Well Bob - do you think that Gordon should risk it?
September 30th, 2007
-
Welcome to our guest - Sir Robert Worcester
The big news this morning is the latest poll from Mori - the firm that was set up by Bob Worcester - is showing a Labour lead of 7%. Ipsos-Mori as it is now known has been polling in the UK for longer than anybody else and has by far and away the best web-site.
Bob himself is a frequent commentator and has detailed knowledge of UK politics and opinion trends going back almost longer than anybody.
This is the first time that we have had a a question and answer session like this on the site and I am delighted that Bob has agreed to join us.
He’ll be joining at about 10.30am and hopefully will stay with us for an hour and a half or so.
Please put questions in the comments thread below and let’s keep the standard of discussion up to normal PBC high standards.
My first one is the title of this - should Gordon risk it?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Bob. If we have an election within weeks will Labour hold your namesake constituency and broadly by what majority if any ??
Welcome Bob, how many seats do you see the Lib Dems winning if there is a 2007 GE?
Hi Bob. Do you know if you be doing any detailed polling of the key southern marginals in the near future?
Many thanks.
GIN
3 Hi Bob. What percentage of the population will vote for a party irrespective of events compared to 20 years ago, and how many floating voters do you think will actually bother to cast a vote?
Bob, if Gordon goes for it how do you predict the outcome in terms of Labour, Conservative and LibDem seat numbers?
Bob, is this 1970 again?
Just to say that Bob’s plan is to kick off with a longish intro. We have been in touch this morning.
Have there ever been any moves between polling firms to try and standardise the basis of their weighting, particularly regional weighting, to make it possible to better use the polls as a predictive tool?
As someone who believes, that PM’s must have endorsement by the voters. Do you think, that if GB goes now, (something I have been urging) it should become accepted practice, that a general election must follow a transfer of power, while in office.
Good morning Bob and many thanks for giving up your Sunday morning to speak to us .
The German pollsters Emnid and Forsa produce weekly polls with sample sizes of 4,000 plus and 2,500 respectively . Do you think that the British polling industry produces less accurate results with its sample sizes and less frequent polls ?
Can the Lib Dems drop vote share but still gain seats, and are Tories more likely to tactically vote these days
7 - OK …… Bob feel free to start, in your own time!
Hi all - Bob is answering this in the previous thread but one - the one with his picture on.
This is Bob’s first comment -
Mike, thanks for the opportunity to dialogue with a group of close poll watchers, and start with a bit of advice for them generally from nearly 40 years of being close to the action, 19 years doing the private polls for the Labour Party, and now 38 years of doing, writing about and teaching (as visiting/honorary professor now at LSE, Kent and Warwick and formerly Strathclyde and City) about understanding and reporting opinion polls.
1. Watch the share, not the lead; the lead is a very crude measure of the state of public opinion, and like most shorthand, gives a clue but doesn’t tell the whole story.
2. A week is a long time in politics; unless something important, e.g. Black Wednesday, happens, and then a day is.
3. Don’t know mostly don’t vote.
4. Check your figures, twice; thanks Justin (128) for checking yours (136)
5. Ignore tiny changes. We’re serious about the +/- 3%, but still that’s misleading, as it is the 95% level, at 50%/50% comparison.
That’s enough for the minute.
Bob
Bob, we know you are a partisan Labour supporter, but why do you persist in calling a political party that changed its name 20 years ago ‘Liberals’?
Bob’s second comment -
WAtch all the polls, even BPIX, who are academics, not members of the British Polling council so they don’t play with the rules of transparency and open access to their tables, and make up your own mind as to which you believe most. MORI have had a bad press for its certainty methodology, mostly in the papers carrying others’ polls which go on some form of using recall of last election voting. Our voting recall figures, in the tables on the web site for the Monitor, this month, not up yet, will show that the 2005 recall, based on the 65% who said they voted and leaving out the 2% too young, 27% who admit not voting, 2% who admit they can’t remember, and the 3% who refused to say, was 28% Tory (it was 33%), 49% for Labour (36%), and 15% for LibDems (23%) and 8% other (8%).
Years ago, working with Kellner on the Sunday Times, we published poll data with the headline that ‘half the peole who voted Liberal forgot’ or words to that effect. We always find that the Liberals (or whatever)do worse in recall and the winning party does better. Weighting for that means they do better than they did, and the winning party in recall does worse. When it became all the rage to do this after the 1992 election, we tested every eve of poll survey we’d done since 1970, and weighted them for past vote recall, and every, every, one was a worse ‘forecast’ than the poll we published.
Bob
I think we are on the right track now.
14 - erm these answers don’t compute to the questions listed - which questions is Bob answering here?
re 18. Bob started replying on yesterday’s thread and has only just come over to this one.
18 Those were general comments not answers to questions .
12 As I said Bob…. in your own time.
21. Peter from Putney. You are going to be put in the sin bin!
How large do you expect any regional variations to be? Could the story be of two (or more) Britains?
Ok Ok
Another of ‘Bob’s rules’
6. Polls don’t forecast, but sometimes pollsters do, as do I.
I forecast on page 321 of our last book, Explaining Labour’s Landslip, published in September 2005 that the next election would be on 4 June 2009. Ten days ago I was 90% certain that he wouldn’t go now, 5 days ago 75%, 3 days ago 60%, Friday it was in a speech I gave in London 51%/49%, and now it is 40%/60%, so I think the election will be the first week in November, which relly burns me. Not because of my forecast, but because the general election in Trinidad was called last Friday for November 5th, and I do the private polling for the Prime Minister, and so starting next weekend I’ve got to be commuting to Trinidad (tough I know, but somebody’s got to do it!).
So that’s my best guess about the date, but to go on, I don’t rate 2008, and still think if not November this year, 4 June 2009 to coincide with the the Eorpparliament election, which is fixed then, and the local election postponed a month to also coincide. At 62% turnout, Labour has a 7 point lead in our poll for the Observer which I hope you’ve all seen and read carefully, as there is much much more in it than just the two headline figures the bradcast media have picked out, voting intention and best in a crisis. At 74% however, a 14% lead.
But let me show you how finely your are mincing the lead figures.
Our 7% lead projects in our model, sightly different that others, to a Labour lead of 116, Populus’s 10% lead 128, YouGov’s DT 11% at 134, and our 14% lead on a 74% turnout (around the average of elections between 1945 and 1992)148.
My best guess for a snap, November, election is a turnout around 58%_60%, and a Labour majority about where it is now, maybe slightly higher, as the LibDems come up a bit, and Labour goes down, with the Tories at or under 35%.
I could be wrong.
As to my Labour leanings, they’re a myth, projected first by David Steel, who paid the lawyers cheerfully, and we’re still friends and nobody knows how I would vote if I did vote, and I’ve pledged now that I’m a British subject never to vote so long as I’m in this business. As to calling them Liberal, I’ve polled through the Liberals, the SDP, the Alliance and now the Leberal Democrats, all the names they used throughout the 1945 - 1992 period I was talking about them. What woudl you have called them readingliberal?
Bob
Hi Bob. You website seems to take ages (sometimes weeks) to update with your latest voting polls. Am I looking in the wrong place, if not would it be possible to change this. I am particularly interested in the contrast between certain to vote and all naming a party figures you see, as i tend to think mid term the true picture is somewhere between the 2.
Very good morning to you Bob.
I have not yet started to knock back the gin and tonics.
Is it possible that the conservatives could take the lead in a leading opinion poll this week after their conference?
Can you recall any such turnaround taking place in recent memory?
Bob, thanks for emphasising the turnout issue.
Mark Senior
Good question: the more sample size the better, which is why Ipsos MORI still polls c. 2,000, and the PBC rules say you don’t publish a voting intention on a poll of fewer that 1,000 people, recently broken by one of its members. It also is our view that there are difficulties on every methodology, face to face, telephone and internet as we use all three; the Monitor is f2f, the Observer pol a ‘quickie’ following the Labour conference, and the SMS poll of SMEs being released tomorrow sponsored by Orange is Internet. Horses for courses.
The idea that there should be a common methodology would be excellent, if there was one we could agree on. We can’t.
Nor can economic analysts. Quite right too. It’s a free country, take your pick.
Herbert
No. Not their conference alone.
Should Gordon this week steal the Tory thunder by bringing back Peter into the Cabinet, from tax free Brussels, then I’d say yes.
Bob
Bob
I remember looking at the poll compilation MORI published on the occasion of Blair’s departure, the graphs that struck me were the ones on the level of satisfaction / disatisfaction with leaders of the opposition, the graphs for Hague, IDS & Howard were almost identical, with Cameron’s beginning to look that way too ( he was ahead in the polls at the time ). The graph for Blair prior to 1997 was very different basically positive all the time. I presume it is true that Cameron’s figures have continued on a downward trend and that his graph resembles his predessors’ even more.
How are the polls looking in Trinidad & Tobago? The opposition has split there. They should really have PR as the parties are broadly on ethnic lines.
But closer to home, why does Bob think Lib Dems will do better than 2005, and in seats as well as votes? Labour may be calculating regaining seats like Withington, Bristol West, even if they lose say in north Kent to the Tories.
29 - Bob, Thanks for that. Whilst agreeing there will not be a common methodology, what is the reason for regional weighting being different? Whilst obviously nowhere near perfect - “amateur” modelling of the election would be a lot easier if we could amalgamate the polls to get reasonable regional samples.
Also you mentioned your “model” above - do all the polling companies have these and how do you differ. Or do you keep that a secret?
Another general answer about the LibDems. On uniform swing, our poll in the Observer showed a 25 seat drop, from 62 to 37, and I think that they’ll do better.
However, that said, although I’ve both written about it and broadcast many times, their 32 increased number of seats between 2001 and 2005 was largely at the expense of Labour, caused by ‘old Labour’/anti-war/anti-Blair Labour supporters to protest by voting Liberal Democrat which split the in Labour seats sufficiently to let the Tories win in 21 of the 32 seats. With GB PM and war (by 2009 remember) diminished even further in voters’ minds, they’ll go back to Labour to Labour’s advantage, at present levels about 15 of the 21, at the 74% turnout level close to 20.
Bob
Bob, I’ve never really been convinced by polls, the fact that pollsters have to correct their findings due to misremembering by people who say they voted Labout but didn’t, makes polls highly suspicious.
If people can misremember who they voted for, there’s no guarantee that they can give a straight answer as to whom they are going to vote for!
Welcome, Sir Bob.
My question: do you think there ought nowadays to be regional polls (I know you have to find clients to commission them) or are we still being realistic to work on national shares?
Alex, We belive in transparency; I’ll get my colleague and co-author Dr. Roger Mortimore to post our precise weighting model onto the Ipsos-MORI web site.
Can’t answer for the others, and wouldn’t try.
Bob
What is your view of internet polls live Yougov?
24. Bob. What has caused your views on the likelihood of a snap election to alter so dramatically over the last few days? Presumably the sustained poll leads for Labour?
Innocent
There used to be regional polls; the best contribution to our understanding of electorate behaviour was the efforts by the much missed Granada Television, who commissioned us in one GE to do completely separate polls in nine of their region’s marginal constitutiencies to give local voters the information to help them decide, systematically and objectively, how to best cast their vote to get the outcome they wanted.
Sadly, regional TV is not what it was in terms of meeting any public service mandate, and the BBC is cutting it’s news and current affairs budgets. Local TV and radio can’t afford polls, and the newspapers aren’t interested in regional analysis, except in Scotland and Wales (bless them).
Bob
Bob
Bob. Why do polls usually understate Tory share despite weighting?
Stjohn
well, as Mike White was saying yesterday on talking politics, when conditions change, you change your mind. I think the whole thing is a media frenzy. The public didn’t want an election now, hadn’t even thought about it, until 10 days ago, it didn’t suit either party, the Tories for all their current bluster (they would say ‘you bet’, wouldn’t they) and for the fact that they’ve been blindsided, not by Labour but by themselves insisting on all the commission stuff, the LibDems for their standing in the polls, and GB for his native caution and cunning, and not wanting to risk, as my client Harold Wilson did in 1970, as I’m quoted on in today’s Observer. Read it if you’re interesting in ancient history, but, as they say “I was there”. I was also ‘there’ in 1978, and have discussed it before and after with Jim Callahan, and would if asked have the same view now as then, don’t go, for by as he put it to me about five years ago at a Ditchley weekend, he had eight more months in office to try to get the unions to see sense. He failed, but he tried.
Test
A myth.
Bob
[40] Many thanks - I suspected that was pretty much the case.
Not in fact a myth, if you look at last predictions before 2005, is it?
No polls taken on polling day, Test.
marcia (not Williams?)
We do about 25%-30% of our surveys on line, where we think that is the best methodology, as we do SMS polls such as the one for orange among SMEs, but we are still of the view that while black box weighting can with lots of experience get a national election right (although YouGov and Harris International both thought at the last American election that Gore would win by 53%, he’s not President), they still in my esteemed colleague Ben Page’s words find that everyone over 65 has a goldfish. He’s kidding of course.
But when three people out of four 65+ are not on the internet, and about a quarter of people under 25 aren’t on the internet either, I question whether the Internet properly represent those voters. Especially the old folks, for they have c. four times the voting power of the young, because there are twice as many other them, and they are twice as likely to vote, at least that was the pattern in the 2005 general election.
Speaking of which, our ‘Anatomy of the Election: 2005′ showing turnout and vote share by demographics and readership should be up on our web site, and it it’s not, I’ll get it posted.
Bob
How convenient! It’s a “myth” yet absolutely consistent in final polls before all sorts of elections, general and local.
Test/Alex
10% of voters say, election after election, they made their mind up to vote or not/who they’d vote for in the final 24 hours of the election.
Bob
Test/Alex
And our exit poll, done with NOP, for BBC/ITV projected 66 seat majority; it was, on the day.
Do you know of anyone anywhere who has tried to run a political ‘panel’ in the way TNS run superpanel. ie give a constant updating view on political shifts from a constant set of representative people?
At the moment Labour is benefiting from Iraq becoming less of an issue with Blair’s departure and the reduction of the number of our troops and the number casualties in Iraq. Isn’t it possible as that as the anti-war movement switches attention to whats going on in Afghanistan (where our tropp levels are going up and we are involved in heavy fighting), anti-war feeling could remerge as a significant issue for Labour particularly in seats with large muslim populations?
Bob, slightly away from the mechanics of polling, there always some debate about the extent to which polling can actually influence public opinion. This is particularly relevant in the run up to an election, where some countries forbid polling in the week before. Outside of your professional position do you have any thoughts on whether there should be restrictions on polling?
jgc: you should see the satisfaction chart now! Cameron dropped through the floor; it’ll be up tomorrow on the website.
trad, thanks for asking; the PNM should walk it, even with some ruckus within their party, as the UNC and COP split because of the hanging on by his fingernails by Panday, the former PM.
Bob
47 - thanks -no not Williams - and wrong parties.
Bob, will the Cameron change of tack have an immediate effect on the polls, do you think? How much does the dominant media narrative shape the polls, on the basis of history? If the momentum is about “Tory splits” will that be the determinant rather than the message from DC?
And what about Scotland? Lots of talk (admittedly from SNP/Con supporters) suggesting GB might be “frit” because of loss of seats. But others tell me that Lab would only lose two or three seats even if big swing to SNP because of ingrained majorities?
Bob, I’m sure you think you are paid to provide a very useful service, but surely you must agree that publicity surrounding opinion polls do not help to focus any attention on what really needs to be done to deal with the major problems facing Britain. What has an opinion poll ever done to tackle yob rule and street violence for example? What opinion poll has ever helped the problems of disafected disenfranchised young people who have left school unqualified and feeling they have failed and more likely to turn to crime and drugs. You may say that is not the role of a pollster, but opinion polls are a diversion from REAL politics.
Don’t you agree that you only add to the superficiality of politics in Britain. Isn’t it time we stopped talking about which leader is winning or losing and that we encouraged the media to talk about real issues and how Britain can get out of the mess it is in?
Bob
Great to have you here. I would be interested to know how often you check out this site, and have you come across anyone making reference to pbCOM in your political/polling world?
Many thanks
Thanks Alex
As economic man (which I’m not), I’d be in favour of banning publication of polls for months, so we could as the French pollsters used to, sweep up all the money from the banker and money men, foreign newspapers (the Sunday Times had us poll the French on their Maastrich referendum and published it on polling day, but not in their French edition, and the BBC carried it the night before) and others.
As political man however, I think the idea is repugnent and anti-democratic, and is a violation of free speech, so in the USA the Supreme Court would throw it out (as has Canada and The Phillipines) if Congress ever passed it, as a violation of First Amendment rights.
Of course I’m glad that people, as everyone who’s taken part in this marathon, uses polls to inform them. After all, it is the only systematic and objective information they get, expecially during elections. The papers are certainly biased, most of them anyway, just look at the front pages of the Sunday Times and Telegraph today. And if you believe politicians…
Signing off on that note.
Thanks for your good questions.
I’ll review the list, and if I’ve missed any that I think deserve an answer, I’ll get back to you on Mike’s main list. And thanks to you for your hard work and good work Mike.
Cheers
Bob
Bob - many many thanks on behalf of everybody here for taking part this morning. This has been great and I’m sure that we have all learned a lot.
I hope that you might be able to do this again.
Mike
Many thanks for answering questions Bob.
So you think there is no chance of a major turn around by the Conservatives unless the dark one comes back from Brussels? My Peter is popular
Thank you very much Sir Bob.
Right. Back to uninformed opinionating…
I have been catching up on my reading, and have only just realized that Sir Derek Wanless, who advised Gordon Brown five years ago how to spend all that extra money on the NHS (our money, may I remind you) and who recently (in a King’s Fund report) told us that most of it has been wasted, is also, in his spare time a non-executive director of the Northern Rock bank.
Northern Rock is a salutory reminder that much of NuLabour’s reputation for financial prudence is a fig leaf; indeed the party itself is hardly an example of financial prudence. Perhaps we should start calling it NuLabourLite.
Comments please
Many thanks to Bob Worcester for the discussion and to Mike Smithson for arranging it.
If we do have an autumn election it would be very interesting to have a return session afterwards to discuss how the polling went.
59- damn and blast- just missed him.
Did anyone catch William Hague’s speech just now? He obviously tipped off the TV cameras to focus directly on Michael Ancram, just before reeling off a passage about delivering frank advice in private and in confidence and not for personal indulgence. He’s going to be FUMING!
62 “My, Peter is popular”
Benedict - how kind of you to say so, thank you.
I really thought that was great in spite of the slight problems at the start. I loved Bob’s punchy and assured answers. I’m also impressed by the speecd of his tyoping - not bad for someone who was born in 1933.
Based on this I’m going to approach Nick Sparrow of ICM, Andrew Cooper of Populus, Peter Kellner of YouGov and Andrew Hawkins of ComRes. This could be a great regular feature here.
70. Really enjoyable and informative. Thanks Bob and Mike.
Mike - I thought this worked well, although brevity in Q & A’s might improve the flow.
Assuming 2007 GE campaign actually proceeds, it would be interesting to get one or two non-aligned political commentators online. Now let’s see who could we have from the Beeb…. er, um, er?
Thanks again Mike - and Sir Bob. It would be great if the other pollsters can take part as well over the coming weeks, assuming GB makes the big call. Listening to Charlie Whelan on 5Live, he thinks it’s on
69 He meant Peter the Punter
Thanks to Mike for organising this (and Bob for agreeing to do it), it was a great read.
Tories continue to drift on Betfair as largest party. Last price matched 3.65.
Bob mentioned the Sundays Times and Tel above - certainly their front pages couldn’t be mistaken for anything other than full on pro-Tory election issues this morning!
Is there any law stopping Gordon asking for a poll on Saturday November 3rd?
In summary Bob would advise GB against going now, rates a snap election at 1.6 on Betfair and thinks Labour would get 355 seats+ on a 59% turnout.
79 Did he advise against now? 355 seats wouldn’t seem to indicate that
65 this is old news, but seeing as you seem keen to know, wanless actually sits on NR’s Risk Comittee. no, you couldn’t make it up… but check dale’s & guido’s posts for more.
80 - he said that an election doesn’t suit any party, mentioned 1970 and said he stands by his advice in 1978.
79 Yep, a neat summmary stjohn. I was surprised he described Test’s assertion that pollsters consistently understate the Tories’ share of the vote as a “myth” - I thought this was established fact. I see this as the only factor that could now deter Brown - were Labour’s poll lead to slip to 4%-5%, coupled with the aforementioned “myth” might just make him think again - but I think we’re GE bound.
82 The FT did that as well mentioning 1970 and 1979. They also claimed spuriously that had GB got in in 1979, this would have made him a stronger contender than Blair in 1994. Nonsense of course, but they said he was beaten by Michael Ancram in Edinburgh South. Is that verifiable. I thought the first time GB stood was when he got in in 1983
83 - I think the case he makes is that a poll is only relevant to the time when it is taken. If pre-election polls show a lower share for the Tories than occurs in the election then it is because people have changed/made up their mind since the poll was taken.
84 - wikipedia says he was elected at his second attempt
85 Alex - But hasn’t his happened time and time again, even in relation to those polls recording voting intentions on actual election days? I know Mike has often referred to this aspect.
85 The interesting statistic was 10% make up their minds on / about the day they vote. So the floating voter doesn’t decide until he/she has to. Cameron has to get them to decide “give him a chance” while Gordon must go for “it’s safer not to change”. It’s all to play for.
Why does Guido think his missive from Rennard odd? Can’t work it out
O/T But there are any odds on the next wales Rugby Coach yet. I think a fiver on Scot Johnson may represent a good punt
82 see number10.gov.uk/output/page12037.asp
90?
Sorry for the length but lacking a blog (I’ll get around to it sometime) I wanted to put down a few thoughts.
Listening to the radio this morning (and totally forgetting about this morning’s Q&A - whoops) I was suddenly struck by the absolute impossibility of an election now but also by the absolute inevitability of it. There are too many factors which would turn the result of it as a stick with which to beat any putative winner, whilst there are also too many factors to stop the monster that has been set loose.
Bear with me.
When Brown took over he had the one chance to call a non-opportunist election but he didn’t expect that he could and, like a ship on the ocean, his turning circle was far too large when he found out that he actually could. This meant that he had to keep things bubbling through the summer and, luckily for him, the appearance of various crises only helped him to do that without actually giving any ideas as to his policies, policies would make him a hostage to fortune and which would divide his support. Even then he has waited and waited for things to go wrong, waiting for the conferences, waiting for the reaction to conferences etc. These are not the actions of a man who has conviction and not the actions of one who seeks a moral mandate.
As such, Brown knows that, whatever the result, he will be tainted with the stain of ‘opportunist’. If the result is good for him then he will be forever compared to now, when he was unread and unexamined by most. If it is worse than 2007 he will be tainted with the label of the man who gave away his majority, with all the attendant problems that would give rise to. For the vast majority an election now will be seen as pointless and irrelevant at best, a con trick at worst.
Back to the lack of understanding of Brownism from the general public.
People think of Brown as one thing, prudent. That’s it, everything else is a projection of hopes and wishes, the conference, however, started to rip that apart and, given the results and the presses reaction, it will be only a few months before the reality trickles through into the public consciousness. The left still think he’s one of them, the right, who he has courted so assiduously, believe he has gone over to them.
So whilst Brown may be forever known as an opportunist, a shadow on his reputation of being the opposite as chancellor, he knows that he has to be because the other possibility is being known as the scrag end leader of an administration that collapsed under its own internal contradictions.
Further factors against, however -
The electoral register and timing of a November election will be seen as disenfranchising many voters. Anyone elected under this cloud will be seen as lacking some legitimacy.
The chances are that turnout will fall; this government already has barely 20% of electoral support and, for many, it already lacks any legitimacy. If that were to fall we would have a government which sinks even lower into the sphere of illegitimacy.
An electorate unimpressed by another vote and with such a high rate of non-support for the government may well reach for more extremist politics.
Further factors for –
The Tories had imagined, rightly, that they had four to five years to get their act together. An election against them now is like kicking a dog.
The Lib Dems have only just started to attack Brown, having (possibly) believed that they also had four or five years and decided to wait until he became PM before formulating a response.
Factors that confuse the situation –
EU referendum, the opportunist would create some sort of time wasting process to go ahead with an election, the moralist will simply say ‘no referendum’.
Money, candidates, organisation. It’s one man’s decision but all of those have to be perfectly in place to proceed.
In summary -
Brown supposedly has a ‘moral compass’. This is inevitably telling him that an election now is just plain wrong. It is not needed, it lacks a moral purpose.
If Brown goes for an election, therefore, he will show that his ‘moral compass’ line is a downright lie, that he is an opportunist and that he is prepared to win dirty if that’s what is needed.
Over to you Gordon.
Slightly different and O/T
A couple of further proofs as to how the government is illiberal and why all left liberals should desert –
Again on the radio – parents being fined for the activities of their children. Children are not chattels of adults, they are separate people and should be given the rights (and responsibilities) commensurate with that humanity. You have a law which fines parents for children truanting and you give them a stick with which to further beat their (often at the end of their tether) parents. You also take money away from many of the poorest in society who struggle to feed their families as it is.
Secondly – phone taps for the whole population. Do I really need to say any more?
The sad thing is that nearly 80% of people in a poll supported the former.
If you frighten the people then the people will respond in a frightened manner. Thankfully some of us still refuse to be frightened.
I recommend those who can to see the play ‘Rhinoceros’ now on in a revival at the Royal Court. It tells of a people who take the easy route conform to whatever others do (in this case turning into rhinos – you have to see it…..).
When told that your lives would be easier, if only you could see what others see, it takes the bravest to take the more difficult route and, when needed, to stand alone.
Bob - why not 25th Oct? That was the hot favourite but has faded. Also how about Saturday 27th Oct? Just before clocks go back, no legal reason why he can’t just do it and, if so, what odds can I have please Mike for a flutter?!
Bollox. Missed the boat! lol.
Punter (89). I don’t know what Guido is on about. This was a widely circulated e-mail from Chris Rennard - so widely, that it even reached me.
It seems very sensible to me to send out an encouraging message to supporters on the probable eve of a general election.
I didn’t know that Guido was a Lib Dem supporter though. When did he see the light?
May I endorse my fellow PBers thanks to Bob and Mike for this splendid innovation on the site. Congratulations.
92: Sorry, but I can’t help feeling that views like this are coloured by the expectation that Labour might win.
I think ukpaul would be hard-pressed to find any politician who doesn’t want to time elections when the conditions are favourable -that’s not opportunism, it’s just common sense. If you’re fairly new to the job you can also reasonably say you’ve got some proposals for which you’d like a mandate, such as an elected Lords, which has no chance without a Salsibury Convention mandate.
We don’t know what the outcome will be, but if there’s a November election and the Tories win I certainly won’t claim that it’s unrepresentative because the electoral register hasn’t changed yet - we do rolling updates anyway. But essentially ukpaul is arguing for fixed terms, so that the Government of the day can’t take advantage of favourable circs. Fair enough, but that’s not the current system, and it’s silly to suggest that it’s immoral to work to the current rules.
More to the point, what evidence is there that people are objecting in droves to an election? Polls show a roughly equal division, but I’ve yet to hear from a single constituent who is bothered either way. Normal non-political people see elections like visiting fairgrounds - they just get on with life and now and then an election comes along and they decide on the day whether to take part.
96 I believe Guido joined the LibDems so that he would have a vote in the leadership election but I would be surprised if he had renewed it this year .
Enjoyed reading through today’s discussion, many thanks to Bob Worcester for taking part and Mike for arranging it.
Nick “More to the point, what evidence is there that people are objecting in droves to an election? ”
That dear fellow will be seen in the turnout.
——————————
O/T some stunning statements by the head chap of elections.
CE of AEA said on BBC right now
Postal votes = problems continue because the system changed and Scottish law unchanged. Software for checking systems still has problems and also printing problems.
New register cannot be used. Forms still being processed as date is 1st December.
Boundary problems? New boundaries returning officers not designated, software not ready.
Q: What advice to Brown
A: “keep his hand away from the phone” “No one can guarantee it will be less than trouble free”
98 - You’re right Nick, I’ve long argued for fixed terms and I was as opposed to an election in 1983 as I am this year. It’s like playing with loaded dice as far as I’m concerned.
On the subject of results of course what I write is coloured by the seeming inevitability of a labour win! In the current situation I’m hardly going to waste my time writing about the tories winning am I?
As for desire for an election, I see apathy as being more dangerous to the political process than principled objection. A government that works with low turnouts and core votes is playing a dangerous game.
101 - Thanks HF, I knew there was another moral problem with an election at this point in time but forgot to mention the postal vote and other systems that have come in for so much opposition.
Still think GB will bottle it.
Thanks Mike and Bob, some interesting points and I hope Bob is able to do a “sweep up” of the points not responded to in the next few days.
I also see this as Brown’s get out - ‘no election because it would be morally wrong’. He goes up in people’s estimations and (apart from a bit of stick about not coming out with it earlier) looks statesmanlike. He could also then address the problems as outlined before there actually is an election.
92.”The electoral register and timing of a November election will be seen as disenfranchising many voters. Anyone elected under this cloud will be seen as lacking some legitimacy.”
After what happened in May in Scotland I have a wee bit of a bee in my bonnet about this. Postal voting etc has to be implemented properly and fairly. We had a system previously which was if not perfect, was as near damn it! I cannot believe that in the last 10 years we have allowed our voting system to fall into such disrepute because even the simplest checks and balances cannot be implemented properly.
ukpaul, there is a good article in the Scotsman on Sunday about this issue, can’t post a link just now because the site is down, it is well worth reading.
This has been one of the most interesting threads in ages. Congrats to Mike for coming up with this idea.
Am fascinated by the point made in post 16 - that some 49% claim they voted Labour, when only 36% did.
I wonder why this happens. Did they vote tactically for the Lib Dems but in their hearts felt that they were voting to ensure a Labour victory? Did they vote LibDem and let a Tory in, and in embarassment excised the memory from their minds? Did they intend to vote Labour but got held up at the office and didn’t have time to actually cast a vote? Or is it that in face-to-face interviews being Labour is still more socially acceptable than being LibDem or Tory?
The Conservative conference has got off to a great start with positive TV coverage of Cameron and an excellent, “barnstorming” speech from Hague, with his attacks on Brown’s mendacity atracting much media interest.
I can feel the polls turning around already!
107 Snowflake5 “I wonder why this happens. Did they vote tactically for the Lib Dems but in their hearts felt that they were voting to ensure a Labour victory? Did they vote LibDem and let a Tory in, and in embarassment excised the memory from their minds? Did they intend to vote Labour but got held up at the office and didn’t have time to actually cast a vote? Or is it that in face-to-face interviews being Labour is still more socially acceptable than being LibDem or Tory?”
No it is most likely they are afraid people like you would scream class traitor at them, or accuse them of being a racist or something equally unpleasant.
Re 69, Peter from Putney, “62 “My, Peter is popular”
Benedict - how kind of you to say so, thank you. ”
And 74, Ted, “69 He meant Peter the Punter :-)”
Actually I was referring to the dark one, Mandelson,
(But I am sure you both knew that!)
Polling report now has a link to today’s Ipsos Mori Poll actual figures.
A couple of interesting observations.
The Labour spin that if an early election was called their majority would increase is refuted. According to Ipsos it would be reduced slightly.
Furthermore, whilst the large majority expect Labour to win the election only 23% people expect Labour to win with a large majority.
More food for thought for Mr Brown……..
84,86
see
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge79/i08.htm
Re. when Brown got into Parliament, he was accused of ‘bottling’ a chance to get elected during the last Labour government, when he declined to put his name forward for the (1978) Hamilton by-election. Apparently he was afraid of being seen to let down Edinburgh South CLP, after having already been selected as the candidate there.
111. jsfl, what do you imagine what the expectation of the size of Labour’s majority prior to the 1997 election would have been? I suspect *very* few members of the public - by then steeped in Labour losses, would have expected more than 400 Labour MPs and substantially less than 200 Tories.
My point is: opinion polling on questions like this is largely meaningless: 95% of the public have no detailed knowledge of how the electoral system works and how relatively small changes in vote shares (and in relatively few seats) can lead to very dramatic differences in representation at Westminster.
Also, non-Labour supporters, while it’s reasonable to credit them with some objectivity on the overall political climate are instinctively going to wish against a large majority for any party they don’t support, which has to cloud their response.
Re ‘moral compass’ for not going and winning now. It won’t count for anything. Few days after GB is returned, new cabinet, new initiatives, excitement and drive for Labour, LD’s looking for new leader, probably tories too. All this talk of being tainted as an opportunist will be totally forgotten, IMHO!
116 - It won’t be forgotten because we’re here to make sure of that.
UKPaul,
Very interesting post - the other factor that needs to be considered is that even a reduced majority could work in Brown’s favour.
1)If the Tories fail to force a hung Parliament, they will not be so stupid as to jettison Cameron, but he will be weakened and tarnished by defeat. Ming Campbell will be as good as finished. If the Lib Dems choose to go with Nick Clegg (Orange-wing, talented, good leadership material) over Chris Huhne (words fail me - he stabbed Charles Kennedy in the back having only defected from Labour a few years ago), then the challenge of being the new,