Sean Fear’s Friday slot
August 17th, 2007
-
Do UKIP and the BNP Really Damage the Conservatives?
One problem that David Cameron has to contend with, in contrast to Tony Blair in the 1990s, is that disgruntled Conservatives have somewhere to go. Neither UKIP, nor the BNP could be regarded as a serious challenger for political power, yet each party has shown that it can obtain significant votes, in individual constituencies.
In 2005, UKIP won 620,000 votes, and saved 35 deposits, and the BNP won 191,000, and saved 36 deposits. Yougov regularly shows each party with 3-4% of the vote, enough to significantly affect the outcome in key marginal seats, although not enough for either party to have a serious chance of winning Parliamentary seats in its own right (with the possible exception of Barking).
I know plenty of former Conservative activists who have joined (or at any rate voted for) UKIP, and one who has joined the BNP. There is no doubt at all, to my mind, that UKIP does do damage to the Conservative Party at the margins.
-
In all likelihood, there are half a dozen or so constituencies that would have been won by the Conservatives in 2005, without UKIP intervention. Indeed, one of my acquaintances is very proud of the fact that (in his opinion) he won enough votes as a UKIP candidate, to prevent a Conservative from being elected.
I cannot think of any constituency that might have been won by the Conservatives were it not for BNP intervention, but I think there are a couple in West Yorkshire where the Conservatives would have run Labour closer, were it not for such intervention.
Nevertheless, it is politically sensible for David Cameron to concentrate on trying to win over Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, however irritating it might be for him to lose votes on his right flank (so long as he doesn’t lose too many).
-
In no constituency does either UKIP or the BNP have a realistic chance of unseating a sitting a Conservative. Where Conservatives are under threat, the threat comes from either the Liberal Democrats or Labour.
Likewise, the seats that the Conservatives must win are almost all held by the latter. Any vote gained from the Left is therefore worth two votes lost to the Right. Even if the Conservatives were to finish up with no higher a percentage vote, at the next election than they had in 2005, they would still benefit if their gains from the Left matched their losses to the Right.
There were five local by-elections yesterday.
Ryedale District Council, Sheriff Hutton. Conservative 348, Independent 299. Conservative hold.
Gloucestershire County Council, Lansdowne Park and Warden Hill. Conservative 2,205, Lib Dem 1,605, Labour 226, Green 184. Conservative hold. Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote shares rose sharply here, compared to 2005. This division is located in the ultra-marginal Liberal Democrat seat of Cheltenham, and may point to a very tight contest at the next election.
Portsmouth City Council, Fratton West. Lib. Dem 1,196, Conservative 496, Labour 144, English Democrat 131, Green 56, Independent 17. An easy hold for the Liberal Democrats.
Blaenau Gwent Unitary Authority, Blaina. Independent 381, Labour 315, Independent 310, Independent 149. Independent hold. Apparently, the Independent who won is a real Independent, and the Independent who came a close third is a supporter of Trish Law and Dai Davies. I still have difficulty getting my head around the idea of Blaenau Gwent being a Labour target seat.
Aberdeen City Council, Midstocket/Rosemont. SNP 873, Conservative 821, Lib Dem 693, Labour 518, Solidarity 31, Independent 20 (first ballot). SNP 1258, Conservative 1122 (final ballot). SNP gain from Conservative. This was the first local by-election under STV to be held in Scotland. The Conservative vote share held steady, but the SNP gained from Labour sufficiently to win the seat. In the final round of voting, Liberal Democrat voters split almost evenly between Conservative and SNP.
Sean Fear is a London Tory activist
MessageSpace Advertising
Good slot as ever Sean.
Sorry to go off topic… but there are a few here with interest in Russian elections.
Ivanov chaired a cabinet meeting for the first time yesterday, fuelling speculation he may be ripe for promotion. He remains the favourite, and the odds (just a shade over evens) looks fair enough. The only caveat is that Putin may regard Ivanov as too strong to be his puppet (if he wants to be puppetmaster) so he may give his backing to somebody less strong.
Please can I raise a pedantic point regarding the last sentence of your analysis of Aberdeen? The Lib Dem votes that were transferred were in fact Lib Dem + Labour + Solidarity + Independent votes. Could it be, perhaps, that all the “others” went to the Conservatives and most of the Lib Dems went to the SNP? Or vice versa? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, but it might be a bit of an over-simplification to say that “Liberal Democrat voters split almost evenly between Conservative and SNP.”
2 Fair enough. I don’t fully appreciate all the intricacies of STV. I think it noteable though, that nearly half of the lower preferences of centre left candidates should go to the Conservatives as opposed to SNP.
Scottish Lib Dems not too happy about being refused a recount, it seems. This is their press release -
LIB DEMS DENIED BY-ELECTION VICTORY BY FOUR VOTES
A row has broken out following Scotland’s first council by-election since the introduction of a system of electing councillors under a fair votes system known as the Single transferable Vote (STV).
The Midstocket and Rosemount by-election for Aberdeen City Council followed the death of long-serving Conservative John Porter.
At one stage during the count, when there were only four votes separating the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats requested a recount. The request was denied by the Returning Officer.
Liberal Democrats now plan on raising the Returning Officer’s controversial decision with the Electoral Commission.
Commenting, North East Liberal Democrat MSP, Alison McInnes said:
“The Liberal Democrats were four votes from victory in this by-election.
“Analysis of the ballot paper preferences showed that, with four more votes, the Liberal Democrat candidate would have overtaken the Conservatives and subsequently beaten the SNP candidate.
The Liberal Democrats were four votes away from a sensational by-election gain. We were the only party who did not win a seat in this ward in May and we came within four votes of making a gain today.
We will be raising questions with the Returning Officer and with the Electoral Commission about the refusal to hold a recount at the point in the count when the Liberal Democrats were just four votes away from overtaking the Conservatives.
“It is a poor result for Labour who had previously won a seat here but came fourth.”
Ends.
Sean, doesn’t the evidence suggest the main seepage to BNP is actually coming from disillusioned Labour supporters..?
Out of interest what is the history of Splitting from the Tories ?
Its a strong narrative within Labour that we can refer to past attempts to split and set up a rival and that it has always crumbled away.
Do tories have an equivalent , or have they always been able to rely on outside threats ?
“The Liberal Democrats were four votes from victory in this by-election”
A somewhat misleading statement IMHO.
4 That’s shocking if the facts are as you say…
Whilst I can’t get too upset for the LDs, I have to say I would be
outraged in the boot was on the other foot.
5. It varies by constituency. In safe Labour seats, I’m sure you’re right. But in the Home Counties, I’d say it’s more from Conservatives.
6. No split from the Conservatives has been remotely successful.
8 - any reason why a recount was denied? Returning officer too lazy?
Sean,
Is it right to assume that those who vote BNP are disgruntled Conservatives?
The Bigotted Nasty Party vote seemed to come from in part from disgruntled Labour voters as the Sedgefield by election showed.
11. I think they tend to pick up different types of voter in different places. Unhappy Conservatives in places like Thurrock, or Broxbourne. Unhappy Labour in places like Sedgefield or Stoke.
10 - Perhaps didn’t realise the significance of the order of elimination? Though that’s being a bit patronising, I’m sure it was pointed out. I agree that it’s very harsh to deny a recount when the difference is just 4 votes.
9. has anyone ever tried ?
Francis will be interested to know that the whole of the West Dorset UKIP branch has defected to his party.
Starting to look a bit like the Judean Peoples’ Front and the People’s Front of Judea…
Split from the Tories - what about the Pro-Euro Conservative Party. Didn’t he join the LDs in the end? Wasn’t his campaign run by Mark Littlewood who later became LD Commincations Guru?
I’m not too sure the Recount point is particularly valid in these circumstances. One of the (great many!) benefits of AV / STV election systems is that the votes are continually re-examined. So the Lib Dem votes (plus those of all the others) would have all been re-distributed amongst the two other candidates, and the numbers would have to tally. Similarly, the votes for the Conservative and SNP candidates would have been re-counted as part of the final process. If there is a discrepancy in the arithmetic, it would indicate a faulty sort-and-count of one of the earlier rounds. Bu if the arithmetic tallies, then I suspect that everything was OK.
Very interesting piece Sean, i would say that in West Yorkshire where i live their are some interesting contests. I think Colne Valley last time did not have a UKIP candidate. They did have a veritas who only got a couple of hundered votes. I don’t live in that seat but in neighbouring huddersfield where Barry Sheerman is MP. Interestingly a lot of people have said he is invisible and has been only as supportive as far as his party interest dictates.
To be fair to him though he once wrote to a minister for me and lobbyed for a change on a particular government policy. But i am a “pain in the arse voter” who writes to him because an MP’s letterhead has more clout than mine!!!
He has an easier ride because the tories never pick a local person, they had some prat from buckinghamshire last time and before that Beaverstock who defected from Labour in 1998. He worked in Tory HQ in the IDS years but not for long :lol:!!!
I have wondered whether this will have done UKIP any damage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6951841.stm
In my experience of West Yorkshire having lived in ED Balls seat at one stage the BNP vote tends to come from Labour, in this area Tories don’t tend to go for the BNP. This is interestingly an area where i tried to get converts whilst living in Morley. One bloke who lived in the same set of private flats said he voted BNP because of the P***’s and the W**’s. I asked him who he voted for before and he said he had voted Labour a couple of times but they tended to “bring more in”. Again it depends on the type of seat you live in as to which voters go from where. I would say that UKIP tend to be the most damaging to the tories in my opinion overall. The BNP, certainly in west yorkshire tend to mop up the “rascist labour” voter.
14. There have been attempts. There were little groups that split off here and there from the fifties to the seventies, plus the Pro Euro Conservatives. But no major figure has led a walkout since 1846.
By the way if this goes up it could be a cold winter!
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1280238,00.html
5: we’ve often chewed over on this site where BNP votes would go if they didn’t exist. I think the consensus is that they take votes from all parties (yes, LDs and Greens too - some people see them all as suitable protest parties), but they probably have more ex-Labour voters than ex-Tories. However, an important rider to this is that these ex-Labour voters are now anti-Labour, so if the BNP weren’t standing they’d probably vote Tory or not at all.
But it’s hard to generalise. In the local Broxtowe elections, Labour, LD, Tory and Green candidates in multi-member wards were all discomforted to see non-trivial numbers of votes split between them and BNP candidates - essentially presumably the message being “I tend to support party X but I’d like to protest too”.
Sean - from the previous thread you said “Most professionals would be delighted to see the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 disappear.” Yes, it would nice if we could wish organised crime away, then we wouldn’t need such regulations.
And by “most professionals” do you include “most senior police officers?”
Another gem from the Redwood report – “We propose simplifying care home regulations, to allow more places to come forward”. This, in a week that has seen much publicity about the shocking treatment of some elderly people in care homes.
Amazing stuff – Polly evidently didn’t exaggerate.
Former UKIP MEP guilty of fraud :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6951841.stm
My local Conservative campaigns manager with connection into many Constituencies feels rightly or wrongly that BNP growth pulls mostly from Labour. maybe 3:1:1 Labour:Conservative:Other
BNP’s 9% at Sedgefield took little from Conservatives or Lib Dem and was apparently nearly all ex-Labour vote.
If the BNP threat to Gordon is added to the SNP threat, this is quite a lot to stop him thinking about elections any time soon.
21. Is your Labour vote derived from mainly “middle class labour supporters” or “working (traditional) class Labour voters”
When I looked at the Aberdeen council elections earlier it showed that second votes tended to split fairly evenly except with the Lib Dems who getting a larger percentage of second votes than other parties. There are as many Labour and Lib Dem voters who hate the SNP as those that hate the Tories.
The funny thing about this byelection is that there is no way that the SNP will hold the seat at the next election when 3 councillors are elected at the same time. At that time if votes are cast in the same way the Tory will get back in.
I think 21 is a very fair account of the BNP vote.
You must have very warped thought processes to vote BNP. “I don’t like immigration, so I’ll vote for a party that is utterly beastly to immigrants and their children.” It’s like not liking taxation and thus believing we shouldn’t have any taxes at all.
Ps sorry for typo and bad English. I blame it on my bog standard Scottish education.
22 - the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 are largely ineffective at stopping an even remotely capable financial professionals from laundering illicit funds. But they add significantly to the burdens of conducting legitimate business. So, yes, get rid of them and bring in something simpler (or just enforce pre-existing laws more intelligently, that will work just fine, thanks).
16. The pro-euro Conservatives. Haha yes what a success they were, eh? A ‘party’ which consisted in large part of people who were actually never Conservatives, and was really just a Lib-Lab front. Given a huge amount of coverage by the BBC (surprise surprise) they stormed to a massive 1.4% of the vote in 1999.
Better week for the Liberal Democrats. Local elections tending to confirm that they are holding okay when in the box seat or challenging well, but where well back in third place they face decimation.
23 - if he goes to gaol, is he thrown out of the Europarliament? If so, is he replaced by a UKIPer or an independent?
24 In a safe Labour seat then it is clear that BNP will take more votes from Labour than the other parties , Labour has more votes to start with that can change . In more marginal seats it is less clear cut . Certainly in West Yorks , the BNP seem to take more votes from Conservatives than Labour and is one of the reasons Conservative performance there has been poor since the GE .
The most successful splinter grouping since the Corn Laws was probably the National Party, a violently hard-right grouping formed by a group of Conservative MPs in 1917, of which the leading personality was Sir Henry Page Croft. It managed to get two of its twenty-three candidates elected in the “coupon election” - Page Croft in Bournemouth and Sir Richard Cooper in Walsall (although I think he stood as an “Independent Conservative” with NP support). Most of its original founders had already rejoined the Conservatives by then - and the party was converted into a right-wing pressure group within the Tories in 1921 (under the leadership of the 4th Marquess of Salisbury, son of the PM - so you can identify an element of continuity with the Monday Club, which would be founded by his own son in 1960).
33 - I always thought that BNP got fed up Labour votes, but it may just be that they usually stand in safe Labour areas
O/T but just shows the absurd levels that Labour have reached over Redwoods policy review. They need to calm down before they spin themselves into orbit.
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/08/andy-burnham-foot-in-mouth.html
33. I don’t agree with you there, i am telling you what i have seen on the ground in these seats.
As i said on the local election thread last week, their are a lot of rasicsts in west yorkshire. I think the most marginal seats around here are Clone Valley and Calder valley. I don’t think either of these seats have much of a BNP vote!
36. Maybe Labour relise that the IHT could be a real vote winner with the “middle class” voter, who has voted Labour with Blair but might be temptered away. These voters are particularly prevelent in London and the southeast. The “King maker” at the next election!
37. Clone Valley = Colne Valley
Re 39: Is that a modern remake of “Valley of the Dolls”?
37 Sorry Martin you are not correct , in this year’s local elections BNP polled 1,996 votes in Calder Valley and 4,219 in Colne Valley , In Halifax , the other half as the same council as Calder Valley , BNP polled 3,928 votes certainly to the detriment of the Conservatives whose performance here since 2005 has been woeful .
16: ‘Split from the Tories - what about the Pro-Euro Conservative Party. Didn’t he join the LDs in the end?’
If I recall correctly most of the ‘leading lights’ in that lot turned out to have been card-carrying Lib Dems from the outset - a laughable shower!
41. Yes that’s local elections. I was talking GE’s.
41. You forget to mention the number of party members.
41. I surpose next you will be saying that the BNP are neck and neck with the tories and have some great bargraph?
Regardless of what they will actually vote, out here in the sticks, Tories, (it wouldn’t be fair to say all) are in their views, somewhat further to the right than the current leadership. The public bar Tory, (for want of a better term) is certainly more UKIP/BNP than Cameroon.
The Conservative Party in the adjoining seat,(Libdem) made the very brave decision to select an openly gay man, it has not met with widespread approval, ‘He bats for the other side’ was the peculiar term used to describe him.
There is no doubt in my mind, that if UKIP did not have such weak leadership,(the right needs a charismatic leader) there are votes in the rural areas ripe for the taking.
43 We don’t know how many votes BNP will get in the next GE but in 2005 they polled 1887 in Calder Valley , 2,627 in Halifax and 1,430 in Colne Valley . I would expect them to get more at the next GE taken more votes from the Conservatives than Labour .
47. Fair enough, sorry i had a bout of sarciness!!!
7. Misleading - but only up to a point.
On Anthony Wells’s Election Guide site a few weeks ago I did some analysis of second choice votes in the local elections in another Scottish seat (Dunbartonshire East). Whilst DunbE is obviously in a very different part of the country, it is both socially and electorally similar to Midstocket/Rosemount, so my analysis may be of interest. The gist of it was that Conservative second preferences went predominantly to the Lib Dems (c.55%), much less so to the SNP (c.25% or just over), and least of all to Labour (generally between 15% and 20%). Had Midstocket/Rosemount gone a similar way, and had the order at the penultimate count been SNP-LD-Con, I suspect the Lib Dems might well have overtaken the SNP through Conservative transfers.
26. A good analysis of the situation. I suspect that the Lib Dems will - for now at least - be the main beneficiaries of the transfer aspect of STV in Scotland, on the grounds that supporters of any of the other three main parties hate them less than they do the remaining two parties (if that makes sense). The flip side of that is that the Lib Dems in some areas lost first preference votes (notably to the Greens in some of the trendier parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh) and probably some tactical supporters that there’d been under FPTP.
Chris, go to Midstocket/Rosemont and find you the Solidarity voter who transfered his/her vote the Tories.
49 “Supporters of any of the other three main parties hate them [the Lib Dems] less than they do the remaining two parties.”
From what I have learned about British politics on this site, I thought that all non Lib Dems had them as first preference for the Most Hated Other Party.
51. “From what I have learned about British politics on this site, I thought that all non Lib Dems had them as first preference for the Most Hated Other Party. ”
Augustus, probably among other parties’ activists, not voters
50 Andrea, I expect it was probably the candidates mum, or someone like that!
51. I’d tentatively suggest that those who contribute to this blog aren’t perhaps entirely typical of the public at large.
54. Yes - but they seem to think they are, don’t they?
55. But that doesn’t mean that they are! FWIW, I think Andrea’s assessment at 52 is spot on.
UKIP members will be delighted with much of what is in the Redwood report but I doubt whether its obsession with Europe means much to mainstream electors.
36. Well, I would have thought this policy report is interesting to any student of politics, not just Labour supporters. The two big political themes at the moment are Gordon’s takeover from Tony and Dave’s attempts to move the conservatives to the centre ground.
On the basis of this report, they have moved a long, long way back to the right. The spinning will come from the Tories who, once people have digested the document, will try to deny this.
Anyway I suggest you read it and judge for yourself.
Another gem – the success of London congestion charge is not recognised and presumably it’s to be dropped. A huge expansion of the motorway network is planned, to cover our remaining bits of green and pleasant land with tarmac. Charming stuff.
57. spin spin spin
Re. 12, true re. Stoke (currently NOC, but run de facto by a Labour-Conservative coalition after this May’s elections).
49 - Spot on. The even more interesting thing is how the Tories find it hard to climb through the rankings in STV, but Lib Dems find it easier. The point about Lib Dem loss to the Greens in Edinburgh and Glasgow is also completely correct. Perhaps in Aberdeen the Lib Dems were unlucky at the high number of non transfering Labour votes. Mind you Augustus Carp is wrong about mathematical certainty under STV. The Returning Officer should have conceeded a bundle check and the checking of the Labour non transfers at the very least. Perhaps an election petition is needed…
57 Captain Spalding “the success of the London congestion charge”?
As I understand it the congestion charge was to reduce traffic and provide a revenue stream to London to invest/subsidise alternative means of transport. It has had mixed success on the first and, as the high increases in the Mayor’s precept shows, no success in the latter. Capita has done well out of it but London ratepayers and users of London Transport haven’t. Few if any other cities are looking to copy the way it was implemented which is basically to charge motorists to pay Capita to manage the system to charge them, with Capita making a profit.
60 More than happy to be corrected, VotL !
57- “A huge expansion of the motorway network is planned, to cover our remaining bits of green and pleasant land with tarmac”.
Oh please. Motorways are vital for our economy. As France, Germany, Spain, Ireland and pretty much most of the Europe is buliding more Motorways, we’ve virtualy stoped motorway bulding here. This country needs to catch up.
BBC radio ordered off Russian FM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6951710.stm
“Critics say Russia is taking measures to curb media freedom ahead of parliamentary elections in December and a presidential poll in March.”
SBS - I get the impression that the odds about Ivanov of evens, or thereabouts, are about right? Da?
61. Actually, its hard to measure. But my feeling is that it has mildly reduced traffic in central London. I bet we would have had a significant increase in traffic without it.
66 There was a noticeable drop when introduced, tjm, but I think it is back to pre CC levels. As you say, it would probably be higher without, but it’s unprovable.
61. It’s been politically successful for Ken. I am no defender of Capita but the technology works and I understand that numerous cities inside and outside the UK have shown an interest in it. If you read the report you will see that there is no interest in congestion charging whatsoever, however it is organised.
63. Yes but motorways produce noise and pollution. (Dave is supposed to be green, remember?) That’s why in Holland they’ve stopped building motorways; in Ireland the motorway programme is hugely controversial. France and Germany have both spent far more on efficient public transport.
Osborne understands all this and at times talks learnedly about economic “externalities”. I think he and Dave will find much of the report embarrassing.
68. I thought the Congestion Charge set up by Ken was only seen as a stop gap by Labour as well. Isn’t the idea that eventually we will all have some machine to machine telecommunications device in our cars which will allow the government to apply congestion charging on crowded roads all over the country.
I always thought the best way of reducing congestion would be to get all the uninsured and unlicensed vehicles off the roads rather than to impose extra taxes on law abiding motorists.
RE the congestion charge. Was thinking about which of Ken and Boris I would give my second pref to (and LD second prefs probably decide it). I think Ken has been fairly useless except for the courageous decision to introduce it - in my view it has been pretty successful and only the crudeness of the law prevents it being more so. So Boris will probably get the second pref unless he even slightly suggests that he will bugger it up in which case it will be Ken again.
Though if Paddick is selected and Boris makes a prat of himself there must be a chance of an LD shock win.
71 Not a chance. Have you heard him speak? Only Dyke as a Lib Dem or Lib Dem backed candidate has the profile and the popular appeal to pull it off regardless of whether Ken or Boris or both make absolute fools of themselves
i would offer anyone 1000/1 on the LD’s winning the mayoral election
Nominations for Scottish Labour Leadership have opened this morning and will close at noon on Tuesday 21 August 2007
Peter the P
You can’t just look at pre and post CC. The fair way to make an estimate is to extrapolate forward traffic growth in the same length of period before to the period post the introduction ie if congestion was rising by say 3% per annum factor that in to calculate where we would be without the CC.
I’ve no doubt congestion is much lower than it would otherwise have been. Put it another way if you scrapped the CC is anyone seriously suggesting that congestion wouldn’t rise significantly?
75 - Karen Whitefield would be my choice.
- sorry I mean’t 74
68.”Osborne understands all this and at times talks learnedly about economic “externalities”. I think he and Dave will find much of the report embarrassing.”
Will they, and if so why?
Labour really do seem to be in danger of spinning themselves into orbit over this. If anything, it could end up being counter productive.
50.Andrea, it was bound to happen eventually because they have probable voted for and fallen out with Labour and the SNP!
12 Sean F:
The BNP have done well in East London but that might be the Hodge effect.
Labour are still Chicken for October!
http://www.labour.org.uk/new_job
The Tories are still recruiting personnel for their election campaign.
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=involved.jobs.page
Me thinks the Tories might well open up an organisational gap on Tory prospect voter turnout!
81. Me thinks the Tories might well open up an organisational gap on Tory prospect voter turnout! In contrast to Labour’s get the vote out.
75 Can’t argue with that, Blue Moon.
I was only giving my subjective impression, not looking for a fight!
71, 72 - In addition, the LD core vote is simply not big enough to win in London. As it stands, a significant chunk of LD support at both parliamentary and borough level comes from tactical voters who’d prefer either Labour or the Conservatives, but know they wouldn’t win here. No such incentive exists for GLA elections.
76. Marcia, why Karen Whitefield in particular?
80 “The BNP have done well in East London but that might be the Hodge effect.”
No Ralph, it’s the inbreeding.
69. The idea of road pricing, that eventually road and petrol taxes are replaced with a pay-as-you-go charge, goes back a long way. Roads are to be individually priced with the most congested costing the most to travel on.
It’s only quite recently that the idea has become a reality because the technology to make it work has become reliable and cheap enough.
One of the ironies of modern politics is that Labour is pushing this idea which emanates from free-market economics and it is so surprising that Mr Redwood – a free-marketeer par excellence, we are led to believe - dismisses it. Frankly, it shows what a t**t the guy is.
The idea of going a step further and having a device in your car monitoring your movements naturally raises big brother-type worries, and public reaction was shown recently by a huge anti- road pricing petition on the Downing Street website.
I think Labour’s position is that it recognises peoples’ concerns, that it will pursue these policies in the long term, but only when they are demanded by local communities, i.e. it will be a bottom-up process.
I wonder whether the BNP will win any seats on the LA next year? I say this as i think there are a couple of UKIP and the europe issue will be relief in comparison to 2004 because the Euro-elections are in 2009.
85- i’m just being mischievous - saying that she does seem a
non-PC Labour MSP and may retain her left wing views.
89. Does she have particularly left wing views?
65 -da! But it’s not in the bag for him. Let’s see who Putin declares for. The parliamentary elections take place first in December. See who Putin promotes in advance of and after this.
I will post on this more on my return from France in a couple of weeks.
I wonder whether the BNP will win any seats on the LA next year?
As SeanF has said previously, the BNP have a very good chance of at least one list seat - they missed the threshold very narrowly in 2004, even with UKIP’s successes, which are very unlikely to be repeated in 2008. In outer East London (to a lesser extent in outer SE London, and only in isolated patches in the western suburbs) you have a situation where you have low-to-mid income areas which are one of the few areas of London where the migrant population remained fairly low until the last couple of years, and which regard with hostility areas like Ilford or the Hams, where migrants and non-white residents make part a large proportion of the population. This is what drives the BNP locally.
86-In breds vote for (Hodge) Labour?
Surely a bit too far!
92 Yes I would go along with that, Observer, although to be honest I’m often at a loss to understand what drives the BNP apart from hate and fear.
93 It always astonishes me how many have the literary skills to cast a vote for anybody.
Bill Deedes has died.
96 Shame. Although I knew him only through his publications, I found him rather engaging.
OK all - my view on the Tory ‘policy’ direction:
Stamp duty on property - a repugnant tax which cuts down labour mobility and discriminates against the poor wishing to get on - scrap it now
Stamp duty on shares - why? Scrap it now, there should be no tax disincentives in investing in Britain
IHT - moderate it but close the loopholes which mean the over wealthy pay nothing. Lift threshold to £500k. Rate 40% thereafter. No exemptions for trusts, annual allowances etc except for proper charities not political parties. Exemption only for married different sex parties.
Roads - I know nothing re this so won’t comment - doesn’t appear to be a priority.
Rail - renationalise the lot but allow franchises to run to conclusion.
VAT - increase to 25% to stop people spending beyond their means. No extension of coverage.
98 - that last one on VAT is a sure vote winner!
99 - it will stop those who cant afford it from over spending!
96. This is sad. I enjoyed his columns and seem to recall them being fairly libertarian-leaning. Maybe I’m being deluded, or overly eulogistic; either way I certainly wouldn’t mind having a guaranteed column into my 90s. A good innings - well played, Bill.
It is sad. His writing, after about 75 years, was as pungent as ever right up until his last column.
Personally, I’d quite like to see VAT expanded and extended to 22.5% on all goods, with compensation in terms of raising income thresholds (and possibly compensatory increases in some benefits if really necessary) - but I don’t see anyone prepared to write that particular suicide not.
102 - dont want to see the extension to all goods as that hurts the poor. Appreciate your comment re thresholds.
Forgot my thresholds comment - increase free tax threshold to £10,000pa per person. Transferable between married heterosexual couples only against earned income.
97&101. What an incredible life he led!
The income tax threshold should really be the average wage (however one decides upon the form of ‘average’). Taxing the average person for being economically-active and earning income is quite ridiculous.
105 - its a good call. £25,000pa
Although to afford that we’d have to stop benefits to unmarried mothers, and all handouts for children. Especially illegitimate ones - ie those born out of wedlock for those on here who don’t understand.
Looks like this may be the way forward.
106. Nope, just tax things that people do not earn through activity (like land value increases) and heavy externalities (like carbon emissions) and stop spending money on consultants for bloody government ID databases.
2. and 3. Actually no, it is not a valid pedantic point. The voters concerned all voted Lib Dem in the penultimate round. Whatever parties they voted for in earlier rounds is not particularly relevant to how they voted in the last 2 rounds. (It is as if the other minor candidates had not stood at all).
That’s a shame about Bill Deedes.
WRT BNP in London, I think that unless the general election is held on the same day as the local elections, they are likely to win 2 seats on the Assembly. They get some discreet middle class support, across much of the Capital, as well as support in the obvious places like Barking/Dagenham/Havering, Ilford North.
Captain Spaulding, if I wanted to launder money for Al Qaeda, the Money Laundering Regulations wouldn’t make much difference. They make life much more awkward for law abiding citizens though.
107 - the great problem with taxing negative externalities can be seen with the CCharge discussed earlier. These taxes do two things: they raise revenues that raise money which, ideally, can be used to tackle negative externalities; and they can also be used to prevent the particular externality by acting as a deterrent. Achieving one often means failing to achieve the other critaria - or you can openly aim for both, and succeed with neither.
109. Come come Sean, you should know it doesn’t matter what the practical effect of legislation is, only what it symbolises.
110 - Whoops! “criterion”, obviously.
111 I stand corrected.
112. The fact that I didn’t notice that error is notice of the bottle of wine I’ve just polished off. The same liquid is the reason why I’m not attempting a more sophisticated response.
97 After the effect of VAT being raised from 8-15% in Geoffrey Howe’s first budget in 1979,thus :
(a)Putting c 5% on the RPI
(b)Consequently necessitating base rates c.4% higher than they would have otherwise peaked..
(b)(i)Consequently making the difference between a sharp economic slowdown and a deep,ruinous recession,which only the Falklands War spared Mrs.T from a 1997 scale defeat..
I can safely guess your 25% VAT will not be adopted as Tory policy for the next election
115 - a good interest rate rise will stop the house prices rising so is good. Lets have 10% MLR or whatever its called now.
If it puts up inflation then we need another interest rate rise to slow consumer spending.
115 (b) (i) ?????
The LibDem press release is highly disingenuous. (Hey! What’s new?)
There was a recount and the result of that was the same as the previous count.
The Lib Dems asked for a FULL recount - ie going back to square one.
There are also no published figures to support their claim that they would have won if they had been in the last two.
113- hallelluyah- praise be to jesus
25: Martin - been too busy to check in earlier, but Broxtowe is predominantly a middle-class constituency (with an unusually small ethnic vote of around 3%) though every demographic group is of course present. There are lots of lifelong Tories of the gentle one-nation kind (Ken Clarke is next door), and many strongly pro-asylum, anti-war Guardianistas. I’ve held on so far with tactical LibDem/Green support plus a personal vote from some people who vote Tory at local elections but like my mild-mannered approach.
The BNP put up candidates in roughly half the wards in May, scoring around 10% on average (they actually won a seat on the council in neighbouring Ashfield constituency). A fairly typical result was Awsworth, a former mining village that now has a significant middle-class population. The Tories won it by 70 votes over Labour in 2003 in a straight fight, and by 50 votes in 2007 with almost identical votes, with a BNP intervention getting 100-odd votes. We reckon they mostly got former abstainers but had taken some Tories as well (since the Tories were generly aldoing better in 2007) - but of course it’s hard to know, really.
116,A recipe for a recession on the sca;e of the two that befell the UK in the early 80s and early 90s
R.e (i)O.K,without both the SDP breakaway of 1981 and the Falklands war of 1982,it is very possible(obviously pure conjecture) that post 1983/4 UK political hostory would now be very different to what it actually is
Consider UKIP founders.
The proven liar Max Clifford’s was Labour’s Dr Goebbels. Kilrow Silk was a Labour MP.
Listen to Kinnock interview burried by the B-BCC
http://tinyurl.com/2y7qpp
96. 97. That is sad news though not completely surprising regarding Bill Deedes. He was a great age. RIP.
Look forward to seeing Jack W post tomorrow morning, after his breakfast of pills, in his usual ebullient and witty style. Bill Deedes was one of the longer outsiders on my list of possibles for Jack W’s identity. Didn’t fit re the Scottish connections of course.
122,Listening to that interview reminded me of a few things:
(a)Dreading turning 16 in 1987,and probably becoming one of Maggie Thatcher 3.5 million unemployed
(b)During the exceptionally cold winter of 1986-7,Edwina Currie kindly suggesting ‘old people knit socks to keep warm’
(c)If one actually listened to a conference leader’s speech by Neil Kinnock in full,in my opinion he showed a warmth,humanity utterly lacking during the the ‘me,me,now,now’ 1980s
I could go on,but will not as this will raise my stress levels prior to retiring for the night,but I will end by saying,however sincere DC is in wanting to modernise,moderate the Conservative Party (and yes,we DO need a viable opposition),he has a long,long road to travel,and that will almost certainly take us beond the next general election,and very likely the one after that.
Night all!
re 123. Bill Deedes, of course, was considerably younger than Jack W.
BILL DEEDES -
A gentleman who was also a gentle man AND an astute journalist who always kept his readers (a very diverse lot) asking for more . . .
UKIP & BNP vs TORIES
Sean, your analysis is spot on I think, as tweeked in the discussion.
Personally think that high percentage of UKIP and BNP vote is “none of the above” vote, meaning that they won’t vote for Conservatives, Labour or Lib Dems. It’s the serious as opposed to official looney vote.
Makes sense that BNP takes more votes from Labour than Tories, except for seats where Conservatives dominate OR which are tight Conservative-Liberal marginals.
Also is clear that UKIP takes more votes from Tories than Labour or Lib Dems.
BUT am guessing that, in order to go beyond “none of the above” support for either UKIP or BNP individually needs to reach 4%-5%.
Below that level, impact on the final result is negligible UNLESS the race is extremely close, in which case it might (or might not) be decisive.
Above the threshold, the UKIP or BNP vote begins to bight. With the Tories generally suffering more, except in working class split between Labour & Tories. But decisive impact will still be limited to constituencies where the margin between the two leading parties is pretty small for starters, or it still won’t signify.
Which suggests that the odds of a Tory candidate being bumped off by UKIP or BNP intervention at the next general election are about the same as being run over by a lorry. PROVIDED of course that the bottom doesn’t totally fall out of “David Cameron’s Conservatives”.
Was the Portsmouth by-election the one where the previous Lib Dem councillor was unseated for being rude to a council officer? If so perhaps the good Lib Dem result indicates a vote of no confidence in the Standards Board.
111: ‘you should know it doesn’t matter what the practical effect of legislation is, only what it symbolises.’
Symbolises that we can’t produce effective legislation.
126: But in the local elections and the two by elections UKIP stagnated, and the BNP took votes almost all from Labour. If the UKIP vote stays the same or goes down at the next election whilst the BNP takes votes from Labour it’s not the Tories who have to worry.
I personally think a significant amount of the BNP vote is ex-Tory, though they don’t show up as that. I mean people who voted for Thatcher but haven’t voted Tory for several elections in a row, abstaining, and therefore slipped off the radar. Yet these people were small ‘c’ conservatives at one point in time.
And it’s blindingly obvious that a huge segment of the Tory vote is abstaining.
1979 & 80’s elections: Conservative vote stable around 14 million
1992: barely above 14 million
1997 election: Conservative vote of 9.5 million (’collapse of the party’)
2005 election: Conservative vote at 8.7 million (hailed as a ’semi-victory’ / ‘on our way back’)
Where did 5 million electors disappear to? What are they doing and what are their views?
I don’t know about you but I feel it’s a worthwhile question. Simply looking at percentage differences without looking at the gross numbers is extremely short sighted.
How you can dismiss any group of voters by saying they don’t matter since they’re not in ‘marginal seats’ astounds me. When ex- and alienated voters number in the ten million range it’s just sticking your head in the sand.
And no, they haven’t gone to Labour and won’t be got back by trying to imitate Labour.
Labour + Conservatives (2005) = 18 million
Conservatives (1992) = 14 million
Labour (1992) = 11.5 million
Lib Dems (1992->2005) = no change
That makes 7.5 million people who are not voting for any of the three major parties but who had a history of voting regularly up until 1997. Is it because we’re all so contented that it doesn’t matter who runs the country?
swingvoter,
Or perhaps more people vote in close elections than in ones where one party is way ahead.
As regards #117 it was also agreed between election agents with the returning officer before the count that recounts would only cover each stage.
Considering the small number of votes in the first two stages they don’t have a leg to stand on.