Thread one - new poll shows big Labour progress
May 30th, 2007
Brown’s party moves up four points and more gloomy news for Ming
A two thread day on PBC with news of the new poll here and the betting reaction to the Newsnight Deputy Leader hustings below.
The May Communicate Research poll for the Independent shows a big boost for Labour this morning up four points from the 27% share that the pollster recorded in May. These are the figures with changes from last month: CON 35% (-1): LAB 31% (+4): LD 19% (-3).
This is very much in line with other recent surveys and shows that much of Labour’s improvement is coming from the Lib Dem party which has found it hard getting its voice heard in the current political atmosphere.
The main technical observation about the poll is over the timing. Normally CR mount their surveys over weekends and the latest might have coincided with the bank holiday and the half term break. There is a long history of quirky results coming out of bank holiday polls and both ICM and Populus make great efforts to avoid them.
Tory chiefs will be pleased that the grammar row does not seem to have had much impact on its share in spite of how the Indy itself is trying to spin it this morning. Unlike last weekend’s YouGov survey the CR numbers taken intro account how likely it is that respondents will vote and the responses play a key part in its ratings.
The big question now is whether Labour’s improvement will be further extended when Gordon finally takes up residence at Number 10. The party has enjoyed a good period of positive media coverage and will be hoping that the novelty of a new leader with a series of policy announcements will reinforce the progress that has been made.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Osborne is to-day claiming to be the Conservative Party is the true heir to Blair. He’s listing his achievements and claiming that the Tory party will follow where he has led. To praise to the hilt a Labour Prime Minister who is still in office because his focus groups tell him that Blair’s positioning is where the country want to be is so misguided that it’s hard to credit! Focus groups can be useful to tell you where you are but to use them to inform your strategy requires more understanding than Osborne seems to have.
I always thought that the Cameron/Osborne axis would unravel more quickly than others on here because I know the limits of PR and advertising when selling a dodgy product. Superficially it can set you on a roll but when the product doesn’t live up to the hype it collapses far more quickly than those which havent been hyped at all.
The Tory’s have to understand quickly that politics isn’t just about chasing fashion but leading it.
The Indy spin is of course rubbish …..
Although this isn’t great news for the Conservatives it is the latest in a growing line of recent Polls that must be extremely worrying for the LDs.
More so as there doesn’t appear to be anything that they can say or do to achieve meaningful airtime at the moment.
I’m even begining to doubt whether ditching MC will offer anything more than a short term bounce.
My guess is that the ruthless though extremely efficient tacticians at Cowley Street can see this and are beginning to batten down the hatches for what they hope will prove to be a ’standstill’ election for them.
Albeit well entrenched incumbents should be safe, saving sitting MPs with small majorities will surely have to be there priority next time around rather than chasing erstwhile ‘winnable’ C + L seats.
This in turn is going to enable C & L activists to change from defence to attack mode and come after them with vigour.
Is hitting their bid @ 48 beginning to look value ?
Which seat brings it into play and what is the current majority there please?
This is a good poll for the Tories even if the pollster is a bit suspect. Taken over the bank holiday and weighted and they still are down a statistical nothing of one percent and Labour up massively from the LDs, but only based on vote likelihood.
Personally I think a jump of 27-31% pretty unlikely, but that’s this polling firm for you.
And Tories are still 4% ahead!
More proof that grammars has done nothing to hurt Cameron.
Not a bad poll, but they are all meaningless anyway!
Good heavens, the Telegraph has a leader supporting Cameron on education.
CR now has the details on its website. Points:
- It was indeed a bank holiday poll, running Friday to Sunday.
- Despite this the past-voting question was close to the actual 2005 result, suggesting a fair sample
- The ‘10 out of 10 certain to vote’ proportion is now almost as high for Labour (60%) as Tories (64%). I reckon Mike was right that this is why Yougov (which doesn’t adjust for turnout certainty) is showing less of a Labour upswing than the others.
- However, the Tories are still doing better with the ‘not quite so sure’ supporters - as many as 14% of Labour supporters only say 5 out of 10 sure.
6 “- Despite this the past-voting question was close to the actual 2005 result, suggesting a fair sample”
Doesn’t this suggest the opposite, that it is way out of line as most of the pollsters find a far larger percentage for Labour as there is a high false recall of voting Labour?
If that is right does this show how shy Labour voters are becoming?
Is there an expert in the house?
Labour soar to 31% then, and in a bank holiday poll - some “bounce”.
When will it ever end…?
7 Nick Palmer, I think Witan asks a fair question there, does any polling expert have an answer - Mike?
How accurate were CR’s 2005 results?
The overall picture seems to be that the Govt has stopped falling and that the Tories have stopped pulling ahead. The Tories certainly do not seem able to sustain the lead they need to win a majority at the next election. Also the wheels seem to be wobbling on the Cameron bandwagon at the moment, a little bit of blood seems to be in the water, the comments from Osborne this morning seem ludicrous and will attract further criticism from within the tory party i suspect. I dont think anyone can can say with any certainty the outcome of the next election, and anything other than a Lib Dem majority would seem possible.
The overall picture seems to be that the Govt has stopped falling and that the Tories have stopped pulling ahead. The Tories certainly do not seem able to sustain the lead they need to win a majority at the next election. Also the wheels seem to be wobbling on the Cameron bandwagon at the moment, a little bit of blood seems to be in the water, the comments from Osborne this morning seem ludicrous and will attract further criticism from within the tory party i suspect. I dont think anyone can can say with any certainty the outcome of the next election, and anything other than a Lib Dem majority would seem possible.
That the main opposition party is on only 35%, is not a good poll, to believe otherwise is wishful thinking. Anything below 38/40% at this stage of the game is worrying for a party that hopes to form the next government. As for the Grammar school row, too early to say, being bank holiday may not have trickled into the voters minds yet.
I am posting this here because I understand that a lot of politically committed people read this site:
Rifleman Tul Bahadur Pun VC is now aged 84. In 1944 he won a VC fighting for the British army with the Gurkha regiment in Burma. You can find the VC citation on the web, and even by the standards of winners of VCs, his selfless actions when already severely wounded were utterly amazing. In 1953 he was invited to Britain for thecoronation, and invited to have tea with the Queen Mother. His actual medal is in the Gurkha museum in Winchester.
He is now quite old and frail and unable to walk each month across the mountain valley from his home to collect his £130 a month pension).He would like to move England. His application has been refused by the Home Office on the grounds that he can show no connection to the United Kingdom.
So, we can have our prisons stuffed fully of foreign criminals who we are not allowed to send home, but we cannot admit an old man who risked his life for this country. I think it says it all about Britain under Nu Labour.
Please do write to your MP about this case.
12: the main opposition party were at 39% in a weekend poll though, polled a notional 40% based on real votes 4 weeks ago, and generally poll at >40% when the name of the impending PM is mentioned to voters…
I must admit I never thought an ‘orderly transition’ would happen but I was wrong; perhaps I have under-estimated the New Labour desire to remain in power.
There will be an interesting period of adjustment to Gordon Brown amongst the electorate and I am sure he will have some very well thought through policy announcements and a new cabinet to offer before the summer is out.
I though Harriet Harman showed a likely direction last night when she clearly said she regretted the Iraq invasion; I think something similar will be forthcoming from the new Brown Government.
Meanwhile I am expecting more in the vein of the Grammar Schools debate on our side as our policy commissions report and positions are taken on many issues that may have ConHome regulars foaming at the mouth even more than usual.
So I actually think this might be a bit of a long hot summer for us leading up to the conference season; by which time (if Brown stays true to form) the voters will have worked out that he is even less trustworthy than Blair was.
15: what worries me most about Brown is not his massive intellect or political shrewdness (you could well see him launching an initiative on grammar schools this summer just to sink the Tories..!), but the fact that voters might actually find him slightly endearing in the same way Major was post-Thatcher - ie, not particularly statesmanlike, articulate or charismatic, but an antidote to the past 10 years. That Cameron is firmly of the Blair mould not the Brown one could spell danger for the Conservatives.
However, Major didn’t have a record as bad as Brown’s when he came to power in 1990 - he hadn’t spent 10 years hiking taxes in middle Britain or destroying pension funds.
And he wasn’t Scottish…
“However, Major didn’t have a record as bad as Brown’s when he came to power in 1990 - he hadn’t spent 10 years hiking taxes in middle Britain or destroying pension funds”
Do you write them yourself or do you use a scriptwriter? That was a gem! I’m still laughing!
Bob - it will only stop when Labour have won a 4th term and Cameron and his Eton chums are wiping away the tears!
The previous poll had Labour down on a ludicrously low 27%. CR are not particularly trustworthy, although a 4% increase in a month is a reasonable indication that Labour are now “off the floor”.
I would have to say I do like David Cameron and the way he comes across. He conveys a sincerity and decency which is important for UK politics. He speaks well and would command stature on the international stage. He would help our country to move forward and become united again.
However as mentioned last week the case for grammar schools is pretty much irrefutable, and Willets has made a mistake on this. We can’t brush this issue under the carpet - its too important. The evidence presented by Graham Brady proves conclusively that grammar schools help all children to do better - from whatever range of ability they come from.
Trying to get a bunch of kids to do some healthy jogging? Say its a race, promise some medals for the winners, and fire a starting gun. A cyncical and lazy bunch of youths suddenly becomes a highly motivated and committed team of runners. We’ve all seen the same in football at schol (no one likes to be the last selected by the two rival captains). What is the effect of this? It pushes up performance. It pushes up everyones performance, and pushes it up dramatically.
The evidence presented by Brady proves this is also true of grammars. Where there is an 11 plus, performance is better than were there is only partial selection, which in turn is better then where there is no selection. The results show a clear contrast.
Its no wonder wherever they have held ballots grammars have won by a landslide.
The time has come to roll out grammars nationwide - with ballots area by area. Lets put the power in the hands of the people. You will see grammars set up everywhere, with the greatest fervour in the poorest areas.
It is a simple choice. We have the bog-standard comps, the equivalent of extremely bad secondary moderns, everwhere in the state sector. There is no grammar alternative in most of the country for people in the state sector.
Or we can have a system where thereis this choice, where selection ensures 1 in every 2 schools is a grammar and a majority attend grammar schools (remember grammars exist to prepare for univerisity and more than 50% are now expected to attend, so the ratio of grammars will now be 50% rather than the 20% before).
A pathetic sour grapes agenda of dragging down the best has been put forward by some Labour neanderthals recently. Lets hope this Marxist hate rant comes to an end in the Labour Party. Surely discrimination on the grounds of class should be criminalised in the same way that race and sex discrmination is criminalised and these Labour politicians should be put in jail where they belong.
I was talking to a European friend recently and when I told him there was this debate he looked at me as if to say the country has gone made. How can we consign the overwhelming majority to a poor education through the absence of grmmars?!! To my surprise I discovered upon investigating that in almost all european countries selection and grammar-equivalents are the norm. It is no wonder the British are now regarded as the worst educated in Europe. After abolishing grammars we have gone from having the best education system in the world, to one of the worst, as bad as, if not worse than that in the US (long lambasted for its extremely bad education system).
Its up to you how your taxes are spent. Support grammars to get value for money.
Well, it is a Communicate research poll, so forgive me if I don’t take it seriously!
That said it does look like Labour have closed the gap a little, but we will have to see what the next round of real polls says.
“10 years hiking taxes in middle Britain or destroying pension funds” - copyright The Daily Mail.
14 Bob. The difference being that the punters consider that they may safely give the government a pounding at the locals whereas the polls ask about national intentions.
The discernable southward trend for the Tories should be a concern. Whilst some of the narrowing of the gap may be put down to the pre Blair departure glow, I also consider some of it is down to the voters slowly coming to terms with the prospect of the Brown premiership.
Realistically the Tories should accept that an initial PM Brown soft focus bounce is likely with Labour and the Tories both around the midish thirties. IMO we’ll have to wait until spring next year before the polls start to settle down and we are able to fully assess the impact of Brown on the overall scene.
14
Looking at the poll in the Indpendent, (one poll only) Brown now leads Cameron on the best PM question, more voters see the Conservatives as divided than they did only a month ago! All polls should carry a health warning, and with at least 2 years to go, they are not reliable yardsticks, but they are all we have. The next GE is the won the Tories dare’nt lose, a fourth GE defeat would be catastophic for them, their survival as a national party would be called into question.
17: Roger, a gem it might have been, but I’m still not in your league when it comes to Comical Ali impressions…
In all seriousness, you must accept that when Major came in he was largely unknown to the electorate and not weighed down by the baggage Brown brings with him. Many people are not as impressed with Brown’s Chancellorship as you and die-hard Labourites are…
No Bob, and also don’t forget how much Brown is associated with deception - the very term stealth tax was invented for him and sums up his time at the treasury rather well.
His last budget was in that respect a catastrophe - completely underhand.
Cameron has to prove that at he both is like Blair and yet he isn’t; if you see what I mean.
Blair made New Labour look and sound like a One Nation Conservative party but it was a con trick to win; it worked, people liked the message and they wanted his vision. The anger and disappointment isn’t with what he said; it is the fact that he never delivered - the fact that it was all spin just to win power.
It’s very hard for the next salesman if you were ripped off by the last one. Camerons difficult challenge is to establish to a now much more cynical public that he is -we are- the real thing.
“Many people are not as impressed with Brown’s Chancellorship as you and die-hard Labourites are…”
Well he gets a healthy poll rating as a good chancellor 40+%. If that translates into good PM - cameron is unlikely to engineer a big enough swing to win power. The polls might just be the first hint of this. We’ll have to wait and see of course. But we might just be saved from the Tories unique brand of economic “competence”.
25
Cameron has to prove that at he both is like Blair and yet he isn’t; if you see what I mean.
NO!!
26. Et al… its like May 3rd never happened…
28 May 3rd did happen - so what? Winning preceeding local and Euro elections didn’t stop Labour losing in 1992 or the Tories in 2005. As far as May 3rd 2007 is concverned, with the turnout of less than 40% in most areas each party failed IMO.
25 Cameron ought to distance himself as much as he can from Blair. Kinnock suffered in 1992 as being seen as part of (albeit the opposition to the) Thatcher years.
28 Jamie. May local elections come and go and Labour triumphs during the oppostion years of the 80s and 90s didn’t pressage a GE win from 1980 - 1992 !
Getting back to this poll, I think the comments so far majoring on *this* Indy poll being rogue have it backwards: it’s far more likely that the 27% Labour share last month was the rogue - in which case this doesn’t represent a massive bounce back for them (31% is neither a spectacular showing, and actually still lower than the two other recent polls); it just shows the least reliable “serious” pollster getting their act back together a little.
31% is grim for a governing party by any measure.
Of course 35% is poor for the main opposition, but the narrative of the last few weeks has been “Labour bounce”, expected Tory decline in the polls pending Brown’s honeymoon ending, Blair’s farewell, a smooth and orderly transition, renewal under Brown, Tories split on education policy, Tebbitites in open rebellion….
31 vs 35 isn’t inspiring for either party, but the only positives for Labour are that it isn’t 27%, and the Tories are only at 35% in this one particular poll.
The only poll(s) that matter are those in the months leading up to a GE. These polls may be interesting to us political anoraks, but they are essentially meaningless. They are only useful for morale purposes.
23,
I disagree with our present fptp system there will always be a conservative party.
To say a fourth election defeat would be catastrophic for them, and their survival as a national party would be called into question, in my opinion is wishful thinking.
As Blair once stated the conservative party was not dead, it was just asleep in the first years of New Labour, it has awoken now, and a close defeat narrrowing a Brown administration to under 20, would mean Brown unable to govern effectively because of Labour`s hard left.
The danger then would be a change in GE electoral reform, which would then end the chance for a generation of a majority Conservative government, ever having the change of governing alone.
Dez - what hard left? The hard left that managed to cobble together a pathetic 29 votes for McDonnell? Lets be clear about this. Tories are now LOWERING expectations, e.g. “A good result would be a hung parliament” etc. If Gordon managed anything LIKE a 20 seat majority, Labour would be cock-a-hoop and the Tories would be devastated.
I remember people on this site saying “oh, 70 gains from Labour should be easy”. Oh yes? The Tories have bet the farm on Cammy and if he screws it up he may have to reap the whilwind that will follow.
Dez - what hard left? The hard left that managed to cobble together a pathetic 29 votes for McDonnell? Lets be clear about this. Tories are now LOWERING expectations, e.g. “A good result would be a hung parliament” etc. If Gordon managed anything LIKE a 20 seat majority, Labour would be cock-a-hoop and the Tories would be devastated.
I remember people on this site saying “oh, 70 gains from Labour should be easy”. Oh yes? The Tories have bet the farm on Cammy and if he screws it up he may have to reap the whirlwind that will follow.
35/6. RedFlump, If Labour only have a majority of 20 as Dez suggested, then 29 would be more than enough to cause trouble.
37 - I’d rather have a troublesome government than an impotent opposition!
Another aspect of this poll is the 15% for ‘others’. This is way higher than in any general election in history and suggests to me that there is plenty to play for. I would be surprised if ‘others’ hit more than 9% at the GE, so where do we think the 6% would go? My best - biased - guess is that the bulk of it is ready to vote for a change of government, i.e. Tory.
If Labour only have a majority of 20 as Dez suggested, then 29 would be more than enough to cause trouble.
Indeed, once you add on the odds and sods who’ve burnt their boats with the leadership in some way, then they’re perfectly capable of damaging the government now - as four defeats on the floor of the Commons since the last GE demonstrate. While the old Brownite element in these rebellions might be satisfied, it won’t be long until you get sacked ministers and parts of the soft-left becoming fractious.
6/7: Looking at the past shares of the vote the strange bit is the “others” - 12% of the respondents who said they voted in 2005 said they voted for an other party, when in reality only 8% did. If anything false recall would work in the other direction on past vote recall (people tend to forget that they voted for a small fringe party), so it’s strange to see the figure so high.
38. I think it is a fair assumption that Labour’s majority will go down after the next election. If it can keep its majority at 25+ then it should be reasonably ok. Anything less than that, and you are nudging into danger territory (as John Major found out).
Taking your party hat off for a moment, how do you think GB would govern with a majority of less than 20? Would he be consensual, or would he try and push things through anyway? What would he do if the left kept rebelling to defeat him? For a party used to massive majorities, it would be interesting to see how it manages with a very small one.
For what it’s worth, my betting on the next election so far has seen me back a hung Parliament, and a Labour majority, and lay a Conservative majority. I will trade in and out of these positions at opportune moments.
41. Anthony, are CR still tinkering with their methodology or is the volatility shown in their recent monthly polls just part of the general uncertainty in politics just now?
23. Well, it would depend on the nature of the defeat. If the Conservatives went backwards at the next election, or gained only a handful of seats, it probably would be catastrohpic. If they gained 60 or 70, then such a defeat would be bearable I think.
44. If GB loses the majority he’s toast.
41 Well spotted Anthony , the most interesting thing on this poll is that the combined shared for Conservative and Labour is 66% which is exactly the same as ICM . Yougov with a combined share of 72% looks the odd one out . The Communicate poll in March had the same Con and Lab figures 35 and 31 respectively so no change at all there .
45 Not necessarily. If, say, it was Labour 280, Conservative 270, Lib Dem 60, I could see Brown hanging on.
44 Sean F. Fair analysis.
45 Jamie. Not sure on that. If Lab 300 and Lib Dem 50 then the Brown/Ming axis might swing into action. Very dangerous for the Tories.
Morning all :).
Re: 44 - Sean, I think that’s very fair. Given the current arithmetic, depriving Labour of an overall majority is one thing, winning an overall majority is something else and while taking seats off the LDs may be good for Tory souls, winning seats from Labour is the only way to achieve majority power.
I’ve always thought that 250 seats was the minimum figure for Cameron. He would be gone if the Tories failed to reach that. Between 250 and 275 seats would be interesting. Winning seventy seats (50 from Labour, 20 from the LDs let’s say) would be a good result but wouldn’t guarantee taking power. Indeed, Labour would still probably be the largest party.
Cameron’s objective is to be the largest party - an absolute majority isn’t necessary as I’ve discussed on here many times. I think that needs 100 seats (70 from Labour, 30 from the LDs let’s say). The other part of the problem is that the Conservatives can pile up huge majorities in the south but without winning those key seats from Labour elsewhere (and assuming Labour doesn’t win back a few seats from the LDs either), it won’t matter.
I could quite easily envisage a result where the Conservatives win the most votes but are 10-20 seats behind Labour.
45 - No I would expect GB to lead a minority Government if he could, or patch something up with the LDs if a Con-LD pact was unviable.
If there was the feeling that another election was imminent (i.e. 1974 all over again) he might even lead the party in opposition.
I think this idea of Tories lose = end of Tories is getting ridiculous.
Labour suffered a fourth defeat in 1992 and far from making them weaker it made them even more determined to win and to keep winning, allowed them to dump their out-dated ideology and re invent themselves as a British version of the American Democrats.
Britain is a far better place for having a moderate free market left wing party whether they are in power or not; for that some would thank Thatcher for that - although I think Rupert Murdoch probably has more to do with it.
There is a strong body of opinion in Labour that a fourth victory for them would be far more damaging in the long run than narrowly losing - experience bourne out by our history since 1992.
This poll clearly shows the start of the Brown bounce. As was likely, it seems like the Labour increase will come from the Lib Dems. These are returning voters who were turned off by Blair. While some of them have rushed back as they think Brown is different to Blair, there must be a segment who consider Brown partially to blame for the “crimes” of New Labour. I imagine this lot will return to vote Labour the closer they get to the election as they start uniting against a credible Conservative threat. I imagine those who consider themselves naturally on the left-wing of the Lib Dems who will also switch to Labour to keep the Tories out. The Lib Dems will be fighting hard to keep this left-wing vote, which I imagine will see the loss of their right flank to Cameron’s moderate Tories. As Cameron has pretty much the entire naturally Conservative vote in the bag, this will be enough to win the next election. Labour won’t drop many votes though - its the Lib Dems that will get badly squeezed.
One other point, people should remember that while these polls can give valuable insights, whats happening now is merely a “phony war” of manouevering into a good position on both sides. Much is being kept back for an electoral campaign, so to extrapolate election results from this poll or any other one so far ahead is a mistake.
44. I agree. Polls and elections have been so good for DC it’s easy to forget that we are still behind Michael Foot in ‘83 in terms of seats. To go from that to working majority in a single bound is a huge ask. Most Tories would be very happy to deprive Labour of the chance to damage Britain any more. Of course an overall win would make us ecstatic, but you do have to look at our starting point
43. I don’t know. When they changed methodology they said full details would be on the forthcoing redesign of their website, but that hasn’t materialised yet.
51 So how will the Conservatives reinvent themselves again after a 4th defeat . I think that the Cameron reinvent to a middle of the road party with no clearly defined policies relying on Blairite soundbites supposedly appealing to LibDem and centrist floating voters is pretty much a last throw of the dice .
49 Curiously enough, there are aren’t that many seats (bar the new Fulham/Chelsea, or Ruislip/Pinner) where the Conservatives are likely to pile up huge, but useless, majorities. I’d only expect to see 3 or 4 seats giving a Tory vote of 60%+ at the next election (compared to around 20 for Labour).
Mark Senior, keep telling yourself that if it gives you comfort.
I think the more interesting question is what happens to the LibDems if they are squeezed down to the rump as Stodge suggests? We saw them bleed seats to the Tories in May, and now they are bleeding points to Labour on their left flank.
What happens in a GE if they get squeezed out of all their marginal seats? What would be the point of them as a party. Would they vanish altogether like the SDP? What is the future of post LibDem Britain… you have to ask, what would/could a new third party stand for?
54. Thanks Anthony, I am always a bit cautious about asking about polling methodology and rely heavily on experts like you, Mike & Co to explain it all in detail.
55. Not at all, in the same way it didn’t happen for Kinnock’s more moderate Labour party in 1992. What would happen is an even more powerful shift to the centre and a complete restructuring of the party, complete with name change etc. By the election, Cameron *will* have policies and, should he lose, the conclusion would probably be that the policies weren’t centrist enough. Cameron has dramatically changed the party’s direction but it isn’t an entire reinvention a la New Labour.
Perhaps we should also factor in SNP victories from Labour in Scotland nest time? That might also help the Tories get to be Largest Party.
57. Interesting question. I think that would entirely depend on where the big two parties positioned themselves. Perhaps a populist party could emerge dedicated leaving the EU, bringing back capital punishment for paedophiles, increasing the minimum wage, stop involving ourselves in foreign affairs, etc. It would have to be run far more competently run than the loons in UKIP or the BNP though - and it would have to make sure it didn’t come across as nasty or racist (which would be a difficult feat).
What would happen is an even more powerful shift to the centre and a complete restructuring of the party, complete with name change etc” .
“New Labour” perhaps?
60. That’s entirely dependent on the SNP making a success of a minority government though.
57 I can’t see the Lib Dems being squeezed down that far. Most Lib Dem MPs are reasonably well-entrenched. Former Labour voters who’ve got into the habit of voting Lib Dem in seats like Cheadle, or St. Ives aren’t likely to shift. The Party can rely on having 45 seats, however badly it performs.
57 It is you who needs some comfort , Test . Your first post before 8 this morning was a pathetic attempt to spin this as a good poll for the Conservatives when it shows them at almost no increase in the vote they got at the last GE .
Re: 55 & 57: You’re BOTH wrong. The Conservatives won’t disappear and neither will the Lib Dems. IF they lose badly, the Conservatives will choose a new leader and adapt and re-invent themselves as they have done throughout their history.
If the LDs go down to say 30 seats, they will continue as they did in the dark days of the 1950s and after 1970. Their local government base is of course much stronger than was the case back then. My guess is we will pick a new leader and adapt and re-invent ourselves as we have done throughout our history.
Re: 56: - Sean, I didn’t express myself well there. My point is that if the swing to the Conservatives is much higher than in the north/midlands, the nenefit of that larger swing in terms of seats will not be as great. The swing won’t be even, we know that. We also know that the Conservative performance in the north on May 3rd was patchy but not without its successes.
65. Based on what? A bank holiday poll by CR, one that gives us a 4 point advantage over Labour and has you guys down at 19%?
Holding steady and leading Labour during the “Brown bounce” can’t be spun as anything other than good news.
You DO realise that we have led in the polls continuously, and during the coronation continue to lead, ever since David Cameron was elected leader?
62. How about “Neutered Tories”
67 Keep the spinning going , Test .
Nothing much in this poll on the surface but interesting undercurrents. a bank holiday (and school holiday) poll might have skewed the results for a start plus the high others figure which wasn’t picked up in council elections (how would that stay or break?) confuses matters.
It is indicative of the problems that the government have that 31% is being spun as some sort of bounce, Cameron must be hoping that his fire on the grammar issue starts to peel away the centrist voters as 35% is to low for him, Lib dems really need to get their act together (and the farce in Wales hasn’t helped). Nothing to be pleased about for anyone I feel.
The only clear move has been that lib dem votes are moving to labour, why labour are being given an easy ride I do not understand, as we now se the results of this weak positioning then the leadership should either change or go, who would be able to attack the governent the best from the lib dem front bench? Whoever it is should be the next leader if a change is to occur in the next year or two.
4 points in the lead after 18 months of unrelenting bad publicity for Labour and a free ride for Cameron? Not good enough by half, I’m afraid. You should be on 40%+ AT LEAST. But as I say, these polls are meaningless
Re: Mark Senior. It is not the Conservatives who have to feel a break up but the Lib Dems. In 1996 the LDs had 800 more councillors than the Conservatives. Today the Conservatives have almost 5,000 more than the Lib Dems. In the 10 years since the 97 election the Lib Dems have actually lost councillors even though they had ample opportunity to gain councillors from Labour over Iraq etc.
A return to Labour of the voters lost because of Iraq will reduce LD votes and squeeze out their presence. There are a lot of political careers of ambitious Lib Dems that are being threatened.
71. In the last two actual elections we have faced, we were indeed on 40% plus.
72. HF makes an excellent point.
19%! Why aren’t LibDems posting about what they can do to get some airtime, get back these votes from Labour? Are they just giving up on becoming a viable opposition party to this government? LibDems love to call themselves “Shadow” X, as though they were the actual opposition. So where are their spokesmen? Where are their attacks, their policy announcements, their initiatives? CR may be only CR but it’s the second poll in a row to show LD suppory flowing to Labour. In the recent real poll, of course, it flowed to the Tories.
You cannot in all honesty tell me you aren’t bothered by that, LibDems.
Re: 72 - While I’m not saying that the return of the Tory Party won’t make life more difficult for the LDs, you really are living in a fantasy land if you think the Party is going to “break up”.
IF, and it’s a huge if, David Cameron becomes Prime Minister in 2009, my guess is that 2011 and 2012 will be fantastic years for the LDs as we pick up the votes of all the disillusioned and disappointed Tories as we did in 1981 and 1973. I think some of the Tories elected on May 3rd this year may find holding their seats a good deal tougher next time.
62 Sean F. You make a cogent point.
If the Conservative Party continue to shift to the centre and attempt to occupy NuLab ground and the Lib Dems fail to move away from their social democrat position to a more liberal “orange book” position, then whatever the names all three major parties in the UK will be spinning on a farthing for all the effective difference between them.
70,
Uk paul as you say nothing to be pleased about by anyone.
However I do think Browns people and advisors will be currently pleased how its going, the transition is not a disaster or now portrayed as one by the media.
Also they might be right in their assumption that the non alligned voters will give GB a chance when he becomes PM and wish him well.
I was not a GB supporter, nevertheless I wait and see if it is correct that people in the main react positively to a change to a more seriously minded policy led administration and less kite flying sunday paper initiatives enunciating from no 10 or the Cameron bunker.
73 More false facts Test . In the last 2 elections the Conservatives did NOT poll 40% . In the English locals you polled 39.4% Including Scotland around 36% .
72 HF - Yesterday you were praising Winchester Conservatives for the big increase in membership y/e 31/12/2006 . It is interesting that if you go back to y/e 31/12/2002 Conservative membership was just under 2,000 in Winchester now it is 1,779 a 10% fall . LibDem membership in Winchester in the same period increased from 510 to 535 . In Westmoreland Conservative membership has fallen in the same period from 1,129 to 703 .
This poll is only a Labour and/or Brown bounce if you think that their April poll that gave Labour 27% was correct. There does though seem to be a pattern with Labour going up in the polls at the Lib Dims expense but 31% is hardly a good result.
Too many Tories on here spend their time waiting for ‘the next set of polls’ without stopping to consider why the last lot were so desperate for them.
I’m not going to anticipate the movements of Jack’s ARSE but my guess would be that if the last six polls were averaged out the gap would be around 4%. Pretty dreadful mid term against a leaderless party. If this trend continues poor old Cameron might have to get a few ideas
79. I was quite happy with the poll on the 3rd of May - and the one last May too..
79 Roger. Funnily enough !!!!!!!!
ARSE poll of polls comprising YouGov, ICM, Mori, CR and Populus shows :
Con 37.2% .. Lab 31.6% .. Lib Dem 18.4% .. Others 12.8%
Out of 46 Lib Dem seats I have voter figures for, the local elections has the Lib Dems behind in 11 and they are marginally ahead (by only a few thousand votes) in a further 13.
So a switch back to Labour of some voters because of Iraq could easily see the Lib Dems losing half their MPs to 30.
Looking at Sean Fear’s point about the strength of the Lib Dems locally. What is clear is that we are seeing their local councillor base eroded in a number of key areas. They are deluding themselves by pointing out that in the “best half” that the LD vote is holding up better than average. That is unless they are happy to settle for a 50% cut in MPs at the next GE.
People on here often ask “has the Conservative Party really changed? Do the members/supporters really back Cameron’s move to the Centre?”
Surely after last night’s Deputy Leadership debate the question should be “has the Labour Party really changed?” We have 2 candidates (one of whom is apparently favoured by Brown) both clearly advocating a return to “Old Labour”. And these are the 2 candidates who seem to be most favoured by Labour members/supporters (see comments on other thread).
82 HF. In which case name the 33 Lib Dem losses ??
None of the candidates suggested a return to “old Labour”. Forget it. It ain’t gonna happen.
Mark Senior, actually CCHQ figures tabulated across consttuencies show we got 41%. But take your 39.4%. You want to quibble with me over .6 of a percent? What did the LibDems get? Where are they today? Down 3, on 19%. Lost 250 cllrs plus. Your post to me says you are a bit fixated on us w/out looking at yourselves. Are you actually happy about the fact that (according to you, again) we have 1700 plus members in Winchester and you have a mighty 530?
Where is the LibDem ambition. Again I ask where is the LibDem strategy to get this fall back from Labour. Why the radio silence. Where do you go from here?
82 It is false to say that the LibDems will lose even the 11 seats in which they were behind in the local elections . In several seats , the figures are pretty meaningless because Independents take a very high proportion of the votes in local elections .
It would be equally false for me to claim that the LibDems will gain all the 30 Labour and 6 Conservative seats in which LibDems outpolled the other parties in the last local elections .
66. Claps. Good post. Are you able to support my theory that the Lib Dems as in 1997 could drop vote share by a point or a bit but gain seats primarily from Labour while shipping a few to the Tories. Someone I’m sure can give me the local Elec results with Lib Dems 2nd behind Labour. Those University seats are espepecially vulnerable where the total Labour majority is exceeded by 3rd placed Conservatives.
HF It’s extremely unlikely that former Labour voters will switch back in LD/Con marginals. Why should they let in the Conservatives? In formerly Labour held seats, which are fewer in number, the LDs are doing pretty well in council elections eg Manchester Withington. I can’t see the LDs going much below 50 or so; mind you that’s bad enough… O/T Phil Webster’s piece in the Times should be taken seriously; it’s always worth checking the by line and he’s one of the most experienced political editors with excellent Labour contacts( there was nonsense here about ’strong stories’ saying Straw would be DPM which turned out to be a highly speculative piece by Toby Helm who simply doesn’t have the Labour contacts that Phil Webster has). Conclusion; Straw probably will not be DPM, it’ll likely be the winner of the Deputy Leader contest. He has it that Straw will get one of the top 3 posts. Home Office is surely out for all sorts of reasons. That leaves Foreign Office or Treasury. Iraq is a reason not to give Straw the FO but not a decisive one. If Darling is the favourite for the Treasury I would not write off Straw. His price looks wrong at the moment….
86 Test , No I am not delirious that the Conservatives in Winchester have 1700 plus members in Winchester to our 530 but I do take comfort that 5 years ago you had nearly 2,000 and so are clearly going backwards and having substantially more members did not help you one jot at the last GE .
There does not need to be a LibDem strategy to get this fall in support back from Labour . Polls vary from month to month . The CR poll in March was virtually identical to this one showing support pretty stable .
CLPs nominations update
Benn 39
Cruddas 29
Johnson 27
Harman 26
Blears 16
Hain 11
Hain also got TSSA (Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association) nomination
89. Straw + Foreign Office = No way. Can you imagine the first press conference with the Americans on Iran. I bet GB can.
If anyone wants a laugh listen to two Tories arguing on the ‘World at One’ whether it is wise of Cameron and Osborne to praise Blair and his reforms so ecstatically and claim to be his heir.
Predictably the person arguing that it’s not very sensible seems to be some way ahead!. Perhaps the most compelling argument is that after spending 14 years trying to convince the electorate that he didn’t know what he was doing to now argue that he was right all along doesn’t score many points for Conservatism!!
Mark Senior. As ever you argue bravely but your position vis a vis membership has gone full circle.
First you point to the membership to support your contention that the Tories are going backwards in Winchester; then you say membership doesn’t help ‘one jot’ come elections.
Make your mind up. If membership is an accurate pointer to support as you suggest then why isn’t your membership higher than the Tories in Winchester?
Answer, the Lib Dem MP there -as in other seats in the South - is a rapidly fading left-over from the 1997 ousting of John Major and the anyone-but-the-Tories mentality of the time.
You know it, I know it, and the MP’s concerned know it.
91,Thought Benn did well last night lot more gravitas than I had previously given him credit for.
Think I will have to change my bet for the winner.
The Tories found that agreeing with the Lib Dems on a load of issues did manage to spike their guns a little in May. However trying to do the same thing with Labour: “heirs to Blair” could lead to a significant backlash. Despite the rallying around David Cameron at first, the education debate does reveal that party divisions are pretty wide, and that there remains some pretty entrenched scepticism about Cameron.
As to Jack’s comments about the complete triangulation, actually I am not at all sure that this holds: the debates amongst the Lib Dems are no longer about managerialism- doing the same but better- but about whether the state should be involved at all. At the very least the Lib Dems have very significantly different policy positions from the other two on civil liberties, local control, freedom of information, constitutional reform, public services and Europe and foreign policy.
Nevertheless, none of the parties can count their chickens- so I guess politics is about to get more interesting again.
94 Marcus , No it is HF and Test who are arguing that membership numbers are the key to Conservative success in Winchester . I am simply refuting that contention and also pointing out that in fact Conservative membership is down 10% on what it was 5 years ago .
94 Marcus. Lib Dems will be cheered by the desperate complacency of your post.
Liberal Democrats and their Liberal predecessors didn’t win and retain their seats on the basis of “anyone-but-the-Tories mentality”. Politics in these seats doesn’t just revolve around the world of the Conservative Party.
23 - Coldstone - “The next GE is the one the Tories daren’t lose, a fourth GE defeat would be catastophic for them, their survival as a national party would be called into question.”
This is the question I’ve raised a few times - what will happen to the Tories if they lose at the next GE? At the moment the chances of them losing seem fairly high to me, so it’s a worthwhile question.
If, after a New Labour-esque rebranding and with a leader the old guard don’t really trust, they STILL can’t win, what’s going to happen to the Tory party?
93. You mean in the same way that Blair began praising Thatcher after Labour had spent the previous 20 years damning her as Satan in female form? And then he went on to win three elections with Thatcherite policies?
tjm - the so-called “praising” of Thatcher by Blair never went as far aas DC and GO. They actually seem to believe that praising Blair to the skies will do them any good! Why change horses when the co-architect is now PM?
96 Cicero. There is merit in that analysis. If I were to summarize the present position it is that of three centre parties who diverge on the libertarian and authoratarian axis.
Formally none offers much on the liberal economic agenda, some noises off from the Lib Dems “Orange Bookers” and with the Conservatives broadly accepting the NuLab economic and GDP/Public spending policies, bugger all from the Cameronites.
100 - he didn’t really do that, did he. He made background noises. Osborne is saying it openly and it’s on the front of BBC News Online.
I’m convinced Osborne is a liability for the Tories - he’s just *so* unpleasant, he comes across how all Cameron-haters wish Cameron did: posh, shrill and smug. Anything that brings him to prominence is bad news for Cameron. He should be moved aside in favour of someone more appealing. A shame Malcolm Rifkind couldn’t be Shadow Chancellor - having him at the forefront might convince people Cameron’s gang haven’t got it in for Scots people too.
New CLPs addiction today were (actually some updated yesterday night):
Benn: Bexleyheath and Crayford CLP, Berwick-Upon-Tweed CLP, Devizes CLP, Ealing Central and Acton CLP, Hammersmith CLP, Erith and Thamesmead CLP, Gillingham and Rainham CLP, Sunderland Central CLP, Wolverhampton South West CLP and Sutton and Cheam CLP
Blears: Aldershot CLP, Birmingham Selly Oak CLP, Dumfries and Galloway CLP, Epsom and Ewell CLP, Guildford CLP, Huddersfield CLP, Nottingham East CLP, Redditch CLP and Southport CLP
Cruddas: Battersea CLP, Birmingham Ladywood CLP, Castle Point CLP, East Devon CLP, Eltham CLP, Holborn and St Pancras (we already knew it), Ilford South CLP, Inverclyde CLP, Loughborough CLP, North East Bedfordshire CLP, Oldham West CLP, Rochford and Southend East CLP, South Derbyshire CLP and Walthamstow CLP
Johnson: Birmingham Hall Green, Cleethorpes CLP, East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow CLP, Harlow CLP, Hull North, Lancaster and Fleetwood CLP, Nuneaton CLP, Scunthorpe CLP, Stalybridge and Hyde CLP, Stretford and Urmston CLP, Tamsworth CLP, Uxbridge and South Ruislip CLP
Hain: Alyn and Deeside CLP, Broxtowe CLP, Caerphilly CLP, Liverpool Riverside CLP, Central Ayrshire CLP
Harman: Banbury CLP, Bermondsey and Old Southwark CLP, Camborne and Redruth CLP, Cardiff West CLP, Harrogate and Knaresborough CLP, Newcastle North CLP, North Warwickshire CLP, Portsmouth North CLP, Portsmouth South CLP, Romford CLP, Sittingbourne and Sheppey CLP, Stratford-on-Avon CLP
104 Andrea. “New CLPs addiction today…”
My word they have got it bad for these candidates !!
99. I think people exaggerate the extent of rebranding Cameron has done. He’s shifted direction and changed priorities, but there’s hasn’t been a clause four moment. Take the grammar schools row for instance. Cameron has denounced a policy which hasn’t been used for decades, but even so, he’s still committed to academic selection but just within schools (through heavier use of setting) than between them. On Europe he’s simply told the party not to go on and on about it, but he’s made plans to withdraw from the EPP and form a eurosceptic group. His backing of foundation hospitals and city academies works naturally with traditional Conservatives ideas of competition and private investment in the public sector.
If they lose but gain a lot of seats then Cameron will probably continue as leader and his rebranding process. If they lose heavily (which won’t happen) then Cameron will go, but another unheard of contender will come through with even more radical ideas to make the Conservatives more mainstream.
99,
They will fight on the centre right of politics properly, and by 2015 will be hoping that the pendulum has swung against ever higher in real terms money been paid into the public sector.
A new dawn has broken has it not, this time against tax increases, and for major reform, not piecemeal tinkering, they will say, of all public employees.
The backlash will be complete.
98. Jack W. “Liberal Democrats and their Liberal predecessors didn’t win and retain their seats on the basis of “anyone-but-the-Tories mentality”.
In Winchester especially I beg to differ.
I will accept fully that old Liberals didn’t win on an anyone-but-the-tories ticket, especially in the West Country where they do have a long presence and deep history.
But many many of the 1997 Lib Dem gains were made by tactical voting and differential turnout; which is why in those seats their membership doesn’t match their support.
Their parliamentary gains were predated by big local council gains in these areas during the poll-tax days and 1990’s; again these successes were made by leveraging Tory splits and unpopularity in boroughs that had often previously been nearly 100% blue.
Lib dems know that they don’t have deep wells of support to draw on which is why in my opinion they often campaign better than we do to motivate their people to actually get out and vote.
But equally in many South East seats the people who voted for change in 1997 are looking for a change again, and the anti-Tory sentiment is just not there like it was.
103. You may not like GO - but another day and GB is out of the headlines…
109 - but according to Tories on this site, GB is a liability for Labour?
103. While I semi-agree with your thoughts on Osbourne, we have to look at what his praise for Blair actually is. He’s praising Blair’s Thatcherite reforms and has a go at Brown for not following them. i.e. He’s praising Blair for moving away from old style socialism. Is that really so radical for a Conservative to do?
Re: 108 - Marcus, I think there is a fundamental flaw in your analysis. I disagree that people are “looking for a change” except a change of management. The fundamental tenets of Blair-ism are still popular and well supported but people have become disillusioned with and lost confidence in the “New Labour” management style.
Cameron offers a better style, uncorrupted by twelve years of power. He is a fresh face but basically playing the same old tunes.
The zeitgeist is very different from 1979 when there was a widespread feeling that the prevailing Butskellite concensus had failed - and badly - and that a radical change of direction was required.
Be honest, the dead are not lying unburied, the rubbish isn’t piling up in the streets and there are no unions holding us all to ransom. Nost people, especially homeowners on good salaries, have done well in a climate of low inflation, low interest rates and rising house prices. They don’t want to endanger that by anything too radical including large tax cuts. Cameron’s message is playing well because he is offering more of the same but managed and delivered better.
111 - but that still begs the question: if Osborne and Cameron love Blair’s policies so much, why have they and their party spent so much time for the last 10 years opposing them?
Last night’s ‘Who do you doo doo - the Brown number two ‘do’ “, I was surprised at how bold Harman was, putting herself clearly as the ’second on the left candidate, and then being totally-disarmed when Cruddas told her she’d be his second choice when all others ducked Paxman’s question.
The clear left-right position was Cruddas-Harman-Benn-Hain-(insert Cameron)BlearsJohnson. The last of these five came out clearly as a two-headed gender-neutral snake-oils salesperson.
Hain made me laugh with his 21st Century version of socialism which was : “You can’t tax them cos they’ll run away so we’ll ask the ultra-rich to give a little bit more in future.” Sounds just like Heath-MacMillan One-nation Conservatism to me. John Major eat your heart out.
It is all down to who is ahead in the Third Ballot. There will be pretty few high transfers to Blears as long as Harman is in the ballot. If Blears supporters don’t have Harman to transfer to when Hazel is chucked out then they will go disproportionately to Johnson agaist (say) Benn. I forsee a run-off between Harman and Johnson if Harman can get that far (ie keep ahead of Benn). I am not sure that either Benn or Harman can beat Johnson. Hain will not do so because half of the people who think they are on the same bit of political field as him do not trust him.
108 Marcus. What you are describing is the normal cut and thrust of politics. You might equally use the same arguments in the Tory/Labour battlegrounds and the LibDem/Labour ones.
Essentially what we have today is a substantial extension of the old Liberal pockets of support. Today it is outwith the Celtic fringe and now takes in university seats, some leafy suburbs and some remnants of non conformism. Of its self it poses no threat to form a government, but their numerical strength does limit Conservative chances of a majority government at the next GE.
Well, yes Stodge. Yours is an analysis I can agree with almost completely.
What interests me (obviously) is how that message plays on the voting intentions of people in Tory/LD marginals.
My point is that a seat like Winchester was lost because of anti-Tory sentiment that has now largely gone.
In order to win these seats again the LD’s need to motivate a coalition which is perhaps not so willing; partly because they have had change locally and it made no difference and partly because they don’t fear the prospect of a Tory government.
106 Sorry tjm. I strongly disagree.
Were Cameron to be toppled, there is no way the rank and file membership would allow another ‘experiment’ to take place.
Were a member of the Parliamentary Party to come to power and attempt to do so, it would force a certain split.
It would in essence, no longer be ‘The Conservative Party’ however those in charge tried to label it.
Perhaps that’s the solution to everyone’s current dilema !?
Winchester is a special case IMO after the unique 2votes/Malone debacle. Expect it to stay LD next time despite national swings and Oaten. Marcus I would look to Guildford if I were you.
Jack W asks about which LD constituencies are behind in the locals.
Here are 11 that are behind the main opposition vote, RICHMOND, SUTTON, WINCHESTER, CHELTENHAM, ROMSEY, DEVON North, SOMERTON/FROME, TAUNTON, TORBAY, TRURO, HEREFORD.
16 where the votes are now within a few thousand are Cambridge, Falmouth, Kingston, Colchester, Southport, Harrogate, Cheadle, Lewes, Bath, North Cornwall, Cornwall SE, Newton Abbot, Norfolk North, Solihull, St. Austell, Berwick.
That is a total of 27 from 45 MPs looked at which is 60% under threat. Assuming a few are retained because of “local MP strengths”, that still leaves room for a 50% cut.
Regarding the point Mark Senior raises about “other votes” in locals, this cuts both ways. In a GE it is easier for “Others” such as UKIP, Greens and BNP to stand one candidate rather than find 40+ candidates in locals so the vote share can be higher for others at GEs.
Re: 116 - I think that is the dilemma facing the LDs and we need a response. One is obviously to say that the Conservative Party hasn’t changed at all and there are a growing number of quite vindictive cuts instigated by newly-elected Tory administrations at local level which provide useful ammunition.
The second response is to cite the quality of the sitting MP (and clearly Winchester isn’t a good example of that :)). In my experience,a good LD MP can build up a significant personal vote (as can a good Tory or Labour MP by the way).
However, I will let you in to a little secret - I don’t really care if a Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Labour or UKIP Government gets elected as long as it puts into place the right policies for the country. I have always believed a Liberal Democrat Government was best placed to do that. IF David Cameron is a true liberal Conservative, then I have no concerns about his Government as it will put a lot of good policies into place. However, I am very sceptical and am of the view that what Cameron says now in Opposition and what his Government (of which you may or may not be a member) does in office may be two very different things.
Put simply, I don’t trust the Conservatives. They may “talk the talk” like liberals but will they “walk the walk” as liberals ? I’m afraid every instinct in me says they won’t and that’s why I have to oppose you.
118, I beg to differ. Winchester was won by the LD’s not because of Gerry Malone but because of memories of his predecessor.
The court case merely hardened opposition.
I believe it will be lost not because of Oaten but for the reasons I have already indicated above.
118 - Guildford won’t change given the national picture, Sue Doughty is standing again and she is less than inspiring. If only the lib dems had chosen a new vibrant candidate Ann Milton was there for the taking I think. Oh, well….
113. Because they weren’t in charge? The main problem the Conservatives have had in opposition is opposing new Labour policies just for the sheer sake of it. One of the main planks of Cameron’s leadership campaign was that the Conservatives need to recognise when a new Blair policy actually agreed with their principles, and in those cases they should back them.
117. I think that, despite how the likes of Conservative Home likes to play it, the modernisers do have the upper hand in the party and would win another leadership campaign. You are right that it could force a section to splinter off to the right though. I can’t see such a group doing too well campaigning on a heavily right-wing manifesto electorally though. As for your last point, it all depends on the views of what the “essence” of the party is. Within Labour, the Blairites considered New Labour to be the same “essence” updated while the left-wing considered it to be a disgrace to their principles. C’est la vie.
120 - So the best electoral solution would be a con/LD coalition where liberal policies can be put into place and, if the barmy right try and take over, you can pull out of the coalition and the government falls.
They do say that ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’! And as usual Mark Senior tries to pontificate on a little knowledge! This time on Conservative membership (on which I doubt he is an expert)!
Firstly, membership figures over the last 10 years have become far more accurate than they used to be. In the past many associations included Conservative Club memberships in their figures, when a £1 levy was used as a subscription. Then the party (under Hague I think) introduced a minimum £15 subscription which massively reduced the numbers but improved the funding stream. There was a rule which allowed people who had previously and consistently paid less than £15 to remain members but this has been phased out.
Just this year the minimum sub has increased again to £25. So for the examples Mark Senior cites of “falling” membership in Conservative Associations, I would say they have done really well. No Association’s membership figures now include the membership of Conservative Clubs, unless a person pays full subs to both.
Thus Conservative Associations now have a much more meaningful membership list that reflects people paying a real sub and available for helping on polling days etc. There are still many passive members but at least their sub now covers the cost of servicing them.
How do I know this? I used to sit on the Party’s National Membership Committee!
119 HF.
Nice try.
Presently I’ll give you Winchester, Romsey, Somerton, Hereford and to cheer Marcus Torbay from list one.
As for list 2. Dream on. Norfolk North and Berwick … much
You’ll have to be a little more creative old chap !
113. But that is precisely what Cameron has been doing. He has steadfastly backed Blair’s public service reforms, while urging him to go further and faster. He supported Academies and Foundation Hospitals. Without Tory support these measures would have failed.
120. As one of the more thoughtful members of this forum, I have a good deal of respect for your views. I am disappointed then that you cannot bring yourself to look at the reality of Cameron, rather than rejecting his cause because of a lack of trust. Cameron has consistently set out a liberal conservative agenda on social and economic policy and his determination to face down the right has been demonstrated again and again.
To win, we need your vote. So what does David Cameron, or the party, have to do for you to trust him/it?