such overwhelming weighting.
I see religions are private clubs - once you are a member you can be discriminated against as long as God says (through his chosen mouth piece) “Don’t for my sake make women bishops” then thats it.
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate; Could it be that some of those who are voicing opposition are acting on the collective advice of the overwhelming majority of child psychologists? After all, most of them maintain that the healthiest home for a child is one composed of a heterosexual couple (with distinct gender roles since fathers and mothers generally provide different asects of child rearing i.e. nurturing vs. disciplining) where one parent spends most of his/her time at home with the kids so as to better rear them.
It would seem to me that it is high time to stop politicizing the issue and place the children first. While often skeptical of mental science (and those who offer excuses for every human action), one cannot ignore the consensus of the medical community in any situation. I would be skeptical of placing children in the care of a single parent (straight or gay) unless they were older given that that foster or adoptive parent would spend most of their time at work and not give the child the attention he or she needs in the critical years of development.
30. That doesn’t answer my point. Religions by their nature discriminate against non-believers in a variety of ways. If you are saying they can longer do this, then they cannot really continue to operate (btw. I am not religious).
John L - sampling is based upon phone listings, but it isn’t as simple as randomly picking listed numbers. Listed numbers are picked, then the last digit in the number is randomised, hence allowing ex-directory numbers to end up getting sampled.
31. A thoughtful post. However, it is surely better to place a child with ANY sort of couple than leave the poor mite in care (with all the troubles that brings)?
OT (as usual), this website is not banned in China.
Apparently Guido’s is.
http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org
Sanity returning to GBs price on betfair - down from 1.28 to 1.24 in last couple of days.
Anthony Wells @ 33 — yes, but phone numbers are assigned to areas in blocks so the procedure you outline still results in Labour supporters being over-represented.
A better procedure would be to remove the final three digits from each number in the published directory listings in order to provide prefixes (which, since not all numbers in a district are likely to be ex-directory, represent all areas) to sample and then randomise the final three digits.
In the other direction is the danger that removing (and then randomising) too many digits will leave more sparsely populated (probably Conservative-leaning) locations over-represented but I’d have thought three was about right.
BBC reports NEC will next week schedule a seven-week campaign for Labour leadership and deputy leadership elections.
Good article Mike and a good point. We have to realise that poilitical parties are big coalitions so no one is going to get everything they want.
“30. That doesn’t answer my point. Religions by their nature discriminate against non-believers in a variety of ways.”
As of course, do political parties.
Ed Balls have won the “trigger ballot” in Morley and Outwood
http://www.edballs.com/index.jsp?i=2713
38. I was banking on a Blair statement within a day or two of the May elections then a ashort enough campaign to see a Q2 handover.
Thats extremely tight.
41- I am absolutely astonished, flabbergasted and disorientated with shock.
Yokel @ 42 — looks like Q3 is nailed on for the new leader to take over. How Betfair interprets Mr Blair’s status in the mean time is anyone’s guess, though.
Brown’s price should fall since it looks more and more like buying money.
44 — ah, Q3 assuming a May announcement (as widely expected).
43 John O. So are we John … put your Y fronts on !!
Re 34, Redflump “A thoughtful post. However, it is surely better to place a child with ANY sort of couple than leave the poor mite in care (with all the troubles that brings)?”
For years all sorts of straight couples have been barred from adopting on the basis of being smokers, having had treatment for cancer, being a year to old and goodness knows what else.
Given that if there were genuine concern about leaving children in care, you could losen some of teh dafter rules on the subject.
43,45 — I can’t count. Q2 not Q3.
I note that the former Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir George Mathewson, the man credited with turning that bank into the fifth largest in the World, is reported today as endorsing the SNP and Alex Salmond for First Minister, and supporting independence.
This may be the final blow to Labour, as he rubbishes their anti-independence economic case and accuses them of ridiculous scaremongering.
SNP must now be solid favourites to become the largest party on May 3.
49 Probably inspired by fear of a Tory victory at Westminster.
On topic , Mori chart the issues voters consider the most important back to 1980 see http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/issues.shtml . Those considering pollution and the environment an important issue has increased substantially over the past 18 months but there have been periods when it was as high and in 1989-90 substantially higher .
One issue that has never had more than 2% of voters thinking it important is that of Devolution/WLQ and an English Parliament despite the rantings of our occasional poster francis who sees revolution on the streets over this .
47. I totally agree with you Benedict (quick - pass the smelling salts!) We should encourage more people to adopt and not try to look for the so-called ‘perfect’ family because it doesn’t exist and never has done.
51 If I recall correctly 1989 was the year when the Green Party polled c 15% in the Euro elections which probably explains the high level of people thinking the environment is an important issue
34 - how nice to be able to agree with you redflump - I have a lot of experience of Looked After Children and almost all would be better of with chain smoking lard addicts than the state system.
As with most things, the state is a poor replacement for private arrangements.
Chris from Paris. I’m intrigued by the IPSOS polling. Sarkozy seemed to get hammered in this poll in the days after his immigration demarche ( pledging a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity) but has stabilised over the last couple of days. He certainly hasn’t given ground on the issue at all. It seems as though he may have lost some votes to Bayrou but solidified his core vote pretty dramatically. No doubt he has also set the scene for a transfer en masse of Le Pen voters in the second round. The trouble is that I think he wanted to make life more difficult for Bayrou at the same time but highlighting an issue which would polarise opinion. He clearly wants Sego in the second round where he beats her in poll after poll. One question though. In the past the RPR/UMP used to carve up seats with the UDF in order to prevent fratricidal strife costing the Right Parliamentary seats. In this way one standard bearer could be guaranteed a place in the second round. Surely this won’t be true in June. It’s very hard to see a defeated Bayrou ( or for that matter a successful one) allying with Sarkozy and the UMP this time round. How damaging will that be for the Right come the elections for the Assemblee Nationale?
47. Correct Benedict - it is remarkable how many barriers are put up to adoption, including the appalling ‘lack of race awareness’ excuse deployed on some occasions. But perhaps we should not be too surprised - if adoption worked well, then the care sector would presumably shrink dramatically, depriving many well-paid social workers et al. of their jobs.
51. No one has heard of WLQ. If the Tories say at the next election; only MP’s for English constituencies can vote on English only legislation; it will be a small vote winner.
O/T. My suggestion of an each way double Taranis and Exotic Dancer at Cheltenham this week is half way there with Taranis winning yesterday.
Exotic Dancer attempts to overhaul the mighty Kauto Star in today’s Gold Cup.
Here’s hoping.
Re 52, In which case why try to get an agency to act outside of its concience when it is clearly excelent at placing the most chalenging children?
OT. I had my old Paris embassy friend stay overnight and for breakfast and whilst reminiscing over days of yore we also took in the French presidential election.
Frankly there’s not much of great interest to report that PB hasn’t already been informed of … the power of the internet !!. The strength of Bayrou has surprised and all missions are preparing extensive documents on what a Bayrou presidency would mean. Essentially most are now working on the basis that if Bayrou reaches the second round he will win.
Sego’s campaign is seen as being all over the shop, desperate to find a stategy that will see off Bayrou whilst at the same time trying to hold together support flaking off in all directions in the coming weeks. There is nervousness in the Sego camp that voters on the soft left will peel away to Bayrou as the best and only hope to prevent a Sarko win.
The main interest on the Sarko side has been his recent attempt to shore up his right flank and core vote, successfully it would appear. However there is some disquiet that this strategy has played to his stereotype as a divisive figure and to the strength of Bayrou as the unity candidate.
In conclusion the assessment is that Sarko will reach round two and there clearly win against Sego and clearly lose against Bayrou. Effectively the presidency will be determined in round 1.
59. Because this is not about child welfare, it is about gay rights. Do try to keep up old fruit.
54. Yes, kingbongo, we can now all join hands and sing kumbaya - just like the Lib Dems!
61. Come on - if religious adoption agencies can place a child with a single gay man or woman, what is wrong with placing the child with a gay couple? I thought the church was meant to encourage togetherness - only for ’straights’ though apparently.
60.”I had my old Paris embassy friend stay overnight ”
Jack, there’s no need to advertise your adulterous nights
NEC organization sub-committee has apparently decided that Ealing Southall will be AWS. Not everyone happy about it (especially one of the top male contenders).
Don’t know what they’ve decided regarding Birmingham Ladywood and Leeds West
47 A close friend (white) married to a middle class black man had great diffiiculties adopting a mixed race or black child as the Social Services considered her husband was not “black enough” (officer in TA, banker, well off) and their christanity (methodism not Born Again evangelicals) also seemed to concern them. Took then several years before they finally got a child placed with them (and then like so many childless couples two years later she became pregnant - so had another mixed race child without social services concern)
62. Churches have odd or uneven rules about many things (the CofE confusion over remarriage of divorcees being an obvious example). I think those are properly the business of the church though, not the Labour Party.
59 - because they are doing much the same as what people on this thread have criticised social workers for doing , refusing adoption to people who do not fit their organisations criteria ?
On a wider point we can argue about what the criteria should be but it seems to me that adoption or fostering is problematic precisely because we are forced to consciously decide. This is in some way a political or value laden choice, we can’t duck out of it.
64. Presumably they would have preferred him to have dreads and reek of ganga. How incredibly patronising - in fact, racist.
Re 62, Redflump, you are not going to legislate about what Roman Catholics can and can’t believe. Over the last 2,000 years many have tried all have failed.
My understanding is that they will not place children with a couple who are not married, where a single parent is more appropriate then they don’t care. Seems odd, but there you go. I have not studied the ins and outs of it.
Re 66, Crossland, yes, but we are talking about a small number of agencies compared to the whole.
There would be nothing wrong with a whole host of different agencies specialising in different areas as long as there is choice and people are not forced to act outside of their concience.
Back on topic… looking at that vote retention data from ICM, a couple of things jump out at me.
Firstly, there is no transfer from the Lib Dems to the Greens. Does this mean that Ming & Co are doing enough to stave off the threat from this quarter?
Secondly, if you look at this switch data and use it to give a % change on raw voting numbers from the 2005 election, you get a different set of voting intentions:
Con: 39.94%
Lab: 27.37%
LD: 22.63%
SNP / PC: 4.83%
Green: 2.21%
UKIP: 0.4%
Others: 2.62%
Labour are in considerable direr straits than those headline figures show - 2.5 million voters from 2005 have deserted them.
70. ‘Labour are in considerable direr straits than those headline figures show ‘
Correct - hence the emerging ‘core vote’ strategy.
68.”Redflump, you are not going to legislate about what Roman Catholics can and can’t believe”
you can legislate on what people can do and can’t do…and Roman Chatolics should follow the law, they’re not above the law
68. Benedict, you don’t have to tell me about Catholic hypocracy - I was brought up in it! If these agencies can’t get themselves into gear, they shouldn’t be in business at all.
Re 72, Andrea, “you can legislate on what people can do and can’t do…and Roman Chatolics should follow the law, they’re not above the law”
Tell that to the Russians and Chinease.
They have tried and failed.
44. Suits my bet percentages very well as I’m heavier on Q2. I just couldnt see the point in Tony standing up after what is expected to be a bit of a beating in May and saying, ‘not to worry, just give me a few more months there until I get the furniture out’
There is, however, at 7 weeks of a camapaign (including handover conference?) absolutely no scope for delay in Tony’s announcement if Q2 is going to come off. I estimated no more than 6 weeks until new leader in the absence of any hard facts about this issue.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Tony stays on as official leader of the party until the successor is chosen and the handshake photos are taken. If I’m wrong it makes no difference, I’m firmly in Q2. My Q3 is modestly in profit no matter what but there’s more money in Q2 for me having topped up recently.
63 Andrea. Whilst I like to think I’m in touch with my gay side …. my left little pinkie is certainly a little camp !!
… I do draw the line at rampant rumpy pumpy a deux male !!
Jack W is 104 years of heterosexual beefcake !!
69- So you have no criticism’s of agencies that will not place children with smokers , Methodists or Conservatives then ?
Im not convinced that ‘the market’ will sort out adoption as ultimately where are the children in all this choice ?
Is it just me or has this report about the timescales not moved the market?
74. Ah, Benedict, so the Catholic Church is above the law
66. Crossland, do you have anything about what the NEC has decided regarding Ladywood shortlist?
72. When Catholics were engaging in treasonous conspiracies against the state in the 16th century I think there was a good case for forcing them into line via legislation. I can’t really see the case for obliging them to act against their consciences on this issue myself, though. Sledgehammer and nut spring to mind.
80 Ho hum. I think you’ll find that in 16th century Elizabethan England that sledgehammers and nuts came together quite often !!
Re 77, Crossland, not if they can point you in the right direction for an agency that will assist, which they do not do at the moment.
80. The trouble is Ho Hum, their consciences are all over the place. Placing with single gays and not with couples?
79 - no , I’m still under the impression that Birminghan seats are not to be decided until after the locals.
I can see that Ladywood is a special case but haven’t heard anything recently .’The stirrer’ website usually carries up to date gossip on the positioning thats going on.
Labour Deputy Leader price movements with Ladbrokes. Harman cut from 8s to 6s, Blears and Straw out to 12s. Other prices remain the same:
H Benn 5/2
A Johnson 3/1
J Cruddas 5/1
P Hain 8/1
An article about Gordon Brown in this week’s New Statesman caught my eye. It says,
“Whoever wins the deputy leadership contest can expect to be given a free hand with the party, such is Brown’s cooling to it. This is a remarkable turnaround for a man who is almost entirely the creature of Labour.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/200703190013
This would certainly seem to fit snugly with the Jon Cruddas view that what the Deputy Leader should be rather than those that seem it as a springboard to being DPM.
85. What is Straw in at that price in the betting for in the 1st place?
84. Thans Crossland. This week the NEC sub-organization committee met. I know they decided on Ealing Southall. I wondered if they had taken any decision on Ladywood (and Leeds West). But if they want to wait the locals, I suppose they’ll delay the decision until the next NEC meeting.
Yokel @ 75 — an interesting question is whether, and how, announcing the schedule will affect the Labour vote in May.
The “dour Scot” brigade will doubtless anticipate Labour meltdown as Blair supporters flee, whereas the “Brown bounce” faction will look forward to an improved performance.
re 78 — the market is completely illiquid and so much depends on the precise date of Blair’s resignation, not to mention Betfair’s sometimes eccentric interpretation of events. In addition, many punters will be concentrating on Cheltenham just now (as I should be!). (I am considering backing Q1 to free up some funds.)
I know - it’s crazy. In the early autumn he heavily briefed a series of journalists that he was considering stand and it seems to have stuck. He’s certainly not going to stand now, particularly since there is the real prospect of becoming the next Chancellor of the Exchequer…
89. That’s in reponse to your point Yokel @ 86
Wealth warning on Blair switch — the BBC has now buried the story on its news page so perhaps they cannot stand it up.
88. I completely bailed out from the Blair Switch markets since betfair have not clarified their rules. I made a nice sum having backed it from 3.25 and sold around 1.6 - 1.8. Unless you work for Betfair, I don’t see the point of being active in this market, unless you fancy Blair to stick around until next year.
85 if this really Brown’s view of the party over major issues such as defence he’s going to have a tough time as PM - he’ll be starting off in the bunker, not retreating to it after a few years.
87 - yes , the view is that because of all the boundary changes its better to encourage all interested parties to stay focused on the locals,and it’s in their interests to put some graft into campaigning against ‘the regressive partnership’ rather than each other.
Limit the Cameron surge first, Civil war later
93. Yes.
79, 80 et al.
The problem is that legislating what the Catholic church, or indeed any other religious organisation, can or cannot act upon, is essentially attempting to supercede their beliefs with some sort of centralised moral code of ethics. This is symptomatic of a largely secular state - understandable, in its way - but also suggests that there is no place for minority moral (and hence religious) beliefs in this society of ours in Britain. Where should these people go if they want to live a life, Amish-like, away from a world which they see as incompatible with theirs? Additionally, it is hardly as if this humanist / atheist state trying to bend their beliefs has proved itself any more capable of dealing with those problems which they are attempting to solve themselves. This whole church-state argument is broader than just Catholic adoption agencies but also of those with strong Islamic faith, Mormons, et al. Of course for Christians it is made all the more galling that they would see themselves as “repressed” in what is their own homeland. Should they lose out simply because they are not winning the demographic battle? Or does society owe them more than that?
Paraphrased slightly from here:
“Fathers should be encouraged to spend some time with their young children by doing something together, the Labour leadership no-hoper, Alan Johnson, said yesterday as he stated the bleeding obvious.”
Here’s an idea: Wouldn’t it help if Labour got off their backside and made some changes to help that happen? How about more paternity leave when kids are born? Or the right to stay with the baby in the hospital after the birth?
I’m still annoyed that I was ordered away from the hospital just 12 hours after my daughters birth. New fathers lose the opportunity to become comfortable with their new baby because they are shoved out of the way. Johnson should send a memo to Hewitt: Don’t centralise Maternity services. It’ll just cut new dads off even more.
Found the Luntz column in the Guardian interesting for this reason. Labour need to show that they are actually doing something rather than just saying they are doing something if they are going to prevent a further loss of support at the next election.
NB. My daugher and I make the best chocolate cookies. And that’s the truth.
OT but KevinL - you have a bee in your bonnet about my union membership on the previous thread. As I said in my post on the previous thread - I have never claimed to be a member of a teaching union, you are making an assumption. Assumptions are not always correct.
Re 97, Timothy, I find that fatherhood in terms of “bonding” is easier for a man. With women they seem to think it is important to have the baby as soon as it is born etc, and the first few days or weeks are vital.
A lot of men warm to their children over a period of time, so that is less critical.
Having said that having the father around in the hospital is important, or rather can be, for the mother, so I agree iwth your other points.
97. Completely agree with you Timothy. If Alan Johnson really cares about this he need to look at what Dads are doing when they are not with the kids.
a) working because they need to earn out of necessity
b) because they would sooner be doing something else such as going out with their mates.
The government could solve a) by reducing taxes but as for b) the only way that this could be addresses, if indeed in can, is by improving education and social responsibility and many a policitian has come unstuck trying to do that.
My cookie making may not be up to yours but you should see the Elizabethan ship that my son and I made out of bits and pieces from our recycling waste last week!
97. ‘Wouldn’t it help if Labour got off their backside and made some changes to help that happen? How about more paternity leave when kids are born?’
To be fair Timothy the Labour Government has introduced a number of measures around paternity leave which were opposed by the Conservatives. Since 1997 new mothers have gained 26 weeks paid maternity leave, fathers 2 weeks paternity leave. Parents with young or disabled children also have the right to request flexible hours. Personally I’d like to see more time for fathers, but it has to be paid for and I am sensitive to the impact on small businesses.
94. So they probably decided on Ealing Southall because they don’t have locals this year and they can start the civil war now (already bitching comments by a male contender)
101. Yes, Tories want to be the party of the family, but have voted against every family measure Labour has introduced.
103. I’d argue that paid paternity leave would be much more valuable to family life than ‘married persons/gay couples/people with children/whatever the policy is’ tax allowance.
Damn I had a long post all diasppear on me.
92. I’m not sure Betfair know what the status is because the Labour Party don’t know either, its all been playing it by ear up until now.
Certainly unless you think Blair will attempt to hold on in a Waco-Texas style siege, there’s nothing the market at this stage other than Q2 or Q3.
88. I know there has been speculation over when Blair steps down with some people mentioning summits and so forth but the most logical time is after a pasting at the polls. It’s good old traditon to say the people have spoken and its time to go.
The public know Blair is out but the fact that he’ll likely still be head of the table in May is not going to do Labour much good with their core unless they take the view that ist a vote for Gordon & the post Tony world. The possibility that Blair’s presence in No 10 will keep some swing voters, who see Tony as the best thing Labour have, on board is limited by the very fact that he’s leaving. I suspect Labour may get caught in a clasp between two negatives though I can’t tell for sure. For the Welsh & Scots elections, there isn’t a lot more scope for a Brown-pending bounce either.
Were there any byelections last night, and if so do we know the results yet?
Lembit Opek does he not have his own private plane? I watched question time last night and nobody brought this up whilst he was going on and on about people chaning their lifestyles!
I noticed the other day that Blair said he wanted the party spending thing rapped up by July. This fraudian slip must be a reinforcement of the view that Q3 and specifically July is the time by which he goes.
Labour saying that the tories can outspend them is unfair (LOL!), given the electoral system is completly biased in Labour’s favour. Blears saying that the tories gains at the last election were “bought” is rediculous. The Tories still got a smaller proportion of the seats in parliament than their share of the vote! She is a joke candidate for the deputy leadership - comical hazel!!!
106. No byelections last night
Am i reading the second “vote in 2005 general election” table correctly?
By my understanding:
Cameron has retained 96% of the Con vote, but lost 3% to the LibDems and 1% to the Greens, (0% to UKIP or Labour). In exchange he has gained 11% from Labour and 13% from the LibDems.
Is this right?
re 108, Andrea, Many thanks.
109 that’s what the data shows, but whether it’s right or not…..hmm 1% of LDs going over to UKIP - if true that sounds like anti-everyone voters in the South West but I’m not convinced.
Re 111 Kingbongo, Lib Dem UKIP switchers can be found, even if they are a little unbelievable.
BTW, my own take on the NEC story is of course now on my blog
An interesting question i have turned over in my mind. If in the very unlikely event that either Meacher or Mcdonnell won, would Gordon Brown serve under them in the the cabinet or would he take the Ken Clarke route and say no thanks?
Kingbongo,
Thanks - just so long as it wasn’t me going mad!
I thought it odd that there were tories who tought Cameron wasn’t green enough, and (like you say) libdems moving to ukip.
96 (and Andrea) The basis of the English Common Law is that everything is legal except those things which are specifically by Common Law or Statute declared illegal. This is a different philosophy from Roman or Napoleonic Law.
The desire to lay down a Code of Ethics which enforces on private individuals or organisations an underlying legal code is therefore an imposition of the Roman/Napoleonic idea that the rights of the individual are those granted by the state.
Freedom of worship & conscience, of assembly and speech can be limited by law but they are not the product of law. The only sphere where a state should impose such a code in line with the English legal philosophy is in the operations of the state. Thus the new law on adoptions only applies to Catholic Adoption Agencies when the adoption is fully or partly funded by a local authority - private adoptions can legally discriminate on whatever basis they wish.
Where there are conflicts are where employment laws and health & safety laws directly oppose religious matters of conscience; these being areas where the state has adopted competence to ensure fair treatment and safety of people in the private/commercial fields. Thus we get issues on employment of gay teachers (or Satanists, people in unmarried relationships). The priesthood is excluded because they are employed by God not by any human organisation (I think this as supported quite recently in court).
115.”The desire to lay down a Code of Ethics which enforces on private individuals or organisations an underlying legal code is therefore an imposition of the Roman/Napoleonic idea that the rights of the individual are those granted by the state”
The point is not what people believe, but what they do. Ok, laws shouldn’t cover beliefs…so Roman Catholics can continue to believe that gay people are unnatural perverts, but they can’t act on it (aka discriminating them) if a law in that sense is passed.
Do they believe that an anti-discrimination law is wrong? Fair enough…I believe many laws are wrong, but I’ve to respect them anyway
113. I was thinking this morning: What would happen if Brown and McDonnell were on the ballot paper and during the election period Brown had to pull out (for whatever reason I don’t know). Would the NEC suspend the contest and re-run it or would we automatically have Prime Minister McDonnell?!
113. I think Gordon Brown would take the Ted Heath route and sulk on the backbenhes. He would expect Labour to lose the next election and then for the party to come to its senses and give him the crown.
Whatever happens, i must say as a young left-leaning voter that the future looks bleak for Labour. Cameron still has a lot of difficult work to do but my guess is that Brown will get the leadership, the polls won’t really improve and Gordon’s enemies will sense blood.
Brown is responsible for much (but not all) of the in-fighting within the party and the only hope of it not spilling over would be a clear victory for Milliband. Then the Brownites can retire and go back to doing what they do best - being miserable.
Andrea
People are free to discriminate - the state and commercial organisatons cannot. So anti-discrimination laws do not apply to me as an individual in my private life, I can discriminate who I associate with in my private life, who I let in to my house, who I buy things from, who I sleep with. Same applies to churches - it’s not up to non-church members to say what they believe or how they practice their religion. These freedoms are not unlimited - paedophilia, human sacrifice are for example banned. Satanic masses, slaughter in line with Islamic or Jewish practice is legal.
116. I don’t think anyone thinks those with religious belief should be given carte blanche to engage in blatant discrimination in everyday life. But there is a difficult issue here when we are talking about discrimination taking place as part of the actual religious activity of a given faith.
I joked earlier about whether Churches should be obliged to give communion to Satanists, but there is more to religion than just the actual act of worship. The carrying out of charitable activity - such as running adoption agencies - is seen by many religious people as part of their faith. Being told how they should carry this out is thus seen by them as a clear restriction of religious freedom.
112 what’s a “blog” ? do you have one? should I get one?
hope PtP is having a good Chelters - so far for me Well Chief fell over, Our Vic forgot he was in a race but on the upside PaddyPower have given me a free bet so if Exotic Dancer doesn’t do it then maybe Kauto Star will. Bookies 1 Punters 0 this week.
I see that the worms have escaped from the can opened earlier this morning. A few random thoughts:
Icarus @ 21: while I am usually in agreement with you, I think we’re on opposite sides here. I can sympathise with Michael Howard who said that in the 2005 GE he was asked 5 questions about immigration, then the sixth was why he talked about immigration so much. My own experience is that a vocal minority notwithstanding, Christians really aren’t obsessed with sexuality.
I try not to go O/T on religious matters as this isn’t the place for it, but a few words if I may now as I think it would be helpful to clarify. I don’t believe in preaching moral codes to anyone - simply because the actions without the reasons are pretty pointless; I don’t try to earn God’s favour by doing what I believe to be right, but I try to act like someone grateful for what He has done for me (particularly in sending Jesus) and I trust Him that he knows what he’s doing and what is best for me. But the issue discussed here isn’t whether Christians are right - that will always include an element of faith and there’s only so far discussion can go - it’s whether Christians should be free to speak and act out what they believe. That’s where the political aspect comes in - the language used against is always ‘discriminate’ but for me it’s more an issue of freedom of speech and of religious expression than one of right/wrong.
22: Red Flump. While I have to tread carefully as I know little about the Catholic church or adoption agencies, I think you make a good point and do not support the Catholic adoption opt-out people have suggested.
25: Andrea - thanks. Is there an Italian version of Mastermind? I think you’d walk it
27: email about to be sent.
65: Ted - not all churches have the same rules/customs, and just like any political party there are differences of opinion, but people hang on while they believe in the core values. People ‘defect’ from churches just they do from parties. I agree that the churches are the best people to sort out their own procedures though!
104: HenryG - excellent post. Also perhaps a way could be found of parents having more time off work to spend with their children?
117.”Would the NEC suspend the contest and re-run it or would we automatically have Prime Minister McDonnell?! ”
and Jeremy Corbyn as Foreign Secretary!
119. Ted “the state and commercial organisatons cannot”
I consider the Church an organization…
Re 121, Kingbongo, a blog is somewhere you can write your thoughts on issues of the day, or anything!
See this one for example:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
should you get one? Why not?
I hope Peter has had a good festival as well. I must take advantage of his tips though!
124 - commercial? Churches are in it for the soul not the profit - accept perhaps Scientolgists
Re 124, Andrea it is not a commercial organisation!
OT - in case anyone’s interested and it hasn’t already appeared on PB, these are the 2003 notional results for Wales from Rallings & Thrasher:
http://www.election.press.net/walesboundary.html
123. It would be interesting if a left winger got into no.10 by default after Blair goes, just to see what they would try and do and how far the PLP and the civil service would bring back the leader into touch!
Having said that i would not want to live in yet another ’social experierement’ anyway! I don’t think the left has anything to offer me either and it would be suicidal for the government.
I think there will be a lot of road kill at the next election as Cameron’s horse and cart enter’s downing street (Should that be bike as horse fart contributes to global warming!).
“Except” not “accept” (before the militant Grammarians blast me)
121. Yeah whats with that little free bet from Paddy Power? I logged in this morning and they were kind enough add a random free bet amount to my account.
It went straight on Duty in the first at Cheltenham.
117. Guaranteed Tory government soon after…
129. A bit like Harry Perkins from A Very British Coup perhaps.
I remember one hysterical article in the Mail (I think?) before 1997 talking of a ’socialist plot’ to replace Tony Blair with Ken Livingstone after the general election. That would have been fun to see.
126. Ted…my Church always sends me a paper with all the money they spend and they get…I know more about their financial situation than about mine.
They spent lots of money for new benches….
98. kingbongo, I was just trying to understand your comment on the party funding thread: “actually you have to OPT OUT of the political fund. laziness means that many people, including me, can’t be bothered with the paperwork, so I am helping fund both the Labour party and the Conservative party.”. I find it somewhat surprising that a partisan Conservative like yourself would choose to join a union affiliated to the Labour Party and not be bothered to opt out of their political fund. But if that’s the case, well, fine.
102. Andrea, the ‘male contender’ in question has been nursing the seat for years and probably could not get selected anywhere else, so I can understand his disappointment. However he is going a bit far by threatening to have a sex-change operation. The result would not be a pretty sight.
132. Yes, i have looked at that book but never actually read it - they also showed it a couple of times on ITV3, i think it was last autumn.
Certainly the political theorists would say that the Establishment and civil service would try and rein in any attempt at radical policies. Having said that Clement Attlee was extreamly radical compared to what was before it! But it must be remembered that the war cabinet, which was led by the tories (Churchill - arch anti - socialist!)actually agreed to a lot of the policies before Labour were elected. I do think though that Attlee’s win for better or worse cemented in the changes that are still here to this day! Thatcher did not really touch the systems he put in place in terms of social policy. Economic policy: yes, she changed things greatly but social policy - No. But even meacher said recently that the only thing he would nationalise was the reail industry! Maybe that would be a starting point and his way of bluffing it? I doubt it though. No, it all comes back to nuclear weapons! I could understand Labour in the 80’s surrendering to a communist invader because they had ideological sympathy for the society the communists had created. They did not have sympathy for the totalatarian leaderships as far as i am aware though. But now russia still has about 7,000 nuclear bombs, china about 4-500 and some piss ant nations are trying to acquire them. Russia could still turn nasty and a Harry Perkins figure would leave us open to a dictator from abroad. Did you know that the russians are still constructing a giant bunker under the yamantau mountain that can apparently withstand 6 direct hits! The Falklands war was caused by a similar withdraw of miltary deterant even if it was not nuclear! It would be a very bad signal to send out!
135. Kevin, yes, I saw the “short of getting a sex change” line.
I think his “an AWS can let the tories in” line is not a strong argument in favour of an open shortlist though. The female candidates mentioned don’t seem so weak to risk losing a 30%+ majority.
Is his comment about Khabra and Sharma supporing an AWS just to stop him true or at least plausible?
136. Interesting! However some would argue your point about ‘open to a dictator from abroad’ has already been realised Martin.
137. Is there a link to the article Andrea?
138. Good point!!!
137. I think there is a genuine desire for a female candidate and it’s not just a ’stop-Gurcharan’ ruse.