Will Labour pay a price if there is no contest?
April 25th, 2007
The Guardian steps up the rhetoric against a Brown coronation?
The feature of its ICM poll that the Guardian focuses on this morning is the hugely negative response to questions about whether Gordon Brown should take over from Tony Blair unopposed.
Under the heading “When in doubt, trust the voters” the paper’s main leader notes “Many Labour people have persuaded themselves that a leadership contest to succeed Tony Blair would not be, in that dreadful word so beloved of party loyalists, helpful.”
The leader argues, “Our ICM poll today exposes the trap into which Labour risks falling as a result of such understandable but misguided views. When ICM asks about the way Mr Blair’s successor should be chosen, the response is conclusive. Fully 78% of all voters answer that Labour should have a contest, against only 16% who think they should rally around the chancellor and elect him unopposed, as Labour orthodoxy increasingly favours. Most striking of all is the finding, by a three to one margin, that Labour’s own supporters think there should be a contest too. Labour leaders, in other words, are out of touch with the mood of the public and of their own voters…Labour MPs and activists are betting the house on a strategy of electing Mr Brown unopposed. “
With all the recent focus on whether or not Miliband was going to put his hat into the ring there has been hardly any discussion of what voters will think if this is how the country’s next prime minister is chosen.
One key factor - a contest would have blocked Cameron and the Tories generally out of the news for nearly two months and whenever this has happened the opposition party’s ratings have slumped.
A reason why the Tories are down substantially at the moment is that it has been hard for them to get a look in because of the focus on Labour. Oppositions need constant publicity.
As it is Labour has made itself a sitting target for the Tories especially as Gordon looks set to wait in the wings for seven weeks as the only candidate while process in gone through.
Latest Labour leadership betting has seen the Brown price tighten to 0.13/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Underlying figure
“A majority of voters, 54%, say the next general election should bring a change of government. Only 21% think Britain should stick with Labour.
Labour support is now at bedrock. The party has only twice scored below 30% in the Guardian/ICM series, which began in 1984. Over a quarter of the people who say they voted Labour in 2005 have switched to either the Conservatives or LibDems.”
It’s a low and worrying poll for us but I just do not believe it, I think locals will show something else. As to why is the Guardian so anti Brown who knows. It is a done deal.
Test, I fear you miss the point. The Guardian is so anti-Brown, I believe, because they recognise that ultimately Brown will be answerable to the electorate and they can see that in that context he is disliked by many with a passion. ‘It’ (i.e. the leadership) might be a ‘done deal’ but if that is so it could be the biggest own goal yet scored by the party.
I would argue that the reason for the Cameron plummet in the polls is not that the public have seen too little of him recently but that they’ve seen too much. Appearing as often as he does with nothing significant to say was bound to have a negative effect. I first mentioned this “365 day sale” syndrome about ten months ago. ‘Cheap and cheerful’ is OK for a few months but it soon just becomes cheap. Becoming the ‘Jade Goody’ of politics was never the way to go.
Whether Labour do or do not have a contest matters not a jot. The same was said of Michael Howard and had the same question been asked of the public the same overwhelming sentiment for a contest would have been expressed. Once elected-as with Howard-the process will be forgotten. Cameron’s miscalculations show the foolishness of seeing everything in the short term.
I very much doubt that a couple of duff days in the House of Commons and the Dyke debacle (because in the end it looked incompetant) were noticed by more than 5% of the population. This does not explain the dip in support
Therefore I can only supppose that it was abscence of “feel good ” Cameron on the TV that made the difference. In which case it implies that the increase in Tory support is not just sensitive but highly sensitive to change and so skin deep
Got to agree with John, anyway Fox was good and got good reporting on the BBC. Must be lack of Cameron. Who really changed their opinion based on Greg Dyke and Mayoralty of London in a nationwide poll
O/T France
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/25/wfra25.xml
Royal closing the gap (allegedly).I have my doubts personally
“Fox was good ” - no. Fox is always full of faux outrage. He reminds people why they stopped voting Tory. Cameron should keep Fox in a box.
Well, at least we are at 30%! Lately I’m surprised that Labour gets ANYTHING!
I am waiting for these Welsh polls. Any news anyone?
Well, I wonder if Blair is tempted to “let it be known” that - for the good of the Paty, of course - there should be a contest. I suspect the reason Brown doesn’t want one is that he views it as a distraction from getting on with the job of running the country, given that in 2005 Labour ran (as he sees it) on a “vote Tony, get Gordon at half time” ticket.
I’m not sure a coronation will actually cost Labour votes in itself, but a leadership election may be a good way to flush away the bile that will surely follow from the trouncing they’ll get in next months’ polls.
On the French elections, of course Ségo is closing the gap - if you assume Bayrou’s support splits evenly, Le Pen’s goes half to Sarko and half to abstention, it leaves the “ultra left” vote as crucial - if it all goes to Ségo she can even win.
Can you have a faux fox?
9.Re ICM poll good news for Lib Dems. Key thing as far as locals are concerned is comparison with 2003 and Tory share.
The swing since 2003 to the Tories from Lib Dems is now 3% whereas last months figure was c 7%.On this basis Lib dem losses to Tories may be contained at at around 100.
RogerH
The issue is simple to state but not easy to decide. Most Labour MPs agree that a civil contest between people who clearly respect each other and put forward a range of views is a Good Thing. However, in the current media climate, anything with a remotely critical personal undertone will get splashed all over the media. Can we fight a 7-week leadership election without giving any such hostages to fortune? Or should we simply unite behind the man who is clearly going to win anyway? I’ve not yet decided myself.
The thing about the London Mayor debacle was, as I argued at the time, that it looked incompetent. People think Cameron is quite a nice chap and still a fresh face, but they’re getting irritated by the vague fireside chat interviews (”yes, yes, people should be nicer to each other, and not all teenagers are bad, but are you going to actually DO anything?”) and they’re not sure the Tories have an adequate team to run things. Anything that feeds that perception is significant, even though nobody outside London cares if the London Mayor is the Archangel Gabriel or Attila the Hun.
As for France, I would think, regretfully, that Sarkozy is rightly the favourite. But Royal looks oversold - her chance of closing a gap of a couple of percentage points is clearly better than a 4-1 rating would suggest. About 2.5-1 sounds about right to me.
3. I think there are two differences with a Howard coronation and a Brown coronation Roger. First of all we are in Government and the ‘winner’ will be PM. Huge difference to being leader of opposition prior to facing the ballot box. Secondly the Howard coronation seemed quite spontaneous and positive at the time and surprised pundits - or at least that was the way it was spun. It made a disunited party look remarkably disciplined.
The impression of Brown on the other hand is that he has bruised and bullied his way to a position of political dominance. New Labour has developed a reputation for authoritarianism and shutting down civil liberties. Avoiding a contest for leadership would not challenge this view but reinforce it.
I recently read a saying that went something like ‘if all you have is a hammer, every problem you see is a nail’. Brownites swiftly need to move beyond this mentality - but as far as this ‘contest’ is regarded I fear Brown’s team have been too crafty for their own good and have defined it as inheriting something that is rightfully theres rather than something to be earned. And I say all this as a Brown supporter.
O/T A good article in the Times on the plight of British politics, the lack of political choice and where the deputy leadership contest fits within that debate.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article1701280.ece
The drop in Tory support and the rise in Lib support is simple - Cameron has wooed a lot of Libs floating generally, and at the slightest wobble they will currently reidentify with the Libs.
It is whether he can reinforce their identification with the Conservatives that will decide if the Tories can build on their c38% of the polls.
It seems the Labour poll rating is now at its core and there will be little lab-tory movement as any waverers have now decided to declare for one of the other parties. It will take more for the lab/tory waverers to return to Labour than a few iffy days for Cameron - that movement is currently not so volatile.
Even the excellent Roger’s most fervent supporters will struggle to agree that DC looks ‘cheap’. Cheerful, ok.
Roger has a better feel for his own party. He must be right when he says that how GB is selected is immaterial to the floating voter. And an artificial contest—against a no-hoper—must be the worst of all worlds. GB would have to front up with something, so when he takes over, everything will seem even more stale.
The USP required to oppose GB convincingly is to look fresh and new. That rules out Reid, Straw and Clarke. Hutton, Johnson, Denham and Benn could get away with it (just). But if you can’t shine in a govt as full as modest talents as this one, maybe you are not the man. The only plausible candidate, who is new, fresh and with youth on his side, has curiously ruled himself out.
The excellent Roger is right when he thinks that the socialist party’s interests would best be served by allowing GB to take over with the minimum of fuss.
Frankly I still believe the increase in the Lib Dem support is because there are elections almost everywhere except in London. Thus people will be receiveing Lib Dem leaflets etc. They will be visible locally where as they are almost invisible in the national media.
I would exepect their poll ratings to drop back a bit after May 3rd.
Yes, there should be a Labour leadership contest. The only credible alternative to Gordon Brown is of course, Tony Blair.
I think that we should ask the Prime Minister to sacrifice himself for the sake of the country, and stand for re-election as leader of the Party. I know that he promised to stand down, but anyone can change their mind. After all, he has done it in the past often enough (over Trident, the EU, City Academies, student tuition fees, to name but a few examples).
Tony should either make a U-turn and seek a fresh mandate as leader by standing for re-election, or he should make a comeback after having a nice rest for a couple of years, and after Gordon leads the Party to defeat at the next election and resigns.
I think there is far too great a tendency to seek explanations for every nuance in every poll. Polls fluctuate, that is in their nature. To start trying to pin a change on something that happened in the last week is also daft.
In my experience polls tend to lag events somewhat. So a change in a party will tend to lead to a gradual shift in that party’s perception over time and not a great jump up or down.
I would also reiterate that rather than over analysing any one poll we should consider movements across several polls. On that basis the LDs do seem to be clawing some support back, possibly due to their increased exposure in the run up to the local elections. Equally the changes this time could be just a correction after a record high Conseravative rating in the last poll and a recent low for the Lib Dems. On any measure Labour’s gentle slide is continuing!!
6- the TNS Sofres poll is 51/49.
As for today’s Ipsos they give 53.5 (-0.5)/ 46.5 (+0.5)
According to numerous leaks, Bayrou will announce today that he does not back anyone and that his party’s MPs are free to back whoever they want.
Most of them will then back sarkozy (already around 12 have done so, including the main author of bayrou’s manifesto). I predict that not a single one will back Royal (they’re too scared about the legislative elections). This should settle at least a third of bayrou’s voters for sarkozy.
Morning Rik and morning all :). It’s obviously encouraging as an LD to see us moving back above 20%. As far as the locals are concerned, I stand by what I said over the weekend. All parties will find something to cheer and something to try and forget - that’s almost always the way (1995 being a notable exception).
I suspect there will be some results that will have us all confused. In low turnout elections, so much will depend on local organisation and the ability to get the vote out. Tories should be motivated to vote and the organisation to get that vote out is strong in many places so we can expect a good Conservative performance in those places.
However, Rik will be the first (I’m sure) to admit that there are areas where Conservative organisation is weaker and that may not be enough to deliver the more “optimistic” gains.
The one thing an election on a 35% turnout does NOT tell us, in my view, is what will happen in an election with a 65-70% turnout.
Great poll of course - it’s not just LD visibility but people actually choosing to back them when canvassed/aware of what they are doing locally and nationally.
And I see Mark Senior getting bashed for touting Lynne Featherstone - although I’m not sure she’d be ready this year, I definitely think she’s one to watch.
As for Gordon’s coronation, well it will annoy those who don’t like him, and won’t bother those who don’t care or think he’s the right man for the job. So I agree with Mike that it’s a chance to get headlines for 7 weeks more than anything else.
15 - David K - “And an artificial contest—against a no-hoper must be the worst of all worlds.”
Exactly, David, and that’s the problem. A phony contest is worse than no contest at all. It’s hardly GB’s fault that there is a lack of opposition. He can only beat what he’s up against and at present there simply isn’t anybody who could seriously challenge him. Miliband could have given him a bit of a run for his money but the rest can’t hope to do so.
It is regretable. A contest would have been better, for Brown and the Party. But to have a contest, you need a contestant - a proper one. They’re just going to have to make the best of it. Let Brown stand unopposed and make the transition seem as smooth as possible.
20 - Let me be the first to agree with you!
17 Gladstone - Great recipe that for tearing the Party apart!
Wasn’t Gladstone a Liberal in the days when it was a great Party….i.e., before it tore itself apart?!
16 - Dunno what its like elsewhere, but if other LDs work like our local ones do, then there’s little activity till the last fortnight in local elections - then they run around like crazy with their bar charts, promising good things to supporters of parties who ‘can’t win here’ in order to get them to defect, rave on about national issues cos they have no local ones, and nick the pther parties good ideas from the leaflets!
So yes - from now on there should be a fortnight’s worth of LD bounce in the polls!
WA - poll published in today’s Western Mail following yesterdays rows about coalitions - Not sure how much to read into the various figures, but the most interesting statistic is that 63% said that they were certain to vote. Nothing like a good ding-dong fight to ignite interest in the electorate…..
Tomorrows ITV Poll is a recall of their last poll, but probably 1 or 2 days too early to have been impacted by yesterdays developments, but next weeks WM should be very interesting.
26 - Do we have any voting intentions?
3-Roger
‘I would argue that the reason for the Cameron plummet in the polls is not that the public have seen too little of him recently but that they’ve seen too much. Appearing as often as he does with nothing significant to say was bound to have a negative effect. I first mentioned this “365 day sale” syndrome about ten months ago. ‘Cheap and cheerful’ is OK for a few months but it soon just becomes cheap. Becoming the ‘Jade Goody’ of politics was never the way to go.
So based on your comments above,the fact that everyone knows that Blair is going and will be replaced by the successful, charismatic Brown within a few weeks,we can expect significant gains for New Labour next week?
re 11. A technical point. To work out the swing between two parties you add the differences together and then divide by two. So today’s LD +3 and the Tory -4 makes 7 which is a swing of 3.5% since March.
Mike Smithson
3. Another classic. You are in a rich vein of form just now Roger.
I think Michael Meacher is going mad.
Today he has written to the Gurdian having a go at McDonnell and implying Brown is afraid of him (”Gordon Brown’s supporters are certainly making one thing crystal clear: they want to avoid a contest against me at all costs, and for good reason”).
He attacked Gurdian report that he has just 3 supporters and said McDonnell has “virtually not a single promise outside the Campaign Group” (erm, Ronnie Campbell and David Drew have declared for McD and they’re not in the Campaign Group).
In the last few days Mike Wood MP (campaign manager for McDonnell) tried to contact Alan Simpson believing he was Meacher’s campaign manager. But he turned out it wasn’t. So he went to Hopking but he wasn’t MM’s campaign manager either. At that point they directly went to Meacher. Wood suggested him to put down their list of nominations and verify one by one. In the end the one with less supporters would withdraw. Meacher apparently refused to show his list
9
‘On the French elections, of course Ségo is closing the gap - if you assume Bayrou’s support splits evenly, Le Pen’s goes half to Sarko and half to abstention, it leaves the “ultra left” vote as crucial - if it all goes to Ségo she can even win.’
Why do you assume that 50% of Le Pen’s vote will abstain whereas Bayrou’s splits evenly?
19 Thanks Chris from Paris for your characteristically restrained report.
Ladbrokes are still offering 7/2 Royal (£50 max) so there are small amounts of free money available by laying back on Betfair at 1/3. Personally I’d hold on to the Ladbrokes bet for a bit, as it seems likely Royal’s price will contract a little further.
I was feeling quite sorry for Will L last night, as he worked himself into a lather over the possibility of a Royal victory. Then this morning he was mentioned in the same breath as Herbert Proper, who used to get similarly delirious over the prospect of Miliband opposing and defeating GB.
Not much has been heard from young Herbert lately. You don’t think he’s changed his name to Will L, do you?
There was a discussion recently on reasonable expectations for each party in this round of local elections.
This is the view of Chris Rennard, reported in the Guardian:
“All the parties are downplaying their chances now to claim great success later. The Conservatives will hail a triumph if they reap a few hundred gains, but Lord Rennard, the Lib Dems’ elections guru, argues they have to do much better. He says the Tories will have to win 700 seats to do as well as last year, when they won more than 300 with far fewer up for election. In 2003, when most of these seats were last contested, the Tories won just 35% of the vote. On the eve of their last victorious general elections they were taking 45% (1979) and 46% (1992), Lord Rennard says.”
So if the Tories gain fewer than 700 seats, they are falling back on their position of last year.
The Tory workers that I have seen recently all seem to have very grim expressions on their faces. Time for Rik to spread a little optimism in his party, methinks.
24 “Wasn’t Gladstone a Liberal in the days when it was a great Party….i.e., before it tore itself apart?!”
Indeed he was! Some may even say he caused the split with the Liberal Unionists over his devotion to Home Rule for Ireland. But he was often high minded and intellegent. I don’t resemble him in those respects, unfortunately.
main However his own personal political journey from Conservatism to Liberalism mirrors my own (for the first half of his life he was a Conservative/Peelite)
I don’t think that the real Gladstone would be very impressed by the current crop of leaders in all our parties.
34 - lol - well I am certainly not grim faced!! And of course Lord Rennard gives a neutral and unbiased account doesnt he?! NOT!
Did he say how many net losses he expects the Lib Dems to make?!!?
35
A good answer, Gladstone. But do you accept my point that a Blair U-turn would risk a catastrophic rift in the Labour Party?
“The one thing an election on a 35% turnout does NOT tell us, in my view, is what will happen in an election with a 65-70% turnout.”
Ah those were the days - we will be lucky to get 55% turnout next time.
No Mike, you have just been feeding them stories to win that £20 bet with me!
Actually I think not having a SERIOUS leadership contest would be suicidal. In fact almost as suicidal as having one.
34 Tressage - Did The Fox have anything to say about what would be a good result for the LDs?
His view of the Tory position feels about right to me.
There are some very simple rule with opinion polls. If the Tories are at 40% or more, then this demonstrates an unalterable shift in public opinion and a pointer towards a sure-fire Tory landslide in 2010. Mid to high 30s and these are just snapshot pictures not reflective of the wider trend and possibly inaccurate due to bank holidays and/or sunny weekends and Tories being on holiday and Labour voters stuck at home watching shopping channels. Low 30s and they are just plain wrong and not deserving of comment. Anything showing Labour in the low 30s or less is a stunningly accurate reflection of the mood of the nation having shifted away from New Labour. Any more than that, and see above re holidays and shopping channels.
I do wish people would remember all of this…
Only real votes count, and I suspect it will be fun on here a week on Friday!
Re: 36 - Now, now, Rik, I don’t expect Lord Rennard to be impartial about LD prospects in the same way as I don’t expect you to be impartial about Conservative prospects. Everyone is playing the game of expectation and motivation.
No doubt everyone will be out spinning wildly on Thursday night and Friday morning.
“500 gains - not enough”
“500 losses - midterm blues, we can bounce back”
To be honest, I can analyse the raw data without Tory spin, Labour spin or LD spin.
“I suspect it will be fun on here a week on Friday!”
…it being a Bank Holiday w/e and me being a Tory, I will of course be on holiday so will miss it all…
Re 12, Nick Palmer “The issue is simple to state but not easy to decide. Most Labour MPs agree that a civil contest between people who clearly respect each other and put forward a range of views is a Good Thing. However, in the current media climate, anything with a remotely critical personal undertone will get splashed all over the media. Can we fight a 7-week leadership election without giving any such hostages to fortune? Or should we simply unite behind the man who is clearly going to win anyway? I’ve not yet decided myself.”
You are scr*wed either way I am afraid! (Sorry to say that)
PTP (40). Unfortunately, if he did say anything, it was not reported in the Guardian.
34 Supposing the Tories only gain 600 seats, what spinmeister is going to suggesst that it’s a bad day for the Tories??? LOL
We have all got so used to spin, you have to think long and hard about anything that is written to see what’s behind it. Such is the way of political comment these days
Re 36: Rik W - I will stick my neck out and forecast LD -100. Would you like a bet for £1 a seat for you if the LDs do worse than that and £1 a seat for me if they do better?
Re 47: Clarification - I mean minus 100 is the benchmark.
The Guardian’s anti-Brown agenda is extremely puzzling. It was frozen out by Blair (”I prefer a Labour paper”) for being rather too candid a friend in the early days of Nu Lab, so you would think it would be doing its best to try not to antagonise the next PM unnecessarily. Instead it is running around trying to stir up enthusiasm for a leadership contest without actually saying who the other contestant should be. If the paper really believes there is a better candidate than Gordon, it should say who it is. If not, then it should get behind him. There is no point having a contest for its own sake.
Given the personnel involved, I can only speculate that the Guardian is currently undergoing the mother and father of all internal rows about this. Senior Guardian writers like Jackie Ashley, Polly Toynbee and Ewan McAskill are known Brownites; others such as Martin Kettle, Michael White and Patrick Wintour are much more identified with the Blair camp. At the moment, it seems the latter group has the upper hand, or at least the ear of Rusbridger.
47-48 - I would agree that about -100 for the Lib Dems is about right!
49: “you would think The Guardian would be doing its best to try not to antagonise the next PM unnecessarily”
From what I’ve seen of the Guardian/Observer, I would say it is doing its best not to antagonise the next PM-but-one. Maybe it views Brown as an irrelevance, a mere footnote in history of the Bonar-Law variety?
Re 50 I didn’t know that the Lib Dems had that many councillors in Reading East.
If the lib Dems were doing well then they would grow their seats contested by 10%. Almost no one predicts that Lib Dems are going to gain over 200 more councillors.
Instead they are trying to just keep their councillors and avoid an overall net loss of councillors.
If they did suffer a big loss of councillors that might be bad news for Tories as it would bring Ming’s departure closer.
31 I think Michael Meacher is going mad.
that happened many many years ago Andrea.
51. If so, it should not automatically assume that the Boy David (Miliband, not Cameron) is the “next PM but one.”
Once GB puts her in the Cabinet, Yvette Cooper will slice through the male contenders like a knife through butter.
Nick Palmer when you say, ” Can we fight a 7-week leadership election without giving any such hostages to fortune? Or should we simply unite behind the man who is clearly going to win anyway? I’ve not yet decided myself.”
Are you in fact saying you cannot manage a leadership election as the Tories did? Theirs lasted more than seven weeks and they contrived to make it a real competition while increasing their appearance of a united party. Surely Labour can do the same?
37. PtP “. . .But do you accept my point that a Blair U-turn would risk a catastrophic rift in the Labour Party?”
Thinking about it again, I believe that you are correct. The risk is indeed very high of that happening. Quite probably too high a risk to take. Balanced against taking that risk, however, I think that it is a near certainty that Labour led by Brown will lose the next election.
I don’t mind being open about where I am coming from here. The real problem I have is with David Cameron becoming Prime Minister. A Labour Party led by Gordon Brown makes this prospect more likely, IMHO. Therefore, I don’t want Gordon as leader.
I can report some news from the trading floor here at Ladbrokes. We have just laid a bet of €20,000 on Royal at 7/2 to a mainland European customer. We will shorten the price in relation to this and I see that the rest of the market seems to have moved overnight.
45
‘Unfortunately, if he did say anything, it was not reported in the Guardian.’
There’s a surprise,so Rennard can spin any result next week as good for the Lib Dems.
I remember on election night last year David Laws saying that a 2 seat net gain for the Lib Dems was a good result!even the interviewer looked puzzled.
Until then I had thought that Laws was a serious politician.
Ladbrokes have now cut Sego to 3.5
Re 56, Witan, “Are you in fact saying you cannot manage a leadership election as the Tories did? Theirs lasted more than seven weeks and they contrived to make it a real competition while increasing their appearance of a united party. Surely Labour can do the same?”
No, at this stage in the electoral cycle, after 10 years in government they would rather rip themselves apart. They are after all only following our lead.
Wasn’t there a pb.com competition at Christmas in which one of the questions was about Lib Dem success/failure at this year’s local elections? Perhaps Double Carpet or whoever is entrusted with the entries might remind us of what some of us were saying at the time? I am fairly certain that some of the more optimistic Tories were talking of -500 Lib Dem losses.
Any voting intention news on that Welsh poll?
“Guardian readers are politic mad” as he head of the Guardian Group’s ecommerce once told me. A contest (a serious one anyway) would be fought out in the pages of the paper and online. It is absolutely in their commercial interest for a good contest to take place.
On a historical note it suited Kinnock no end to have weak Left candidates to fight in 1988. One of them was a chap called Meacher. It might suit Brown just as well.
57 Thanks, Gladstone - open, as well as open-minded.
For better or worse, the Labour Party has little choice but to pass through its Brown period.
I suspect Yvette Cooper awaits it on the other side.
60 Goupillon
I had the pleasure of meeting Shadsy at the Book Launch Party. He knows his ear’ole from his double carpet. The movement therefore comes as no surprise.
(He does however sometimes post under another name.
)
“Labour is a shambles, the country is going to the dogs” - assorted Tory posters on PB.com since forever
“The British economy grew by 0.7% in the first quarter - far more than was expected” - BBC News this morning. Brown has a track record of out performing the gurus
It may comfort Labour people a bit when they take a royal stuffing in May
67 Indeed the Tories have been doom mongering for years. One of the reasons not to take them too seriously.
67 ‘Royal stuffing’, John? Is this some culinary delight, partaken perhaps by Sarkozy supporters on May 6th?
67 indeed it did, not surprising with real interest rates below 1%. Cheap money is a fantastic way of living beyond your means and the BoE aren’t going to put the brakes on because raising rates to 7% (to put real interest rates somewhere near the long term average) is unthinkable.
Real pay cuts for teachers and nurses aren’t a good way to motivate the payroll vote but even Gordon is aware that in a booming economy there should be a budget surplus not a deficit; hence the £12 billion cut in public spending (assuming Gordon still does his calculations the way he did them in the 2005 GE campaign).
55. I’ve seen Cooper speak a couple of times and she always struck me as being talented but shy and devoid of leadership quality - that little star sparkle that’s kept Tony B afloat all these years.
Same with Miliband - ferociously clever, charming, but a national leader? I saw him wandering along the embankment last month, head down, one hand in pocket, the other twirling his pass, deep in thought and I thought “can’t see him lining up with the G8 leaders”.
Looks as if you’re stuck with the clunking chancellor for the time being.
22. PtP.”It’s hardly GB’s fault that there is a lack of opposition”. I have to strongly disagree.
It is absolutely GB’s fault. He has made it almost impossible for any proper candidate to oppose him through a mixture of indignant righteous expectation, the threat of civil war and intimidation by his acolytes Beckett, Hain, Johnson, Straw etc. Each potential serious challenger has recognised this and has dared not risk standing. Their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain.
I’m not sure it now matters now one way or the other if there is a contest against a lightweight opponent because either way my perception and that of many others will be that GB was not prepared to allow a serious contest.
12. Nick Palmer. You argue that it may not be worth having a contest because “anything with a remotely critical personal undertone will be splashed across the media”. This is a preposterous and cowardly position. What about democracy? Agreed it would probably be pointless against a lightweight opponent and that there are therefore risks but the labour PLP should not have been so supine and spineless to have allowed this turn of events.
If the public takes GB to their hearts and he proves a great PM then all this will be an irrelevance. If not then the fact that he stole the position will only further undermine his authority and as a consequence Labour’s popularity.
There. Glad I got that off my chest. I’ll go and get a cup of coffee.
67. 0.7% v 0.6% market consensus. An upside surprise certainly but not really ‘far more’ than expected.
Although many of us who check out this site don’t bet, this is a betting site (or more correctly, a site for those who bet).
It is clearly anathema for betters to have no contest; the absolute luxury for betters is obviously a contest in which there is only one possible winner, so clearly that is what regulars on pb.com would love to see; whether it happens is another matter
That 20k on Royal could easily be a no lose customer who plans to enjoy playing the free money game.
Re 72, StJohn, I agree.
Care to reconsider my kind offer of a membership pack?
72 OK, St John. Point taken. No need to split your infinitives.
74. Barry. For some people on pb.com and elsewhere who bet on these things a no contest will suit them just fine from a financial point of view as much as any contest.
They’ve done their homework and fair play to them.
74 Barry - Hills have put up a market for the Welsh Elections. Labour are 1/33. As another poster remarked, what is the point?
75. Was there that sort of money up on betfair to lay back? I doubt it. Anyway, I can say with some confidence that it was not that sort of bet.
63 - Todays poll was mainly about possible coalitions - Lab/Lib 19%, Lab/Plaid 18%, Plaid/Con/Lib 7% - (Not sure what to read into that) - 64% certain to vote (good turnout - good for democracy)- 70% said that Welsh matters should be dealt with entirely by WA (more devolution please).
Thursdays poll on ITV Wales - lets wait and see - but it is a callback poll, so looking at change in voting intentions over 2 weeks - have the campaigns had any impact??? The first poll was flawed, so presumably this poll has the same flaws.
Next new poll is next week in WM (Monday I think) - probably last before election so very very interesting, especially after yesterday’s bickering
So where is the poll about the scottish elections?
I read heere yesterday it was comming out today showing a Labour lead.
WRT the local elections, barring something like the Falklands War, I think the Conservatives will match, and maybe exceed, Lord Rennard’s benchmark.
The Lib Dems will emerge somewhere between plus or minus 100.
Labour may just slip into third place, in terms of English council seats (but remain in second place across the UK as a whole).
81. And over 23% MORE likely to vote Labour under Gordon. But maybe more LESS likely, but very scant details!
80. Depends on if have any other expsoure before in teh marketplace. May have backed the two runners at different times without an explicit lay required at this stage for profit but you would know better than me what the bet felt like being closer to the action and I bow to yoru knowledge.
If its a straight bet its a straight bet and brave, or foolish, with it.
82. What poll?
82. One Fred is enough, fred.
From what I think is the first poll taken after the weekend in France, sego has cut sarko’s lead to 2%.
Potentially interesting from the Sofres poll is that it has Bayrou voters splitting 46% for sego 25% for sarko and 29% to abstain.
source:
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070425-The-Bayrou-vote.html
85. Fair point Yokel. Didn’t mean to sound as dismissive as I may have come across!
At the risk of starting yet another discussion about the technicalities of the Blair Switch market, Hills are 5/2 TB steps down as Prime Minister in June which seems very fair.
86 There was a rumour of a poll being published in The Herald. The rag did have some poll commentary but published no figures. I suspect if it existed at all, it was by our old friends MRUK, who are not BPC members.
Maybe Herald didn’t like the figures and asked them to come back later with some different ones.
“As it is Labour has made itself a sitting target for the Tories especially as Gordon looks set to wait in the wings for seven weeks as the only candidate while process in gone through.”
Absolutely. Seven long weeks whilst the Tories can criticise Brown for not being elected, and not having any sort of mandate, whilst all Brown will be able to do is pontificate, having to wait, and wait to finally take over. It has all the makings of a complete disaster.
90 Yes I saw that, Aaron, but ducked it because of the wretched definitonal problems. What constitutes stepping down? If it involves going along to the Queen and HM confirming the appointment of a new PM, July is a near certainty.
I’m passing.
91. Ah right thought it was totally new shiny one.
74 / 78 - the thing about betting markets is that everything is a contest (and everyone’s a runner) regardless of whether a formal contest ever takes place.
“The absolute luxury for betters is obviously a contest in which there is only one possible winner” is just nonsense, I’m afraid. Luxury is value, and there’s not usually much of that at 1/33 (though there can be…)
re 92, Timothy, I do like the way the Labour leadership is shaping up!
12,72 Apologies for my poor memory, but was there lots in the way of “critical personal” mud-slinging in the last Tory leadership campaign? I don’t recall that much, perhaps some griping over whether David Davies background was exactly as he had presented it…
What is it about the current bunch of Labour politicians that they have to turn to fighting dirty as the first resort? I can well imagine that Labour people would be nervous about having the “Cold War”, between the Blairites and Brownites during the past 10 years, erupt into the open. Aren’t they supposed to be on the same side…?
They start to sound like a bunch of teenagers.
Having said all that, I did have a very pleasant chat with the Labour candidate for my council ward. I could see myself voting for him, but I’m worried my vote would then be seen as some sort of triumphant send-off for Blair. What is to be done?
Re 97 Timothy. Yes your comments about the way a Labour leadership contest are right. It is a dreadful state of affairs for a party to feel like that.
“Having said all that, I did have a very pleasant chat with the Labour candidate for my council ward. I could see myself voting for him, but I’m worried my vote would then be seen as some sort of triumphant send-off for Blair. What is to be done?”
Difficult on isn’t it? Good candidate, you have met, but you may vote for someone else to make sure your vote is not missinterpreted. I feel sorry for the candidate. What else can he do?
The Western Mail is rating all Welsh AMs. So far 40 out 60 have been rated and some Labour women were really trashed (getting 2 or 3 marks out 10)
From previous thread:
105. Mister Chip did the results of the first round cause any soul-searching amongst the pollsters (particuarly I guess CSA) and / or any adjustments? Have there been any stark changes in methodology or results?
95. Yeah 1/10 on Labour in Wales would be interesting….
The Western Mail is so anti-labour it hurts.
102. RedFlump. Irene James, Denise Idris Jones and Ann Jones were the ones getting trashed by the Western Mail.
In Denise Jones they even wonder how Labour could have selected her.
103 - I wonder how the journalist who wrote that crap measures up?
26 +63. The problem with the Western Mail poll is probably the methodology. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the turnout will be as high as 64% on May 3rd. If this was the turnout then Labour would be home and dry. The poll illustrated the real problems with Welsh politics and the lack lustre politicians who dominate the Principality at all levels. Look at the Wetern Mail assessment of AMs which speaks volumes . At the moment the party with the lowest average score is the Labour party which has been running Wales for the last 8 years. Only 52% knew who Rhodri Morgan was and he is supposed to be Labour’s biggest asset! . The figures for the other leaders were even worse with Ieuan Wyn Jones on 17%, Mike German on 15% and Nick Bourne on 11%. The Times comment this morning is spot on regarding Welsh politics. All of the parties are letting the Welsh electorate down by their approach to politics which is stuck in a time warp of the 1970s. Leaflets tend to be negative from all parties and the policies timid. It is therefore hardly surprising that most voters are being turned off by an election which seems to be pretty meaningless to most of them.
104. RedFlump, look at the bright side, some Labourites are getting good scores too. Carwyn Jones from Bridgend got 8 out 10. Isn’t he the one who has sent leaflets around with his pledges that included things like “hold surgeries, keep my website online and other pretty obvious things everyone could do”?
104. Martin Shipton’s assessment of the AMs is a fair one. He’s only given Trish Law 6/10 for example and a number of Labour AMs have been assessed at 8/10. The sad fact is that many of the AMs in the words of Clem Attlee ‘are not up to the job’. Labour is still suffering from the stitch up that occurred in the selection process for 1999 when a number of talented individuals were excluded. It is an interesting fact that many of those with the lowest scores are female. They are only there because of the twinning in 1999 to ensure that constituencies selected female candidates.
107.”It is an interesting fact that many of those with the lowest scores are female. They are only there because of the twinning in 1999 to ensure that constituencies selected female candidates”
but 2 of those women getting very low scores (Denise Jones and Irene James) were elected in 2003 and not in 1999
108. on reflection, I think they used AWS in 2003, did they?
Benedict, 98, Having just checked it looks like the Tories came second last time around. I haven’t even had a Lib Dem leaflet yet, so if they aren’t going to bother…
If only a Lib Dem canvasser would call, then I could convince myself that I would be voting for an equally good bunch of people, and give Blair a stuffing, but they seem to be leaving the field to the Tories. (The Tories are fighting an odd campaign. Blathering on about the cost of the Olympics.. perhaps their candidate works in London?)
The Telegraph identifies bin collection as one of the big battlelines in these elections. They’re right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=B2ODKV40KG35BQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/25/nbin25.xml
My guess is that the big factors in how the results are understood by the public are going to be
1. what happens in Wales and Scotland
2. share of the vote (available at a fairly early stage)
3 (last and least) gains and losses: no one understand what it means, and it won’t be finalised until late in the day.
If Labour come third they are in trouble. If the Tories convincingly beat 40%, they will be happy.
The other factor is of course, what happens between votes being cast and results becoming available. We can expect a stream of news on Blairs last days, the Crowning of Brown. This may drive local polls down the news agenda.
Re47 48 I’ll take the bet and go for Lib dems losing more than 100 seats in English Local elections.
Roger H
105. What an excellent set of arguments against devolution.
111. The ‘bugs in the bins’ saga has certainly been a big issue in Bournemouth.
72. PtP.”It’s hardly GB’s fault that there is a lack of opposition”. I have to strongly disagree.
stjohn: “It is absolutely GB’s fault. He has made it almost impossible for any proper candidate to oppose him through a mixture of indignant righteous expectation, the threat of civil war and intimidation by his acolytes Beckett, Hain, Johnson, Straw etc.”
I’m sorry, but what a load of rubbish! If a candidate is so lily-livered that they need Gordon to hold their hand while they fill out their nomination form, then they haven’t got the stuff to be Prime Minister. Being British PM is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, because we have the most vicious press. If the candidates can’t take a few grumpy stares from Gordon, then they certainly won’t cope with being PM.
Regarding whether there should be a contest or not, contests are expensive. If there were two heavy-weights who would offer two exciting and different directions, then we should go for it. If however, the contest is against a no-hoper, with the conclusion already known, we should save our money. Mashing no-hopers is a cruel sport anyway. As for the newspapers, there are so many parties, the Guardian can always start agitating for a leadership contest in one of the others.
Re Nick Palmer’s point about hostages to fortune - I think if the contest was between Brown and McDonnell, there wouldn’t be any problem, as McDonnell is a decent man who will focus on policy not personality and Brown will respond in a like manner. If the contest is with someone bitter like Charles Clarke, then it’s a different story.
As an aside, Clarke must be looking at Sarkozy with some envy. Clarke remember, was sacked because his department failed to deport some foreign prisoners who had completed their sentences (and who posed the same threat as British crims who are released after completing their sentences). If he’d presided over riots where he lost control and allowed them to rage for three whole weeks with millions in damages, he’d have been absolutely garrotted by the press and the opposition. But in France they think this qualifies you to be president! It’s one of those French mysteries.
Bins is a Telegraph issue. Being big in Bournemouth confirms it. Not sure bit is the isue to win over non-Tories though
111: yes, bins and fortnightly collection is a doorstep issue here in MK
0.13 on Gordo - when does that become a good price ? 6th of May ?
112 Roger - OK if you include the Scottish local election results as well.
115. Snowflake the difference is that Sarkozy’s position as Minister of the Interior, and the demographics of the bainlieu, meant that there was little question of competence brought into the argument. Not true of the Home Office post foreign criminals.
115. Snowlake 5. I agree with your implication that Miliband ought to have found his backbone. Interesting now that he has ruled himself out that you are prepared to describe him as lily livered and not while he vascillated and posed a risk to GB.
Which part of my rubbish post did you disagree with? That. Gb has an indignant righteous expectation of succeeding? That his supporters predicted civil war if there was a genuine contest? Or was it that Beckett Hain Johnson et al warned off Miliband? I’d really like to know.
120. also he was hung out to dry by Chirac and had to deal with it alone. Some may argue he was hardline, but the causes of the rioting - unemployment, disenfranchisement and the state of the ghettos in the inner cities are problems that France has helped create for itself and Sarko is the only politician there who looks like he might have the guts to do something to turn France around.
This is what France needs - http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/corbis/DGT261/DAM0028.jpg
111
‘3 (last and least) gains and losses: no one understand what it means, and it won’t be finalised until late in the day.’
Are you being serious when you say that people don’t understand when parties gain or lose seats!?
Or is it in preparation to put a possible spin that for example the Lib Dems have had a great result with their share of the vote going up by 2% and hoping that people will ignore the fact that they lost 50 seats in the process?
108. They were both elected in 2003 but in seats that had elected Plaid AMs in 1999. Denise Idris Jones was selected in front of an excellent local authority leader who would have been an asset to the assembly. As for Irene James her only qualification was the fact that for years she had been a loyal and hard working member of the local constituency party. With boundary changes Idris Jones should not be re elected in Aberconway. The seat should be a close race between the former AM Gareth Jones standing for Plaid and the Tory Dylan Jones -Evans who is streets ahead of most assembly candidates in ability and ideas. In Irene James’s seat Islwyn it will be interesting to see where a well known local councillor who is standing as an independent takes his votes from. Another factor is that unlike 2003 the local council is controlled by Labour again and not Plaid. There are local council issues which could have a bearing on this seat.
Re 110, Timothy, where abouts do you live? Is there an LD candidate?
You could always vote Conervative
Re 121, StJohn, Snowflake is very much a Brownite.
90. 93. Aaron and Peter the Punter. I placed bets ith William Hill when this market first opened. Then they made May 8/11 favourite, with June 7/1 and July 12/1. The original wording of the market which appears on my vouchers is ‘In which month will Tony Blair step down from his duties as Prime Minister’ Surely that wording leaves no room for debate. He remains Prime Minister until the minute Her Majesty appoints his successor. it is worthy to note that Hills’ prices on this market have been constant for some weeks until yesterday when they lenghened June from 2/1 to 5/2. I consider that change significant. July looks the month.
127 Thanks, Honestdave, that is extremely helpful.
Hills seem to be a bit smarter than Betfair with their wording. I agree there is little room for doubt with such a definition.
I did take some of the 8/11. Think I’ll have a bit more.
Trust you enjoyed the Party and had a pleasant journey back to Wales.
An interesting American website about politcal books. Are you left (blue) or right (red) or in the middle.
I’ve read at least four of the purple books recently. If a UK version was completed, would Mikes book show up and where.
http://www.orgnet.com/divided.html
120. “Snowflake the difference is that Sarkozy’s position as Minister of the Interior, and the demographics of the bainlieu, meant that there was little question of competence brought into the argument.”
What have the demographics of the banlieu got to do with it? The duty of a government is to maintain law and order, regardless of demographics in the different areas of the country. Riots do happen, but the government’s job is to end them promptly and regain control. To allow one to continue for three whole weeks is amazing. I’m certain that if this happened in Britain, to a Labour government, you’d be the first jumping up and down with rage! This Sarkozy situation has made me feel sympathetic to Charles Clarke for the first time!
The other bizarre thing about right-wing British support for Sarkozy is his other views: he wants to abandon the French integrationist model and adopt multi-culturalism just when everyone else is modifying multiculturalism in order to change it into the French intregrationist model. He’s also talked about introducing positive discrimination. He was in favour of Iraq - the one thing Chirac got right, he opposed. These are things that the right in Britain regularly rant about - especially SeanT, who I gather is a Sarkozy fan - you couldn’t make it up could you?
I think if Sarkozy was standing for election in Britain, he’d have no chance at all. (And I haven’t even touched on his private life - can you imagine what the British press would make of a politician being cuckolded? It doesn’t bear thinking about - he is lucky he is French).
121. stjohn, you notice I didn’t mention Miliband at all in my post. The point I’m making is that if people want to stand for the leadership, they should stand. And if they don’t want to stand, then don’t, there are honorable reasons for not standing too.
But if you don’t stand, don’t then blame someone else for it - you know “I didn’t stand, because I was scared of Gordon, blah, blah, blah”. If you are that easily scared, you are not PM material.
131 Spot on, Snowflake5
Completely OT.
I note there’s a new market for the leader of the Swedish liberal party following a resignation announcement this week.
http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/International/nyhetssidor/artikel.asp?ProgramID=2054&Nyheter=&artikel=1329156
http://www.easyodds.com/compareodds/specials/politics/m/75024-130-3.html
Jan Bjorklund seems strong favourite but I was wondering if any of the “local” experts here (Jan from Norway?) see any value in the other possibles as the Ladbrokes/Expekt prices differ on a couple of the others.
131. Quite a lot. If we had had successively misguided governments creating situations like the bainlieus, you can be sure that most of the rage would be directed somewhere else entirely. Ask this: how much rage was directed against the Home Office for the riots in Bradford and so on? From my recollection, not a lot. Someone got it in the neck and it wasn’t the sitting Home Secretary.
As for right wing support of Sarkozy, it lies primarily in the fact that an economically weak France is bad for everyone including ourselves in the long term. No one has an interest in seeing them go down the pan or undertake reforms later when it will be more violent. The sooner the better. Alsom it will mean all the hundreds of thousands of the frogs currently populating London and go home!
131. Also of course, in a political system with an elected executive with whom the electorate identify the machinery of government, I think most people rightly saw lack of leadership from Chirac as key. Different case over here of course.
131
‘The other bizarre thing about right-wing British support for Sarkozy is his other views: he wants to abandon the French integrationist model and adopt multi-culturalism just when everyone else is modifying multiculturalism in order to change it into the French intregrationist model. He’s also talked about introducing positive discrimination. He was in favour of Iraq - the one thing Chirac got right, he opposed. These are things that the right in Britain regularly rant about’
Blair,Brown et al have been banging on about multi-culturalism for ever and a day,OK Brown has now changed it to Britishness to take the focus off his Scottishness,positive discrimination is straigt out of the New Labour text book and in case you had forgotten Blair,Brown and the rest of the New Labour cabinet (except Cooke) were all keen supporters of the Iraq war.
Seems youv’e got your wires crosssed.
***SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS EXCLUSIVE***
Yesterday I promised I would publish figures for my calculations. Before going into this, I will state for the record, that I have a large position on the SNP to win more seats.
Yougov was the only near-accurate pollster in 2003 - all others range from mildly to wildly innaccurate.
2003 You Gov Poll, Actual Result, You Gov Error
Labour 35%, 28% 35%, 29% 0%, 1%
SNP 26%, 24% 24%, 21% -2%, -3%
2007 You Gov Poll, Expected Result (Incorporating Error)
Labour 30%, 28% 30%, 29%
SNP 37%, 35% 35%, 32%
SEATS IN SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
Labour 44
SNP 43
Now I would like to explain why, despite this, I think the SNP will win more seats. There are three crucial differences between 2007 and 2003.
First, there are record-breaking swings being achieved in Scotland for nearly 1 and a half years against Labour in real elections - local by-elections. Swing on aggregate of all votes is 10.8% against Labour, and 15% against Labour where Labour is defending. This includes Labour heartlands. Were these to be repeated in a UK general election, Gordon Brown would lose his seat. Therefore we find MASSIVE TACTICAL VOTING AGAINST LABOUR, where any other party best placed wins. The SNP are the main beneficiaries. Labour is recording its worst performance in Scotland in 50 years. This is a big change from 2003.
Second, Alex Salmond is the preferred First Minister in Scotland, in all opinion polls bar one. This