Should the views of actual voters matter most?
August 1st, 2007
Is this good news for the Lib Dems?
In the next day or so Populus will be publishing the full detail of its latest Times poll and will be following ICM and now Communicate Research in showing how respondents answered based on what they told the interviewer they did at the 2005 general election.
This is great news - for as anybody who has done anything more than the most basic campaigning knows the most important electors are those that actually vote. With turnout at general elections now down to just over 60% this has become increasingly important.
Anybody can tell a pollster what they plan to do next time but it’s those with a record of voting who you should take most notice of.
Of course they might not be telling you the truth or have forgotten but the main phone pollsters - ICM, Populus and Communicate Research - have their own methodologies to take into account the “misrememberers”.
The above table is from yesterday’s CR survey for the Independent and shows in a slightly different way from ICM the linkage of future voting intention to what they said they did two years ago. The columns are the latest voting numbers while the lines are the declared actions in 2005.
What I find striking is that the well over a fifth of the intending Tory and Labour voters - 21% and 22% respectively - told the pollster that they did not vote in 2005. The Lib Dem proportion, by comparison, is just 14%. To my mind that is good news for Ming’s party and even though its poll share dropped its vote is probably more resilient.
The other figures show a fairly similar picture to what ICM has been finding. The Tories are retaining more of their 2005 vote but they are not that much ahead of the other parties.
On the Spreadfair commons seats market the latest polls have slightly taken the edge of Labour. The latest spread is 310-313 seats. At the end of last week Labour had been at 323 seats - just two short of the number required for an overall majority.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
If you add the “refused” figure to the “did not vote” one then the LibDem advantage disappears.
1. But why would Lib Dems specifically be more likely to refuse to answer than say they didn’t vote? That doesn’t make much sense.
These stats tend to confirm that ‘others’ are finding previous no-voters fruitful territory, and that it is a key area for recruiting votes.
The Lib Dems could either be seen as less dependent on previous non-voters to get their support, or this equally could be showing that Lib Dem are not appealing enough to previous non-voters (PNV’s) setting them at a disadvantage.
PNV’s are such a large section of the vote that getting a chunk of them must surely be a key element of any strategy.
What is the historical pattern of non-voters? From my knowledge, people see themselves as participants and they vote, or they say, ‘I don’t vote. you’re all the same’.
The centre ground strategy feeds this perception.
It is interesting that the ‘others’ who are definitely not centre ground are appealing better to PNV’s (BNP 38% etc).
Lib Dems are perceived as centre ground (whether they are or not is another matter), and it is not surprising they don’t challenge the ‘you’re all the same’ non-voter perception very well, and PNV’s pass them by.
I’ve got a theory, (I’ve got lots of those) the Libdems have a tendency during GE’s to do better, than their polling figure suggests. The reason apart from recognition, could be that when asked, ‘Who do you intend to vote for’ some Labour voters give thier party allegience, but in the actual election, ‘go tactical’ vote Libdem against the Tory.
Surely this is the news of the day!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2176379.ece
4. The Times article mentions all the key things to look for if a party is planning for an early election - money, candidates, campaign resources. I can’t see any evidence that much is being done to get these sorted in time. In particular, Brown would now be halfway through the period from him taking over to his calling of the election if he is planning for October, yet so little has happened so far in terms of recruitment (if this is to be believed), and candidate selection - which will be difficult to do during August due to holidays - that it seems to me that the facts don’t back up the claim.
However, missing the October deadline would not be wasted resource. Having the money, candidates and campaign team in place sets a start date for a possible election, not an end date. Accelerating the timetable now might not have any significance for this October, but it does make next Spring look more likely.
One other point - an October election will take all the pressure off Cameron. His leadership would be a done deal with no possibility of change. There would be no time for an election and with Westminster closed for the Summer, no focusing of minds. A leak of a Spring election would give the critics one last chance.
5 - re Cameron’s “critics” - aren’t these just a tiny band of disaffected nutcases, people who never wanted him in the first place and an unholy alliance of the Tory-hating and right-wing Tory/UKIP media? Even the likes of Stanley Kalms said that they supported Cameron’s leadership “but I think he should now….” etc.
The media making something out of very little. Nevertheless if the media are able to keep making something out of very little as more loonies and fruitcakes come out of the woodwork, it gets to a stage where he’s permanently damaged goods, whilst GB continues being statesmanlike and getting top billing on the Ten o’clock News. (Rather than “the 10 o’clock News with Huw Edwards”, shouldn’t it become “the 10 o’clock News with Gordon Brown”? He seems to be on it more than the Welsh one. Talking of which, why is Nick Robinson disappearing even further up Brown’s arse? I thought he was supposed to be a Tory?) (In case you hadn’t guessed, whilst I’m politically fairly neutral, I can’t stand Gordon Brown!)
Back on topic, turnout tends to be a factor of the importance of an election and its expected closeness, in addition to any local factors.
If who wins matters less because ‘they’re both the same’ then that will have a dampening effect on turnout. However, I’d expect both sides to want to play up their differences, which may well be larger than is currently appearing to be the case anyway as Brown drifts back towards an authoritarian centre-left and Cameron can allow some attention to be paid to areas other than Education, the NHS and Intenational Development.
If the Brown bounce doesn’t prove sustained, but drops off once politics as normal resumes in September/October, the next election will start to look like a close result - therefore each vote matters more.
The point of all this is to say that I’d expect turnout to increase at the next election which obviously means that some PNVs will turn out. (Of course, there are always some PNVs who turnout, notably those reaching 18 in the previous four-five years, even if turnout in that sector is not high).
I’d agree with Mike up to a point - previous non-voters are of little consequence unless you think they might vote this time. In fact, they’re just like supporters of another party: you can ignore those that are solid opposition supporters and concentrate on the waverers who might be won. In this case, it’s possible that there are enough ‘might votes’ to make it worth the candle.
6
Yes I haven’t seen the Tory party so united since, lets see now,’ The quiet man is here to stay and he’s turning up the vol……aaaah’
Gordon Brown is a political games player in a different league to Blair - everything he says and does is aimed primarily at wrong-footing the Conservatives - the budget was a prime example of Brown at his worst.
So all the talk of election plans is just that - talk.
And the point that never seems to come up about this - what is the upside for Brown of an early election?
Virtually no-one believes that with boundary changes Brown would end up with a bigger majority than now; and no-one thinks that Cameron would lose seats. So why take the risk of losing with a best-case win which is a smaller majority and a stronger opposition?
Much as I really, really wish that Coldstone was right (an early election works for me!) I would give an 07 election less than a 5% chance, an 08 election less than 15%, and 09 election 25% and all my money is actually on him holding out until spring 2010.
Brown’s best moment has already passed. Had he called an election immediately upon accession he’d have cleaned up. He was the news story of the moemnt a month ago. Now he’s becoming duller by the day.
5. Yes, Cameron’s critics are pretty much as you describe, but some of them are well-placed in the media especially. An October election means they must chose between Brown and Cameron (sorry Ming); a Spring election leaves - in their minds, if not in reality - the possibility of Brown, Cameron or AN Other (Tory).
I don’t think an autumn election is likely for two reasons. The Labour lead is not big enough to ensure that they will regain a working majority allowing for margin of errors - why waste a healthy 66 seat majority because they might stay in power for two more years when the WLQ, devolution, immigration and EU issues become more and more important to voters.
I think the only reason why Brown wants to call an early GE is to call the EU referendum bluff. It will be vote Labour to join into the EU Constitution and vote Tory to reject it. Simple as that.
David @ 5
In the North East, our Labour mole has told us that they have already started selecting candidates for the next GE and the selection process will be complete in about seven weeks time (end of Sepetember).
6, 11 Stanley Kalms never supported Cameron and has apparently not been a donor since.
6. The longer Cameron attacks are trotted out with monotonous regularity and yet they don’t succeed in killing him off, the stronger he becomes.
There is already a grudging respect for Cameron starting to show amongst critical commentators like Heffer in Telegraph. The media have created a natural come-back story. Teflon Tony has become Goretex Gordon. Prepare for Durable Dave.
9
Virtually no-one believes that with boundary changes Brown would end up with a bigger majority than now; and no-one thinks that Cameron would lose seats. So why take the risk of losing with a best-case win which is a smaller majority and a stronger opposition?
Well Marcus, so far your judgement on what would happen when GB took over has been,(and I’m being kind here) somewhat flawed.
There is no reason that I can see why Brown couldn’t increase Labour’s majority, he isn’t Blair for a start, therefore isn’t being blamed for Iraq, which probably caused Labour to lose seats last time. I can’ think of any reason why anyone should vote Conservative at the moment, (I’m sure you can) I certainly don’t think the people of the UK, are ready to hand over their financial security to Mr George Osborne, (I’m sure you do) that’s it in a nutshell.
Whoops should read, I can’t think!
15 - eeugh, Osborne. Reminds me of the posh public schoolboy toffs in the university debating society who whined and sneered and thought they were very good. But weren’t. Why isn’t Ken Clarke Shadow Chancellor? (Or even leader…!
) I’m sure he would have been Cameron’s first choice, so why didn’t he put his party first and do the decent thing? Cameron should have moved Boy George in the reshuffle. He lacks gravitas and hasn’t gained any during his 2 years in the job.
I have a feeling that this quote from Gordon Brown’s recent speech to the UN will come back to haunt him:
“We cannot allow our promises that became pledges to descend into just aspirations, and then wishful thinking, and then only words that symbolise broken promises.”
Link: http://www.labour.org.uk/gbunitednations
He was talking about Darfur - he could equally be talking about the pledge to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty. (And before anyone starts, I am broadly PRO Europe, not anti)
18. Brave Sir Gordon sends in the fuzzy wuzzies to fight for him - keeps RAF B. Norton clear of body bags while reaping any glory.
Interesting article Mike!
I can’t wait to see the next polls. Looks like I will be suffering withdrawal symptoms over the holidays.
Just wanted to wish everybody ‘Happy Yorkshire Day’ today in particular those posters who like me are from God’s own county (David Herdson?, Mark Goodair and others).
Mike, where is your article on who Labour fears most? I was kind of looking forward to that!
21 - do the Tykes celebrate their “national day” with cups of “Yorkshire tea”? Always amuses me that - fresh from the great tea plantations of Yorkshire…
(I’m a Lancastrian, as you may have guessed)
Tapestry says that Heffer has softened his aprroach to Cameron, heard him on Jeremy Vine yesterday, didn’t seem that convinced. However Heffer seems to have joined the ‘Billy Bragg for PM Party’
Could we be seeing the most unlikely friendship in history?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/01/do0101.xml
4 It’s a good theory, Coldstone.
The Times article is interesting. The headline might lead one to think an election imminent. It then goes on to list all manner of reasons why it isn’t.
At Post 5, David Herdson gives some more good reasons.
I have my own little angle on this. Yesterday whilst in the office doing an unaccustomed couple of hours work, I was glancing through some extremely interesting Treasury proposals for the revamping of the UK’s corporation tax treatment of overseas income and capital gains. In short, they would make the UK an extremely attractive location for international companies. I cannot imagine it has been floated without a sharp eye towards the election and if GB wants it on the statute book before going to the country, April 2008 would be the earliest possible election date.
Straw in the wind? Maybe. I’ll post again on this when I know more about it, and the likely timetable.
Re. 23
Now PR I know you scoff but there are indeed plans to set up a tea plantation in Yorkshire:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6277794.stm
Surely Brown, at the least, will want to be clear of Bonar Law’s 7 month tenure before calling an election? To lose office within a year would be bad enough; to become Britain’s shortest-serving PM is something GB will not want to see recorded in the annals of history for all time? That must rule out anything before next May?
14 I’m not suprised. Although it’s the silly season and from the coverage you would think Miraj, Saatchi and Kalms were members of the shadow cabinet, the media have to retain some semblance of credibility.
Re 25, Peter the Punter “I have my own little angle on this. Yesterday whilst in the office doing an unaccustomed couple of hours work, I was glancing through some extremely interesting Treasury proposals for the revamping of the UK’s corporation tax treatment of overseas income and capital gains. In short, they would make the UK an extremely attractive location for international companies. I cannot imagine it has been floated without a sharp eye towards the election and if GB wants it on the statute book before going to the country, April 2008 would be the earliest possible election date.”
Hmm.. I am dubious about these sorts of schemes because they tend to stifle local business, and the international business will only stay as long as it gets a tax break.
As a Lancastrian, born and bred, I would like to dissociate myself from the comments about Yorkshire day.
29. Depends - if these companies have some money for say a fat donation to Labour coffers then it could all work out very well for Gordo.
We know he doesn’t give a stuff for small private business owners and workers as he’s shafted them and their pensions for 10 years.
Morning all :). I’ve a little more time to post today after the trials and tribulations of the past two or three weeks.
I think what we are seeing is what I alluded to from my experience in the ES by-election. As a direct result of the media coverage, Blair came to personally embody all that was “wrong” with the Government. The same thing happened with Thatcher after 1987.
His departure has been cathartic - that’s the only word I can use to explain it. I found a number of voters in ES who loathed Blair with a healthy passion but whose anger had been sated by his departure. Blair finished up carrying the weight of anger, disillusionment and contempt and took it with him when he went.
Brown has been absolved though I don’t know why either. Had Blair still been Prime Minister, I am convinced that not only would there have been a higher turnout in ES, there would have been a different result too (possibly an LD gain with the Tories close behind). I spoke to many people who would have willingly walked over nails to vote against Blair but who were prepared to abstain or vote for Labour with Brown in charge.
The question is how long will it be before the “demons” re-emerge ? My guess is that if it is a difficult winter for the Government, we could see BOTH Tory and LD poll ratings rising again in the New Year. I do think Brown has been “lucky” - terrorist incidents (especially when no one is killed) are manna from heaven for leaders. They can look and sound statesman-like and the opposition is effectively neutered.
Cameron has had a mixture of bad luck and poor judgement. I think he got ES wrong but I think a number of small incidents have been overegged into a mini-crisis while, in isolation, they don’t even rate as footnotes.
That said, expectations within Tory ranks will be more manageable now and Cameron must hope that the horror of a fourth election defeat will force his detractors (numerically few, I’m certain) into line.
For Sir Menzies, the by-election results were ok and the post-Brown poll rating fall was to be expected for the reasons mentioned above. I suspect that if and when people realise that nothing has changed (bad news from Iraq, interest rate rises, fuel price rises), he can expect to see some clawback and, as an LD activist, I’m not going to panic over 15-18% poll ratings and I share Marcus’s view (and have put a few pounds on it) that the GE won’t be until 2010.
Final thought - Major was doing ok until the Danes rejected Maastricht and the ERM fiasco which effectively destroyed him and his Government. I doubt many could have foreseen how events would have turned out after the 2001 GE so Brown, like all Prime Ministers, will be at the mercy of “events”. I have long been of the view that Labour will be the largest party in the next HoC or might have a majority of 1-10 seats. Nothing in the past three months has made me change that view.
15. I don’t think it’s as simple as translating lost votes to lost seats.
I suspect a Cameron/Brown contest rather than Howard/Blair might also have an effect on the distribution of votes, and probably reduce some of the net Labour bias in the system at present (a cause which will also be helped by the new boundaries).
The Brown bounce will likely be most pronounced in ‘Old Labour’ areas where Labour win massively anyway - Scotland, the industrial North and poor Inner Cities.
The Cameron effect will play best in aspirational, suburban type seats (Battersea, Basildon, Edgbaston etc.) of the kind we lost in 1997 and need to win back.
Cameron’s ’softness’ may well lose voters out to the anti-EU and hard-right parties, but these will mostly be in rural areas which are very safe for us anyway, and in the Northern working class seats where there is a residual ‘old Tory’ vote that is never enough to threaten.
In the last few GEs we’ve seen a remarkable increase in non-uniform swings, and I can only see that increasing in the future.
In recent years psephological conditions have favoured Labour. That is changing. Even with the same shares of the vote as 2005, the Tories could gain several seats in the next GE.
(O/T Peter ‘Fella-me-lad’ Punter,…any tips for tomorrow’s Sandown evening meeting? Promise some of the winnings will go to Her Worshipful the Mayor’s charity!)
29 It’s big league stuff, Benedict, not just minor tinkering with the system. In scope and ambition it’s comparable to the kind of tax regime which was introduced in the Republic of Ireland back in the seventies and has made a major contribution to that country’s economic growth ever since. It’s not the kind of thing which, once introduced, could or would be lightly repealed.
4
‘Surely this is the news of the day!’
For an October election Labour would need to raise around £ 35 million in less than 3 months.£15 million of mostly bank debt that is due for repayment before the end of 2007 and £ 20 million to fight a campaign?
25. PtP, surely the most important thing GB will want to do before calling an election is announce a withdrawal timetable from Iraq. Haven’t seen much comment on what was discussed with Bush but it seems he’s not going to link our position with the Americans.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/brown-lays-down-law-on-iraq-exit/2007/07/31/1185647903854.html
This is why I think the 7/4 Hills offer on a complete withdrawal announcement being the first thing he does is value versus the other options, though the definition of “complete” may be open to interpretation.
32. Very good post.
1. 2. & 3. If a large proportion of those who refused to say how they voted are doing so because they do not want to admit that they are non-voters, then adding “refused” to “did not vote” does make sense.
Perhaps “others” are scoring highly from “did not vote” because there was no candidate from their party (Green, BNP, Respect etc.) in their constituency.
34 John O
I am at home tomorrow and will be giving the Sandown card a good going over before making my way down to Esher to watch the racing. If you want to send me an email, I’ll give you my telcom numbers and you can ring me in the evening when I’m at Sandown, by which time I’ll have a pretty good idea of what I’m likely to be backing. The email address is arklebar@talktalk.net
Today, I have just heard a strong word for JEREMY in the 3.30 at GOODWOOD. Racing fans will hardly need telling this is a very good horse and I understand it is in fine fettle and ready to run a big race. It’s available at 5/1 with William Hill and I have just had £75 ew.
Yesterday’s 25/1 shot missed the break and got a terrible position. Even so, it may well have made the first three with a litlle more luck in running but could find no way through a wall of horses at the business end of the race. We may have been a little unlucky. It was certainly good value, so no apologies for that one.
32 Stodge - Why are your posts always so sensible?
If you would like them to be a little more hysterical, please consult SeanT. I am sure he will be able to assist.
40 - Peter, Thanks. Will do…!
On the matter of the polls, did any of them accurately predict “a Brown bounce”?
My recollection is that, prior to Brown taking over, there were many polls that asked the question how would you choose between Cameron and Brown, much to the detriment of the latter. [See, for example, the political betting archive for May 24th, inter alia].
Isn’t this another example of grotesque polling failure? Have the polling companies offered some justification for why they got it wrong?
Marcus wood [9] says: “Gordon Brown is a political games player in a different league to Blair - everything he says and does is aimed primarily at wrong-footing the Conservatives”
Yup the way he made them pick Tony Lit, rebrand themselves as Cameron’s Conservatives, and throw a strop about a candidate - its all Gordon’s fault.
Arrived back, East Midlands at 10pm last night (memo: must try not to fly Ryanair!) the first item on the news was GB being a statesman in New York the second was Cameron and something about sacking a candidate who had dared to criticise him. Had hoped that it was Rik, but not sure that Rik is still a candidate!
Read Fantasy Island whilst away - relevant quote re Cameron described by the Sun’s business editor as a “poisonous slippery individual” and a “smarmy bully who regularly threatened journalists who dared to write anything negative about Carlton - which was nearly all of us”.
37 Thanks Caveman.
I agree and have already helped myself to some of that 7/4.
Re: 41 - Thanks for the kind word, Peter. I actually enjoy reading SeanT’s posts though I think he uses the English language in the same way Freddy Kreuger would use a chainsaw but he’s a writer so maybe that’s how one is supposed to write
On other matters, I was hoping to attend Sandown tomorrow evening but Mrs Stodge has decreed it to be “economy month” and I find £23 a tad much for what is probably an average card. I was appalled at £29 for the UB40 concert (plus six races!)
Also o/t, I backed BIG ROBERT yesterday e/w - not sure why but it was a good 2-y-o. Stupid thing was I had backed YELLOWSTONE e/w in the Derby as I was sure it would get the trip.
There was some talk yesterday of a new centre right party forming should Cameron fail to reform the conservative party. With New Labour still occupying the centre left and right, surely the most likely outcome is a peeling off ot conservatives to other parties. Should Liam Fox become leader, I would expect large defections to a Nick Clegg led Lib Dem party.
Also where should the tories be in the polls to have any realistic chance of a majority at the next election.?
43. ‘Have the polling companies offered some justification for why they got it wrong?’
Hahahahha - as if!
47. The fringe element open season on Cam is over - even IDShome is back on message today.
Tory Ben, I think that’s a good analysis. However, Cameron will lead those “old Tory” Northern voters if he’s to get an overall majority. He doesn’t need them to deprive Labour of theirs.
49. It’s because there is no doubt that Cameron will survive. The meeting he had at the 1922 established his authority, and showed the internal rump of 2-6 europhile MPs that their attempted rebellion was over before it started.
All the attacks on Cameron are beginning to be counterproductive. If the constant attacks cannot get rid of him, Cameron is inevitably strengthened by them. Cameron is learning how true it is that ‘my enemy is my helper’.
The BBC have annouced the up-coming broadcast serialision of an ‘update’ of the Robert Graves’ classic tome.
It will be calle “I, PODWAS”. Suggestions for other actors and bit-parts?
Meanwhile, back in black and white retro-land there will be a six-part sepia printing of an everyday story of Right wing Defence folk on the web: “Doctor Fox’s Facebook’.
Re: 49 - To some extent I agree, Jamie. There is the question though of what would happen IF the Conservatives lost again. I know the loyalists say that DC would stay on whatever but supposing the Tories advanced to only 220-230 seats (including gains from the LDs), there might be many who would argue that such a result would scarcely be a ringing endorsement of Cameron’s modernisation programme.
Labour, of course, stayed with Kinnock after 1987 when progress was limited so there’s a precedent of sorts there but the Tories are not used to prolonged periods of opposition.
I don’t think you or anyone else could say that Cameron will stay as leader unchallenged whatever the result of the next GE. My view is that if the Tories do perform poorly (and I think 220 seats would be considered poor) it would be politic of Cameron to face a challenge to restore his position and face down the Right.
52 - And in English?
46 Yes Stodge, I enjoy reading SeanT’s posts too, although generally it’s the style that appeals rather than the content. Even nonsense can entertain when delivered with a well turned phrase.
May I suggest that your selection for middle distance races may improve if you note that few UK bred horses have the required pedigree. Authorised was an exception. Good horse though he is, he was flattered in thrashing a field of non-stayers in the Derby.
Btw, another of my spies has called in this morning with a recommendation for Som Tala in the first at Goodwood. If you have an account with Stan James you can get 11/2. I have just had £25 ew. Note this is a 16 runner handicap and if they all go to post, the place terms are exceptionally good. I will wait until just before the off and if we still have 16 and the price is at least 9/2, I’ll double the stake.
50 - Why does he need them, Sean?
Labour have a majority at the moment with pretty much no representation at all in the rural South, and they’ve made little attempt to target such seats where they are a distant third. Labour know where they can win, and where it’s simply not worth bothering.
I don’t think the handful of Tory voters in otherwise solid (1980s) Labour areas e.g. Leeds and Greater Manchester and Cleveland are particularly necessary.
A problem for the Tories has always been that our vote is often ineffectively distributed in the seats where we cannot win (although, bizarrely one of the Sunderland-ish seats becomes winnable on the new boundaries).
In my experience, some Tory activists get very precious about their own seats, when it may be for the greater good to give up on them and join the fight elsewhere. There are some places where we will win anyway, so lets forget about them. There are some places where we won’t win, so lets forget about those as well, then we can concentrate on retaining/gaining the seats where it’s actually worth fighting.
56 We have to capture about 30- 35 Northern seats to win a working majority. Places like Wakefield, West Lancashire, Hyndburn etc.
Oi! Peter the Punter!! Who you calling hysterical you insectivorous lib dem pinhead!!
Only joking. I do like to get myself in a strop.
Talking of which, re post 18… the EU thing ain’t going away (though I am, posters will be pleased to note - got a very busy day, so this is my only contribution on the subject).
Note Irwin Stelzer in the Telegraph, on the EU.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/01/do0102.xml
This man is, famously, Murdoch’s mouthpiece. He is also known to be very close to Brown. I wonder if we are indeed about to see a climbdown from our PM on this referendum issue, in the manner Stelzer suggests. A panel of lawyers scan the text, oh Lordy its changed, ok we’ll have a vote.
Result: enormous kudos for Brown and he can rise loftily above the whole thing saying - Let the people decide.
The collateral damage Brown will sustain if her persists in forcing this through will be simply enormous. Murdoch Has Spoken.
Re: 55 - Mr Smithson will doubtless get annoyed with us for drifting off the political theme but first thanks for the advice. Knowing my luck, there’ll be a late withdrawal. I have a friend who is on course at the moment and I have told him to stay vertical until after the Sussex.
I’ll happily argue breeding issues with you elsewhere. I use it as a guide more than as a totem if you know what I mean. I saw SAKHEE win as a 2-y-o over a mile at Sandown yet his progeny seem to have plenty of speed.
58. Still the problem of how he and the Labour Party would campaign during a referendum though. Studious neutrality would be impossible, but supporting a ‘yes’ would risk damaging them in the (likely) event of a ‘no’. The best bet is still for a referendum elsewhere to bring another ‘no’ and save the day.
21 - I too claim Yorkshire nationality, and this evening shall be raising my glass in appreciation of my outstanding good fortune.
9 - Marcus. I disagree and happy to stump up, so I’ll bet you £100 there will be an election within a year. Interested?
If it happens and we both win, then you can pay a liberal from your MP’s salary.
If memory serves me right Torbay is where you are the Tory ppc for? I’m the LD ppc for Eastbourne so, naturally, my belief is Adrian Sanders will hold the seat!
Re the Communicate Research table in the lead.
Shouldn’t the numbers add accross as well ? They don’t seem to. e.g. of the 108 respondents who voted LD last time, they would now vote
Tory 6 Labour 17 LD 64 Green 2Plaid 2 BNP 1 Others 4.
This adds up to 96. Are the other 12 don’t knows ?
The figures could also be read to imply that in terms of voter retention, just under 60% of 2005 LibDem voters intend to stick with the party. The corresponding figure for the Conservatives is 80% and for Labour 74%.
60. I guess Brown could do the Blair thing. Call a referendum but spin it out until the last possible moment, 2009, heck 2010 if events assist. No one can force him.
If he calls a vote there will be a domino effect and other countries will have to do the same. Then one of them will quite likely vote it down first.
It’s a gamble, but it worked for Blair. In the meantime Brown could anyway call a GE and win (with the eurosceptic papers on his side, and Tory guns spiked) and a plebiscite defeat after a GE victory won’t really matter.
That has to be his optimum course of action.
43. Because people changed their minds about Brown after the good media over the transition. You can’t blame polling companies for people changing their minds.
65. That’s just a guess. It’s equally likely that GB is benefitting from a ‘thank god Blair is finally gone’ feeling, as suggested at 32.
57 - none of those 3 being Tory held 1992-1997 though…
Question:
Is Labour trying to raise money for an October election?
Re 35, Peter the Punter, “29 It’s big league stuff, Benedict, not just minor tinkering with the system. In scope and ambition it’s comparable to the kind of tax regime which was introduced in the Republic of Ireland back in the seventies and has made a major contribution to that country’s economic growth ever since. It’s not the kind of thing which, once introduced, could or would be lightly repealed.”
Hmm…
I see. The problem is that we don’t seem to have large pools of people to employ except in deprived areas or areas of economic under performance. That being the case it needs to get companies to go to certain places..
How has Irelands local business done out of the tax regime?
65 That is probably true, but it undermines the whole basis for polls.
The polling companies ask “How would you vote when its Brown versus Cameron”. The respondent says Cameron, but changes to Brown when it happens.
The polling companies ask “How will you vote in a General Election”. The respondent says “Party A”, but changes to “Party B” when it happens.
Polling companies are always trying to predict a future event … so it’s no excuse to say people changed their mind.
A good polling company, in its algorithm, has to allow for mind-changes, just as it has to allow for people misremebering or being coy about their political allegiance.
67 Wakefield and West Lancs have become more marginal since then, at a time when other seats like Hazel Grove and Sheffield Hallam have moved out of reach. Besides, we barely had a working majority in 1992.
43 “Isn’t this another example of grotesque polling failure? Have the polling companies offered some justification for why they got it wrong?”
This wasn’t necessarily a polling failure but it does highlight the problem with these hypothetical questions that the papers love so much. IMHO questions like “If X was leader instead of Y how would you vote?” are worthless because they are not based on any sort of reality. When X does become leader opinions are usually quite different. Which is what we have seen with Brown.
72, But is there really a difference in the questions:
“If X was leader instead of Y, how would you vote?”
and
“If there was a general election in the Autumn, how would you vote”
Both are hypothetical. Why believe the polls can predict the answer to one, and not the other?
71. Where would you draw the line between ‘working’ and ‘bare’ majorities?
74. In a straight two-party fight like we’ve seen in most parliaments of the last 100 years, A working majority is anything over 10 or so.
These days, with third and minor parties likely to win more seats and offer more attractive rebellion options to members, I’d say the majority of 21 in 1992 was ‘bare’, and a good solid majority needs to be about 35 or more.
69 The answer to your question, Benedict, is pretty well. Of course the effect isn’t direct but indirectly the growth of the economy generally impacts all aspects and the smaller cottage industries benefit accordingly.
I have seen the theory put into practice with great effect elsewhere too. In the last twenty years, Mauritius has established itself as an offshore financial centre. I was there recently and the impact on the Island’s economy has been collosal.
The UK would be a different matter of course - much larger and more diverse economy - but The Treasury clearly thinks it can be competitive in the International Financial Centre stakes.
73. I think they are different and I’ll explain why. The first question about leader Y vs hypothetical leader X plays upon all sorts of prejudices and assumptions about the sort of leader X would be. In the case of Brown the media and the Tories had placed the expectation that he would be a control freak Stalinist with the charisma of a brick wall. When asked the question about him as a hypothetical leader some people answered based on their fears. When he turns out not to be as bad as the nightmare vision painted by the opposition then people are pleasantly surprised and change their minds.
In the case of the second question it is a simple case of asking people what they are going to do on a given date without the muddy area of personalities intervening. It’s a much simpler question.
re 65 & 70. We will really have to wait until the Friday mronnig after the general election to determine whether the polls were wrong or not? For in a general election campaign Cameron and Brown get equal time in all broadcast media while the LDs will get a much greater prominence than they do at the moment.
What we have seen at the moment is the novelty of a new leader and the relief factor of Blair not being there any longer. Who knows what happens when that effect starts to ease off? Who knows how Labour will react if their ratings start to decline?
Brown has down well so far but these are very early days.
Gwynfa
Polls can only tell you so much. Just as it requires skill to construct them, so you need skill to interpret them.
This site was full of postings warning against taking the Brown poll findings too literally. Those who failed to heed them look a bit stupid now. They have only themselves to blame, not the polls, which merely reported what people said in respect of some highly hypothetical questions in extremely artificial circumstances.
Re 76 Peter the Punter “The UK would be a different matter of course - much larger and more diverse economy - but The Treasury clearly thinks it can be competitive in the International Financial Centre stakes.”
I thought we already were?
58 Heartbroken, SeanT.
One of my greatest remaining ambitions is to be thoroughly and genuinely insulted by you. Momentarily, I thought I had achieved it. Sadly, you destroyed my hopes with your second paragraph and my longing remains unrequited.
:-(
62 - Is that £100 bet solely for Marcus or is it open to others?
71. One of the reasons that West Lancs has become more marginal is that turnout has dropped much further in safe Labour Skelmersdale than it has in Ormskirk and the safely Tory rural bits.
There does seem to be a bit of wishful thinking from Tories on here about how changes in turnout and vote distribution will help their seats to votes ratio at the next election.
Another soldier killed in Basra today
Davey boy in Afghanistan today. It’s a bit of a two-fingers to people that said he should stay at home when he was in Rwanda.
I guess my point is that there have been many, many examples of new leaders taking over and receiving a bounce (Tony Blair, John Major, David Cameron to name but three).
It is not at all surprising or difficult to predict.
And yet, all the polling companies with their “sophisticated” methodologies failed to predict something that is bleeding obvious, and has happened many times before.
80 It was specifically tax I had in mind, Benedict.
At present, you would never locate an international investment company in the UK because of the tax treatment of overseas income. The Treasury proposals, as I understand them, would change all that.
Don’t understimate how far reaching such a change could be though. Mauritius’ current status as an International Financial Centre dates from the early 90s when it successfully negotiated a favorable Double Tax Agreement [DTA] with India. As a consequence in the years since, it has become established as the primary route for investing into the Asian sub-continent. The financial sector in Mauritius boomed and now stands apart as a centre of excellence generally for those wishing to conduct business in the region, in which I include South Africa.
Mauritius still frets about what would happen if the DTA were scrapped, but the fact is that whilst it wouldn’t be helpful, the Financial Services sector is now strong enough to cope and the country would remain popular with International investors.
85. 2 fingers to the Mail who care more about damp carpets than dead foriegners.
86 Nah, you’re being too harsh, Gwynfa.
When you go to the track and buy a copy of Timeform, do you expect it to list the winners for you? Course you don’t. It’s a help, but no more than that.
Same with the polls.
75 Tory Ben. “These days, with third and minor parties likely to win more seats and offer more attractive rebellion options to members, I’d say the majority of 21 in 1992 was ‘bare’, and a good solid majority needs to be about 35 or more.”
You could argue the exact opposite as well. With more and more parties represented, it is less likely that they are all prepared to gang up on the government.
86. The bounces with previous leaders are for people interpreting the polls to count in, not the pollsters themselves. Polling has to be scientific, they can’t just have an utterly subjective “plus ten, cos we think there will be a bounce too”. All polls can claim to do is to give statistical accounts of what people were thinking when the poll was taken. They are a data source for people predicting the future, not a prediction themselves.
OT: The Murdoch media empire expands:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6923474.stm
We need hard and tough limits on one man owning too much media. If the Journal turns into the newspaper equivalent of Fox News its another kick in the teeth for honest debate in the US.
90. I was thinking of it from a wishful ‘Tories in power’ perspective!
No matter how many other parties are represented, it’s a safe bet that the ****s will all gang up on us at every opportunity.
Re 87, Peter the Punter, so what you are saying is that if I own a company which in turns owns another abroad, that I have to pay UK tax on the profits of the over seas company?
Is that the issue that is to be fixed?
Or is it that if I won a company which buys and sells a foreign investment I pay tax here on the capital gains?
Re 2009 Euro Elections. Next time UK MEPs will be reduced from 78 to 72 (because of Bulgaria and Romania entry).
Electoral Commission’s proposal is to reduce the number of MEPs by 1 in the following regions: Scotland, London, North West, South West, West Midlands and East Midlands.
Using 2004 results and the proposed number of seats, the MEPs who would have not been elected in 2004 are:
Scotland: John Purvis (Con)
London: Robert Evans (Lab)
Norh West: Saj Karim (LD)
South West: Giles Chichester (Con)
West Midlands: Malcolm Harbour (Con)
East Midlands: Bill Newton Dunn (LD)
Is anyone able to confirm or deny this?
“Martin Salter, a vice-chairman of the Labour Party, said: “I can confirm that the party has been put on alert for an early election that could take place as soon as this autumn.”"
If this is true, it is the biggest news of the week.
85 - Cameron in Afghanistan, is that classified information? There’s been nothing about it on the news channels so I hope you haven’t blown his cover!
86 - The pollsters were not trying to predict the size of any bounce.
93 The problem is that however you make the profits overseas, at some point you have to remit them back to the UK. The UK taxes them when you do so. The proposals aim to change that. It’s a fundamental change in the way the UK taxes overseas income.
PtP’s two tips today, Som Tala @ 11/2 and Jeremy @ 5/1, make an excellent e/w double at Betfred for those with accounts there. I can’t imagine the prices will last much longer.
Should have checked, sorry, it’s on the BBC politics online section now. I didn’t mean to accuse you of putting him in the line of fire!
96 ukpaul. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6925441.stm
94. Thanks, Andrea. And they’re all such high profile figures aren’t they? Remind me what they are paid again?
ukpaul Bozinov Elano Corluka and Garrido to sign tomorrow. Come on you blues.
82 - John O. Happy to oblige you as well if you’d like. My email is: stephenlloydlibdem@hotmail.com
Re 98, Peter the Punter, “The problem is that however you make the profits overseas, at some point you have to remit them back to the UK. The UK taxes them when you do so. The proposals aim to change that. It’s a fundamental change in the way the UK taxes overseas income.”
Well, it does beg the question of why income is taxed.
I can understand getting a tax break if I earned £100 from an overseas investment and then paid tax there of say 40% that I should not pay tax again.
However what if that income was not taxed abroad? Why should I not pay tax here when I land the money?
91 “Polling has to be scientific, they can’t just have an utterly subjective “plus ten, cos we think there will be a bounce too”. All polls can claim to do is to give statistical accounts of what people were thinking when the poll was taken. ”
Polling … scientific ? $%%$^$%^&????
Polls do not give a statistical account of what people are thinking. The raw data gives a statistical account of responses to questions.
As Mike has emphasised, corrections are then made to the raw data to give an alleged account of what people are thinking (much along the lines of “plus ten, because there are so many shy Tories” or “minus five because some people are lying”). Once you start making such manipulations, it’s perfectly reasonable to take into account well-known trends (such as a likely bounce for a new leader).
102. Baskerville, practially they’re the
Scotland: Con second seat
London: Lab third seat
Norh West: LD second seat
South West: Con third seat
West Midlands: Con third seat
East Midlands: LD seat
However some of those people mentioned can place themself in a better situation if they got an higher ranking this time (in SW Chichester shouldn’t find it difficult to get an higher place on Tory list as I believe he’s the only incumbent to re-stand)
107. Oh, I understand your logic, which is unarguable as usual. I was merely drawing attention to how little impact they have had in their time in Strasbourg/Brussels and raising a question about value for money. Or simply put… would anyone miss them?
53 - Interesting post by Stodge.
But is it really credible for Cameron to stay on having done half as well as Howard?
I would have thought 250 Tory seats is the minimum required for him to stay for another term.
104 - Thanks. Will do. I’ll send you an e-mail (perhaps we should also confirm on the official pbc betting page…though goodness knows how to access it
)
Cameron will without any doubt be leading the Conservatives at the next GE. The attempt to unseat him has been firmly put down. Whatever else we discuss, the removal of Cameron is no longer on the agenda.
110 - John O - Just email Mike.
95 - simply a means of upping the stakes with potential donors and getting the cash flowing in. As in: “We might need to go to the country this autumn if it looks like the Tories might be getting their act together. We can’t afford to at present, so you need to get your chequebooks out and build a fighting fund. Or else it could be David Cameron as PM.”
They cannot now use the tried and tested method of the past, namely: “K or a P?”
Allegedly…
There will actually be no poll this autumn, if only because of the “Bonar Law factor”. All this talk of GB announcing his intentions as a grand piece of theatre during his Conference Speech (or on the same day as DC’s Conference Speech) is wishful thinking by the bored media.
Gordon doesn’t do “theatre”. As the “2p or not 2p” flop showed.
We’ve had quite a few links of late of the kind: ‘Look what Simon Heffer says about David Cameron!’ So, in the interest of balance, here’s one not at all flattering to Gordon Brown:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article2176100.ece
105 - That’s exactly what the UK Corporate Tax system tries to do, Benedict (through the combined effects of the remittance basis of assessment, Controlled Foreign Companies legislation and a network of Double Tax Agreements). The trouble is that it is complex, cumbersome, and drives bona fide businesses away*. The proposals are an attempt to address the problem without undermining the tax base.
[* On the plus side, it has to be said that it keeps people like me in gainful employ.
]
91. If we worry about the power of Murdoch which we should by all accounts, what about the power of the BBC which is far greater than Murdoch’s?
Murdoch, people imagine, is acting from the right, counterbalancing the BBC on the left, and yet he always supports europhile Prime Ministers, and works against eurosceptic Conservative leaders.
Cameron has seen off the Murdoch attempted coup, and the plan to replace him with Hague, but what the hell is a blinking media tycoon doing aspiring to decapitate democratically elected leaders in the first place?
It is Murdoch who should be decapitated, and so should the BBC be broken up to make room for a pluralistic media, not a monotone all manipulable by powers unseen and operating on the same side.
106. There quite a difference between balancing the raw data to reflect the demographics of the population (by sex, class, or how they last voted), and predicting what effect future events will cause. If the polling companies back in May were going to account for the bounce, then why not the likelihood of future flooding, the growing possibility of criticism from backbench Tories, etc etc. Its just too much. They should stick to asking non-leading questions and balancing the sample to reflect the entire population. Job done.
116 - Murdoch isn’t ideologically motivated at all. He just wants to be seen to be backing (and cosying-up to) likely winners.
The BBC, whilst stuffed with Guardian readers and relentlessly pursuing a liberal agenda, probably also has one eye on the witterings from Tory Culture spokesmen over the years about the nasty BBC and stuff to the licence fee. (Assuming Tapestry is Tory-inclined, his post illustrates this thinking in its final para). The BBC knows which side its bread is buttered on.
Shame the Tories have to take such a destructive view of the BBC. Whilst it is a bit of an anachronism, it’s much loved by the electorate, both Tory and Labour. I doubt that Middle England wants to lose the wide range of BBC services it enjoys for remarkably little outlay.
New thread - The political blogger of the year of Labour
116. Murdoch might be seen, in 15/16th century parlance, as an ‘over-mighty subject’ - a modern day robber baron who, with his army of retainers, seeks to bend the state to his will and enrich himself in the process. Henry VII and Henry VIII would certainly have had a clear view as to his proper fate.
118 “Murdoch isn’t ideologically motivated at all.”
Generally speaking I would go along with that, PR, but his fanatial hostility to the EU and all its works carries all the hallmarks of the religious zealot.
111. I have to say that the public are starting to see that Cameron does have some backbone particularly fighting against the Labour controlled and Labour supporting media so once Brown calls a GE the parties will move closer together separated by only a few points at most.
Current predictions show that Labour most likely to win most UK seats but the problem for Brown is that the UK no longer bahaves as one unit anymore thanks to devolution and the growth of English/Scottish/Welsh and Irish nationalism.
The home countries are drifting apart. Scotland and Wales are Labour voting strongholds and are also pro-EU so they will want to go independent to sign up to the EU Constitution if Brown loses an EU referendum. The status of Northern Ireland continues to remain uncertain - it will either unite with Eire or may want to go for ‘independence within Europe’, however the main problem for Brown is England. Whatever happens in the next election will bring home the problems caused by assymmetric devolution and the West Lothian Question. The Tories are likely to win the most number of votes and seats in England (with or without a majority) and the demands for an English Parliament will continue to grow. England is also the only eurosceptic nation within the UK so the EU issue compounds very nicely with the WLQ to cause maximum political damage to any government or political party that stands in the way of the wishes of the English. Yes it has not happened yet as both Blair and Brown both had UKIP and the media as ’safety valves’ - but they can only be used once. Please identify the next safety valve or has Labour used them up? We’ll have to wait until 2010 for the next GE
118. The BBC is marvelous. It’s just that it might be nice to hear some genuine facts occasionally. Andrew Gilligan tried to tell us the truth about Iraq. He was sacked and his source was murdered. John Humphreys tried to tackle Labour’s record on electoral fraud and disappeared from view overnight.
There is only one story ever allowed to be told by the BBC and that is the one the government wants you to hear. It doesn’t have to be true iunfortunately.
Too much power in too few hands. If we have a pluralistic media we could probably find the truth somewhere. At the moment truth is not even on the menu. Regretfully Auntie who in her youth was respected worldwide for getting the story right, is now no more than a bloody liar - wars and all. Her inheritance should be broken up.
Re 115, Peter the Punter, fair enough. so all we are talking about is simplifying the rules to make us more competitive?
Why not just sack Gordon Brown?
“9 - Marcus. I disagree and happy to stump up, so I’ll bet you £100 there will be an election within a year. Interested?
If it happens and we both win, then you can pay a liberal from your MP’s salary.
If memory serves me right Torbay is where you are the Tory ppc for? I’m the LD ppc for Eastbourne so, naturally, my belief is Adrian Sanders will hold the seat!
by SAC August 1st, 2007 at 11:48 am”
I am happy to put my money where my mouth is one one condition, the loser pays the £100 to a charity of the winners choice.
124 Yes, Benedict, although if it were that easy, it would have been done long ago.
As for sacking GB, that may or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly a damn sight easier!
125 Marcus - If you use Betfair as a guide, then even money is about right for this bet.
Good luck!
PtP. I’m taking you on in the Sussex stakes with the favourite, Excellent Art. My fear is Asiatic Boy.
Let’s hope one of us backs the winner.
I see Asiatic Boy is being heavily backed.
Good luck!
re 126 Peter, “124 Yes, Benedict, although if it were that easy, it would have been done long ago.
As for sacking GB, that may or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly a damn sight easier! ”
Yes it would!
128. B**g*r !
Bugger.
Re 128, and 129, as well as your tip Peter I backed Munadamm.
Peter te Punter, Who won?
134
1. Ramonti
2. Excellent Art
3. Jeremy
Ah well, at least I got place money.
Re 135, peter, yes thanks for the tip on that, though I did not get the odds I wanted, I will have got the place money!
125 - this is a political ‘betting’ site Marcus not a site to win political points by charity giving! No matter, if thats what you want. Fine. Loser pays £100 to charity of winners choice.