Two thirds of Tories want a November election
October 6th, 2007
-
Can Gord call it off without being damaged?
There can be absolutely no doubt that if it had not been for the post-Blackpool polls this weekend would effectively have been the first phase of the general election campaign. So much was in place, a series of key announcements has been careful choreographed and a date with Gord had been pencilled into the Queen’s diary.
The big question is how can Brown now pull back from that position without suffering too much damage - a predicament made harder by the “bring it on” calls from leading Tories.
The Guardian’s main editorial sets out the problem succinctly - “Either he calls a contest next week, with the risk that the outcome may prove calamitous, or he must make it clear, quickly and in person, that there will be no election this year - and perhaps next - and take the consequences on the chin..How bad those consequences will be no one can tell. But they cannot be as awful as emerging from a premature battle in the November dark with a diminished majority and diminished authority. He would become a tail-end leader taunted by a strengthened opposition after an election that need not have taken place.”
We are told that everything now depends on the detail of polls due tomorrow on how things are standing in 150 marginal seats. There are also likely to be other indicators tomorrow including a new ICM poll. I would expect to see a survey amongst members of the YouGov panel as well.
Meanwhile further details of yesterday’s ICM poll are published in the Guardian and this shows that those interviewed now want an early election by 48% to 43%. But the party breakdown is very different. Tory supporters were in favour by 67% to 29% while amongst Labour supporters the split was 35% YES to 58% NO.
The great challenge for Brown is that the momentum is with Cameron-Osborne and you don’t want to start an election campaign on the back foot.
In the betting there’s been a sharp move from Labour on the Commons seat spread markets. Last night’s closing price from IGIndex was LAB 320 - 326 seats: CON 242-248: LD 46-49.. Last Sunday the Labour spread was 332-338 seats. The weight of money is moving against Brown. Gord needs 325 MPs to be certain of a majority.
0800 Update - SkyNews Just to report that a big SkyNews satellite truck has just arrived outside my house for the item on polling and betting on the general election that I reported last night. I think it is to go out live from about 8.40am.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Personally I’d be quite happy as a Tory for an election, even if we don’t win, since it’s quite easy to say that we’re just 2 years into the Cameron project. I’d be amazed if we don’t win 50+ seats and that’d put us in a far strong position next time around to finish the job and secure our own healthy majority.
For Cameron/Tories: Worst case - stay in opposition for 2 extra years, but almost certainly have a better Parliament than before; best case deny Labour a working majority or even potentially swing all the way to a slim victory.
For Brown/Labour: Best case - win an extra 2 years; risky case: Unworkable government(like 1992-1997); worst case: Its all over.
The risk:reward ratio is far better for the Tories IMO.
Bring. It. On!
Would any Conservative voter, if polled in the next few days, be at all tempted to say “Labour” so to artificially boost Labour’s polling figures and lull Brown into a false sense of security?
Just a passing thought at 3am…
Off to bed now.
2 LOL.
Personally: No, never. The danger in doing that is that an artificial boost to Labour could give undeserved momentum to them. I’d far rather more momentum for us in improving our own poll results than to try and trick Brown.
I do enjoy the bravado shown by Cameron, as said, Brown has an awful lot to lose, but so little to gain. A united Tory party is a fascinating thing to watch.
I saw michael heseltine and ken clark, both interviewed at length, and both, unlike in the past, supporting the leadership. On the issue of Europe, Clark was excellent, he dismissed the interviewers question regarding his disagreement about the need for a referendum, and turned it around to attack the Government, for having promised one, to now not have one is shameful.
It has become a rarity for these big beasts to ‘take on for the team’. You could see the frustration on the reporters face, not getting the ‘tory splits’ headline they hoped for…….
I think Gordon has been testing the water, that’s all… What if? Could I? Let’s test the water….
If he calls it off, [postal strike, foot & mouth, terror alert, change-of-underpants…. take-your-pick?], by the New Year his dissembling will have been forgotten….
Then on to Plan B. How to win in 2010?
Of course!!
AV……
“Gord needs 325 MPs to be certain of a majority.” Not quite…
With likely 5 Shinner abstainers, this reduces the nominal winning post to 323…
If Gorbals Mick remains as Speaker, this drops to 322..
Factoring in the Deputy Speakers brings down the winning-post to 321….
Ah, but the SDLP take the Whip, and they might supply two MPs…
So the “native” Labour MPs required for a majority could be as low as 319…
But if Dai Davies holds BG and decides to take the Labour whip it could go to 318…
And..And..And
Bottom line is. Anyone betting on a “hung parliament” had better get something signed in blood by the bookie as to what their definition of a HP really is!!
And then run it past us here….
I have a question for Mike or Peter The Punter or any betting man.I am betting simultaneously in two markets(three actually) but only two are of concern here.
My question is, which of these two outcomes is more likely and how much more likely ?
1.Gordon Brown calls for a 2007 election and DOESN’T win an Overall Majority, or……..
2.GB doesn’t call for a 2007 election but eventually DOES win an Overall Majority.
7
(2). avec ou sans AV?
If sans, I’d say they’re both about equal, say 4/1 shots…
Tough call
Thanks for your reply,Rod Crosby.
I was thinking along these lines.Say I backed a LAB OVERALL MAJORITY at EVENS for £100 and laid a 2007 election at EVENS for £100,what would be my expectancy ?Conversely,if I were to reverse the process and back a 2007 election at EVENS and lay a LAB OM,what would be my expectancy then ?
Mike wrote: ‘But they cannot be as awful as emerging from a premature battle in the November dark with a diminished majority and diminished authority. He would become a tail-end leader taunted by a strengthened opposition after an election that need not have taken place.’
Mike another good post bar this one paragraph. Let’s not get too hyperbolic here. If Brown emerges with a majority of 25+ i.e. a working majority for a full 5 year term no-one in Labour will give two hoots about whether it’s less than it was. All that matters is winning comfortably enough to govern. Forget the rest of the hype.
Interesting that since the conference everyone seems to be assuming that the Tories are now so united and supportive of Cameron that Brown’s original plan of defeating him badly enough to cause civil war is now doomed, even if he wins the election.
But there has to be _some_ point at which they’d turn on him. Failing to advance? Losing seats? Losing more than 10 seats? Losing 50?
10 - A Labour majority of say 25 would rely strongly on the support of the serial rebel “usual suspects” within the PLP.
And just as seriously it will make Brown rely even more on the support of Scottish MPs in order to ram through laws onto England, strengthening the concerns over the WLQ.
10. Sorry - just realised that para is from the Guardian not Mike!
The Reverend Doctor @ 10 re a reduced majority — ah, but they will care. All the Blairite ultras will care for a start. And, as Philip Thompson notes @ 12, so will any potential rebels (though I should think this a good thing: we saw under Blair where executive fiat lands us) and there is the risk of reigniting the West Lothian Question (which is dangerous even if the status quo is untenable).
More subtly, even if the majority is increased, ministers will begin to manouvre for the succession.
As a Tory, I’m happy for an election now. Given the surge of goodwill towards Dave, it’d take an increase or broad retention of Labour’s majority to put his position under threat; anything else would be positive progress, and a significant setback for Brown.
I purely selfishly would rather fight in the light and warm, BUT, an election now would suit our party hugely. Lots of new hungry MPs, hung parlt, Brown fatally weakened. Just watch those midlands marginals fall
15: So a “broad retention” would be trouble for Dave? Brown could lose a few seats and Cameron might still go down?
Dave is a danger - given another 18 months (doesn’t sound long does it) and the Tories might hold things together for long enough to make the voters think that they should be given a go. Things, house prices especially, may by then have tarnished Gordon’s reputation.
The Tories are unlikely to stay united for 4 years - Go now Gordon.
On the last thread Eastern Eye asks for a preview button. I used to think that a preview and edit facility would improve this wonderful site - but I think our appalling spelling and worse errors are part of the sight’s charm!
“the total number of page downloads … yesterday … broke though the 100,000 mark for the first time ever.”/I>
Perhaps that might have been helped by the fact that in the last few days there have been about 8537 threads per day instead of 1 or 2
10 - Rev’d Dr - “If Brown emerges with a majority of 25+ i.e. a working majority for a full 5 year term no-one in Labour will give two hoots about whether it’s less than it was.”
Tell that to John Major. A majority of 25-30 is not necessarily a working majority for a full parliament. Death still stalks the ranks, and a small majority emboldens the rebel elements from both left and right of the party. It also strengthens the Conservatives’ ranks and position as a stronger opposition, and entrenches Dave and the modernising project.
The “own mandate” line is guff. Tactically and strategically Brown should only call an election if he is certain that he will:
a) come out of it in a stronger position than he is now (looks doubtful on the polling figures and boundary changes, especially given Labour’s underperformance of their poll rating right back to 1987)
b) he has sown up a deal with Ming for a larger majority after the election and a deal on PR for the election after next - unlikely. It destroys his “own mandate”, and I’m not sure that a number of LDs would support coalition in the dog days of a Brown government, even if the prize is PR.
As a Conservative activist, I say Bring It On - we can only benefit.
My guess is that Brown knows he will not be in a stronger position after a snap election, and is looking for a national crisis to get himself out of the mess he has created. Unfortunately they seem to be like buses, and a string of them has just disappeared round the corner.
Reminded by the Guardian that Stop the war are staging an illegal March on Parliament on Monday led by Tony Benn. It’s been banned under the 1839 Metropolitan Police Act rather than any of New Labour’s more recent restrictions on the right to demonstrate but still leaves the Police & Government in a quandary - do they arrest demonstrators and possibly instigate a riot or do they ignore the lawbreaking and hope no-one notices?
Not a good prologue to an election campaign.
Oh intercourse those orquard HTML things!
“the total number of page downloads … yesterday … broke though the 100,000 mark for the first time ever.”
Perhaps that might have been helped by the fact that in the last few days there have been about 8537 threads per day instead of 1 or 2
18 — more than a preview button, what it needs is for Mike to stop messing about with the numbering by deleting posts (often his own “test” one) and inserting moderated posts into the middle of a thread rather than at the end. It really does make things hard to follow at times.
1. “I’d be amazed if we don’t win 50+ seats and that’d put us in a far strong position next time”
That sort of misplaced confidence reminds me of the 1987 general election yesterday, when the BBC was confidently predicting a majority of 26 (medium) up to 86 (maximum possible). If there is a general election on 1st November (which there won’t be anyway), I wouldn’t be surprised by a Labour majority of 100 (although nor would I be surprised by a hung parliament).
23. Is that why response messages sometimes get the numbers slightly wrong in referring to the messages they are responding to? I was wondering whether I was getting senile or something.
That’s why (as I said a while ago) I have never liked the layout of this website, because it is much more difficult to quote previous messages compared with (e.g.) vote-2007.
23 - I don’t think Mike has an option to insert moderated posts at the end of the thread. Not sure that would be a good thing anyway. It’s not usually too difficult to work out what posts are referring to what.
Does anyone else thing that Afghanistan could be reaching a tipping point in public opinion soon?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3033321.ece
0800 Update - SkyNews Just to report that a big SkyNews satellite truck has just arrived outside my house for the item on polling and betting on the general election that I reported last night. I think it is to go out live from about 8.40am.
Re 23. I know that this is a problem and I’m sure that there is a technical solution. It’s been made harder by the new comment control system that was introduced last week. The first post from any contributor that the site does not recognise gets held up in moderation. Clearly I can’t check 24-7 and often things can get delayed.
If there is a general election then I am lining up a volunteer team to monitor this.
28 Well done Mike - your quest for global domination continues apace!
Can I be the first to welcome the flood of Sky News viewers to the site at about 0845…?
28.
I shall be glued to Sky News after my kipper breakfast.
Really it is only a matter of time before CNN news and Al Jazeera pitch up outside your house.
“Bring It On”.
What if the conservatives lead in this weekends polls?
Don’t ingore the SNP!
What a weekend in prospect
My nominations for the five biggest tactical political (ie not policy) mistakes made by a post-war government:
5. Macmillan’s 1962 reshuffle. Knifing six ministers revealed only his own weakness.
4. Callaghan 1978, waiting at the church.
3. SDP breakaway. Failed to create a new force in the centre and kept the Tories in power for another 16 years.
2. Wilson’s 1970 World Cup blow-out.
1. Heath 1974 - who govern? Not you.
But there is a space waiting right up there at number one for the PM who called an election with three parliamentary terms left and a comfortable majority - and lost it all. No wonder Gordon’s fingernails are on the shortish side.
31. Duh! Obviously some of those weren’t made by governments, but by the opposition parties. Edit and preview post point proved!
Anyway, it’s still the case that if Gordon gets it wrong, it will go down as one of the biggest clangers ever.
I have been trying to follow the quiz from about message 200 onwards in the “100,000 in a day” thread, but I can’t because the numbers have all been squaggled by a hippopotamus. Can someone tell me what answers go with what questions?
31-David
Very nice post- what do you think are the worst policy decisions ?
1. Blair/Iraq- by a country mile
2. Eden/ Suez
3. Thatcher/ Poll tax
4. Thatcher/ Railtrack privatisation
5. Mayor/ Cones hotline- for sheer bleeding silliness
Doubtless there are many other contenders
It is the battering and the personal examination that Brown will get in the media that he should fear.
No longer “strong” he will be seen as sly, fearful and a person who backs down from a challenge. Mathew Parris puts it across so well.
http://tinyurl.com/3bg8gb
“The sneers about his character will be harder to shift, but next week he could shift them. Unless he calls and wins the general election for which he has whetted our appetites, the Prime Minister’s standing will suffer the sort of chronic damage that arises when small doubts are sown in the public imagination and left to germinate as new instances of old vices are noticed: such has been the effect of his behaviour over the past few weeks.”
“Well, the EXIT sign is clear. It points away from an autumn election and straight through a stinking pit of slurry; after which, having run a gauntlet of sneering Tories wielding sharp sticks, Mr Brown will have to let the media throw wet sponges at him for a few weeks.”
“OK, Gordon, go on: bottle it if you want to”
Tyson @ 34 — surely railtrack was Major not Thatcher.
Am I alone in thinking the postal strike would have been resolved by now if we were 3 days away from the calling of an election? Brown would be putting the unions and management under huge pressure. If he calls an unnecessary election and there are widespread problems with postal votes and the delivery of election addresses he will gete the blame. There were problems during the Scottish Parliament elections because the system could ot cope with the demand for postal votes and wee Dougie Alexander got the blame. That was in May during an election for which the date had been long known
I’ve abandoned Auntie for a few minutes and gone over to the dark side of Sky…better be worth it Mike!
36- yes you are right
Mayor’s administration really was useless in relation to domestic policies- Tories really had run out of steam;
in relation to international affairs Mayor had bravery and vision- Norther Ireland, Iraqi Kurds, Maastricht.
Why Major got himself embroiled in the Iraq issue this week, god knows? We all know that Fox is a slimy, sleazeball scumbag, but Major did himself no credit by jumping on this bandwagon.
If Brown does call an election his poll numbers will almost certainly go up immediately just for looking strong and resolute. Remember his USP is strength experience being good in a crisis and an inexperienced opposition. Cameron’s is time a change his IHT offer and a stale government.
Looking at it from their respective ad agency points of view Brown has the much easier sell. His ratings on strength and being good in a crisis make the act of calling an election at what looks like a difficult time a massive show of his strength.
He has to be wary of overplaying his hand and resorting to gimmick (such as Iraq) but Cameron has to chase the game which is always a risk.
I think Gordon will go for it almost whatever the polls say. His underlying position is very strong and in a four week campaign with an energetic opposition there should be a high turnout.
(Isn’t John Major sanctimonious? I liked him much better as PM)
Mike’s on.
He’s on now.
Good job Mike - gotta dash out now.
Bring’s back memories of the coverage of General Elections years ago when the BBC used to devote time to having disinterested eminent academics discuss what was going on
34 - Brown’s PFI infatuation, negotaited by the Government using small children with a feeble grip on their candy - in twenty years time, that will be looked on as a massive clanger.
Brown’s destruction of the UK private pension system to pay for unsustainable unproductive jobs - that will be another clanger.
In the meantime, we’ll have to settle on selling off half the UK’s gold reserves - having preannounced the fact, thereby driving down international prices to record lows, only to then watch as gold prices reached record highs after the sale. Like the man said “a billion here, a billion there - and you’re soon talking real money…”
Mike missed a trick only being quoted as the author of the website, and not asking for a plug of the book
Mike’s doing a great job as a pundit on sky
37. I work part-time at the post office (to support my freelancing habit) and I’d bet that the strike winds up towards the end of this week. A friend talked to his union rep late yesterday and talks look like they’re slogging towards a conclusion. Probably not fast enough to keep us from going out on Monday and Tuesday, but both sides aren’t continents apart anymore. But this mess could’ve been ended by Brown back in July.
Good slot Mike - well done
I think people are confusing bad policy decisions with politically bad policy decisions.
Good stuff Mike- although lost count of the number of ‘extraordinary’s you got in there - did you have a spread bet on for number of times that word would be used on Sky this morning?
I’ve got to head out now but glad to hear that you and this site are getting wider coverage as they deserve. best wishes.
Even the BBC seems more circumspect this morning.
Suspect the next ICM Poll will have the Cons in the lead.
Fixed term elections is the escape route for an insecure prime Minister and his alleged “advisors”.
Hot news from Bedford……Mike is wearing a jacket and no tie…..is this a good sign for Cameron or did he just spill his cornflakes over his favourite red tie?
Tyson @ 34 — the worst post-war policy decision was Thatcher’s decimation of British industry in the name of monetarism. This led directly to many of our current social problems.
Or perhaps Blair’s privatisation of Britain’s defence research establishment (now Qinetiq).
Sky News viewing figures have spiked ….. national grid having problems …. PB rules OK !!!
John L - you beat me to the Railway (not Railtrack which didn’t come till later!) privatisation point. I also feel Tyson, that your criticism of the blessed John Major’s Cones Hotline is a little unfair. I rarely pass a set of cones without thinking about it, and wondering whether a number still exists!?
First of all we shouldn’t be here, according to most PB pollsters, the chances of an autumn election, were less than zero. Thought I’d just mention that!!
I see that Iraqi interperters are to be allowed asylum, hmmm another straw in the wind?
Its on the cusp, is Gordo going to twist on 17?
If GB gets a reduced majority, so what! Labour is in its third term, a third term Labour government is unique, we are already pushing the edge of the envelope. If Labour win a fourth term, we’ve got a new envelope.
A fourth term Labour government, will be the 1922 of the 21st century, everything politically will change. What ever your political views, we are privileged,(if it happens) to witness this.
A significant historical moment.
40 Roger, Brown has already had his “Ratner moment” - that moment when all the hard work on the brand gets blown out the water - with his trip to Iraq this week. He is damaged goods from that stunt. Those that liked him before have their doubts (”overplaying his hand”?), those that were unsure are queasy at this stunt - but those who didn’t like him would now crawl all day over broken glass to get to the polling station before 10.00 pm to throw him out. The reaction in that group to that stunt is visceral - they have moved far up the certainty to vote curve.
39. Major has every right to disapprove of Brown’s rather ill-judged publicity stunt (and it’s notable that this charge made at least some impact with the public). After all, Major did the decent thing and resisted all the calls from within the party and press to call a snap ‘Khaki’ election in 1991, because he felt it would be undignified. Whatever else you can accuse Major of, a lack of decency was not one of them. Brown was playing dangerously letting himself being accused of opprtunism of this scale.
But Roger, DC has more often in recent times been seen WITH tie than without.
34. My own nominees:
1. Blair in Iraq
2. Thatcher - Poll Tax.
3. Eden - Suez (not at 2 as the damage it did was not as long-lasting. Part of the Scottish devolution / independence question still references the Poll Tax)
4. Attlee - postwar reconstruction - took far too long and cost far too much
5. Wilson - Miner’s settlement 1974. A complete cave-in that set the scene for the industrial unrest that brought the Labour government down.
20. Major’s majority was 21.
25+ is fine and will give Brown another full 5 years if he wants it. The talk of reduced majorities is all nonsense anyway because Labour can point to the boundary changes.
Thinking about this all more, looks to me as if with the growth forecasts down Labour can really put the boot into the Tory plans on Tuesday and make them look irresponsible.
59 Yes, John Major after his initial “playing away” with Edwina, was really rather decent about not doing “kiss and tell” stories (unlike his partner in that little adventure!) Even his references to the “bastards” in his Cabinet, was more decent than they deserved, I think!
62 - How? The Tories claim that the policies are tax neutral.
51. “Good stuff Mike- although lost count of the number of ‘extraordinary’s you got in there”
I have a friend at Leo Burnett and before big client meetings-to make them interesting- they choose a word which then has to be mentioned as many times as possible by the person who chooses the shortest straw. At a Cadburys meeting she got the word “Semen” and got it in four times!! (Talented these advertising folk!)
……the longest suicide note in history surely has to rate. If we are going to have guests from Sky we should tidy up the front room and be on our best behaviour.
61 Perhaps Wilson - failure to adopt In Place of Strife (1969?) asa way forward, which just may have averted some of the later industrial problems of the 70s. However, many of those issues in that decade caused externally, by oil price rises.
Which brings me to top nominee for Party Political Injustice - Thatcher’s rise to power on Blame heaped on Labour for a) Inflation out of control and b) Unemployment mainly caused by those external factors.
62 - If Darling as is being suggested downgrades forecasts then the likelihood is that he will either have to raise taxes or upgrade his PSNCR calculations. If they are seriously looking at an election then raising taxes is out. However if he ups borrowing the Tories will take aim with relish.
Let’s agree: Wilson’s reputation unfairly harmed by severe world economic conditions (blown off course, if I recall correctly), Brown’s reputation unfairly boosted by benign world economic conditions.
Comment Numbering Why not refer to the time of the comment you are referring to - thus Roger @ 8.59
69 Probably so.
68 - Presumably he’ll just produce the usual Brown trick of:
Growth forecasts (change on previous estimate):
Yr 1: -1%
Yr 2: -1.2%
Yr 3: -1.4%
Yr 4: +0.5%
Yr 5: +1%…
67 Agree, Wilson’s failure to enforce, ‘In Place of Strife’ led to the Tories victory in ‘70, the disasterous Ted Heath. Mrs Thatcher would never been elected, if, ‘In Place of Strife’ had been enacted. So when Labour attack Thatcher and Thatcherism, they were responsible for it.
67. The problem with decisions that were not taken is that the counterfactual is unknowable (that’s also true of those that were, but at least we know what the decisions did lead to). It’s also the case that some policy paths that in retrospect were the best course were not politically possible at the time - one of the best examples being Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. It might have been disasterous and landed him with a huge amount of approbrium but he really didn’t have any choice - the political support wasn’t there for any more aggressive option (nor was the hardware).
The point about my original list of tactical blunders was that they were all self inflicted and the people in question all did have the option to take a different path - but didn’t. Brown is now in the same seat.
I can’t get Sky but that sounds good - well done Mike!
The ‘we want an election’ figures bounce around (rather like some of us) according to whether people think their preferred party would win. Tory morale is good now (which is a genuine factor to consider) so they’re saying yeah, go for it. If the mood turns they’ll start going on about the weather and the electoral register and the postal dispute and how it’s all an affront to democracy.
But I still don’t think the Tory high command really wants an election anyway. It’s a risk both ways, but one that we’ve planned for more carefully than they have, because up to quite recently they thought Gordon would bomb with the voters so an early election was unimaginable.
72 - Possibly, but I think they may find themselves in trouble if they do. Darling is moving 2008 growth down from 3% to 2.5%, there are some industry experts suggesting that growth will be no more than 1.8% next year.
mike smithson @ 9.08 re comment numbering — good idea. Is it possible to rearrange the date/time format so the time comes first, so it is easier to copy-and-paste, or is that format fixed by the software?
73 As a Lib Dem, then, gom, I am presumably still able to attack that b… woman and all her works?
Piece in Guardiam questioning the legality, of the £25,000 charge on NonDoms.
http://tinyurl.com/2w9sdd
35 HF. The problem with Matthew Parris’s article is that he has been peddling Browns character flaws long before this ‘will he wont he’ election. Since Cameron came along he’s become a rather shrill cheer leader for him and not much more objective than ‘Test’
68 If Telegraph is right the tax rises will be stealthy, hidden in the small print. So £200 on average Council Tax by reducing central funding to local authorities but increasing their need to fund NHS. Bringing in the bin bag tax is another way to reduce central to local funding while increasing the charge on the citizen.
One bit I noted in the press was that in 1999 Gordon promised to put the income from any increases in fuel duty into a ring fenced fund to pay for transport improvements. While after the fuel protests he held off from raising it for a few one would think there would be such a fund with some revenues in it - apparently not (surprise) as what the Treasury said he actually meant was only any increase above the real rate of inflation and that hasn’t happened. Like so many of his announcements its died off but wouldn’t be surprised to see it resurrected.
6. Bottom line is. Anyone betting on a “hung parliament” had better get something signed in blood by the bookie as to what their definition of a HP really is!!
Has Betfair given a clear definition of Overall Majority?
62 Majority of 25 is unworkable, think back to John Major. If Brown doesnt get at least 50 majority, the next 5 yrs will be very difficult IMHO
76 - Surely the Govt should be getting into big trouble on this by now?
Gordon has been basing his spending plans for about 2-3 years now on an improvement in growth at some point in the future (whilst downgrading those in the immediate future). Now that those years previously in the non-immediate future are arriving, doesn’t the whole thing begin to have a bit of a snowball effect?
Still, and extra few billion for health and education we’re told.
82- I think Brown could claim a mandate if- he gets a higher vote share than Blair, and a higher share than the Tories obviously- a smallish majority of 20+ would then not be viewed too much as a disaster.
Where things might unravel if Labour polls fewer votes than the Tories.
Worst policy decisions? Bus deregulation deserves a mention, as does the government’s 50% target for higher education.
Mike - you were excellent this morning on Sky News. Well done!!
If I had to call Brown now, I’d say he’s on the verge of being successfully goaded into an election, but he might not call it until Tuesday 16th.
Right now, I’d say it’s just slightly odds-on - 55/45.
24. JohnLoony - I’d say you’re right in so much as this election feels like a 1987, but an 1987 opposition result would still end up with a 1992-style government!!
In other words, the Conservatives take 20+ seats, with boundary changes, Labours majority is around 20-25 and Brown “has a major”.
I urge caution too. We shouldn’t forget the Major still managed to push through Maastrict and Rail privatisation on that (despite some MPs not having the whip at times) and, either way you look at it, Labour was much better at winning by-elections then than we are now, so the “chipping-away” at the majority over 4-5 years won’t be quite as good either.
Personally, I’d say Cameron is bound to gain *some* net seats and I’d say the range is anywhere between 15 min - 45 max. I predict ~30 gains.
Only thing I strongly disagree on, is that Brown will gain net seats.
He won’t.
83 - Political trouble or economic trouble? I think they are getting into both. The problem is that while people feel good there is not going to be too much issue with economic management no matter how bad those in the know consider it to be. It only becomes a salient issue when ordinary folk feel the squeeze. In terms of economics the govt has 2 choices going forward ramp up taxes to cover the shortfalls between their expectations of growth and reality or just borrow the difference. The former is political suicide, the latter is economic suicide given current borrowing is high and that will eventually turn into political death anyway.
73 - Devaluation and perennial fiscal crises (including the continuous friction with the unions over prices and incomes policy which fed into In Place of Strife) had probably irretrievably damaged Wilson’s chances by then. But, interestingly enough, his personal rating did increase noticeably when it looked as though he would carry through the White Paper, so you’re probably right to view it as a lost opportunity. Having said that, it was clear that the government would disintegrate if the party attempted to carry an IR Bill based on the White Paper, and this was largely down to Callaghan - the Winter of Discontent was poetic justice in that respect.
75: I agree with all of that for once. But I am not convinced the Labour movement generally had this in mind before Brown took over. Many in Labour feared he would bomb too.
He has proved nearly everyone wrong which makes the situation he has allowed himself to get into now all the more inexplicable.
80 - Matthew Parris has always taken that sort of view. He was the first (and for, a long time, almost the only) serious commentator to hit Blair hard on his personality, and he’s done the same for Brown. You do notice that sometimes in members of parties, on both sides, who are both moderates in policy and firmly attached to their parties - they tend to react all the more violently to personal characteristics.
Richard (Original) @ 9:29 re 50% higher education — not only the first break from joined-up government (remember that?) when it was belatedly realised that higher participation meant student grants became more expensive but also the start of the Americanisation of education.
Like the US, we now have watered-down first degrees (but without the exceptional American post-graduate system); no grants (but without the American infrastructure of student-friendly part-time jobs), and in the sixth form, moves towards American-style short topics rather than subject-based A-levels (but without IQ tests for university admission).
Yes, an election will be called on Tuesday.
Yes, Labour will win with a majority of at least 40, and perhaps a great deal more.
Several posters have mentioned AV in 2010 as a viable strategy for GB. It’s worth exploring….
To “win” under AV (ie. to get a majority or to become the senior partner in a governing coalition), you need to appeal to your opponent supporters. This is the exact opposite of a core vote strategy. You must either (a) squat on the centre ground, or (b) “steal your opponent’s clothes”.
Since the Tories are doing (a), and Labour are doing (b), does this imply that both Parties are anticipating AV in 2010, or is it a convenient fluke?
Maybe it’s just that for both major Party’s, the core vote is simply too small these days to produce a win…
59 Edwina?
2/3 Of Tories want an election. Are we talking about the head to midriff. Or from the feet up to where the heart should be?
92.
(1) Maybe
(2) No, they won’t.
96 - I don’t think it can be ruled out, although there’s no British historical precedent. There’s a very wide range of possibilities available.
Roger - Parris is on the money on Gordon. Look at his dog whistle speech, assuming the clothes of Michael Howard but with a more authoritarian undertone. His fear of being upstaged so his cabinet reduced to 7 minute bit parts. His late night phone calls to journalists. His stunts.
He obviously has strengths as he has very loyal acolytes and has friends in the Mail, Telegraph and News International but after 3 months I have as little idea of what he stands for and what he intends to do, other than just as before but trimmed to a Daily Mail agenda, as I did in the spring. There is no vigour, no follow through.
He will probably win an election but he will disappoint his party and the country.
Government with a majority of 25, is not a problem, providing there is unity of purpose. In fact a majority of 25, would keep any government on its toes. Comfortable enough not to ensure defeat in a vote of confidence, not too comfortable to encourage complacency.
Because John Major couldn’t govern with 21, is a reflection on him and his party, not on the numbers.
0. Observer. I agree but don’t you think in Parris’s case he’s done his own reputation as a commentator more damage than either of the politicians he viscerally hates?
One point to remember that a bullish and chipper Conservative party might be seen by Brown as the only sure way to get his own vote out.
99. But you need to compare a majority of 25, to take your own example, with where we are now. I would much rather have a majority of 66 for 3 years than a majority of 25 for (maybe) 5 years.
99:Dream on. He would be damaged goods. Dave would not face an internal challenge. I thought the whole point of this was to remove Cameron and destroy the Tories. They would be boosted by such a narrow Brown win - even a chance of winning most seats in England.
Aww, I want an election - it will be exciting!
Jon - yes, Currie - her of the eggs fame!
gom at 9.43 Agree - mainly the aforementioned bastards and Eurosplits.
100 - No. There are plenty of people who’d like to see New Labour as a crowd shown up, even among those who don’t actively identify with the Tories.
82 @ 9.24 I’m sorry but that is absurd. 25+ majority is more than enough to govern. I mean for goodness sake Maggie only won in 1979 by 43 and that was considered a virtual landslide.
It is very very hard for oppositions to mount a proper challenge to a Governing party in parliament - with a majority of let’s say 25, the Tories would have to get all the minor parties to agree on something and then round them up even to put pressure on Labour.
Major’s problem was the Tory tendency to commit suicide. His party were also riven over Europe.
The truth is that providing Labour were reasonably disciplined, and there’s an argument that a tighter majority is better news for the whips, then 25+ is a stonking mandate for Government.
I’m sorry but there are a lot of things I’ll take at the moment (e.g. Tories excellent conference, Iraq stunt was very poor etc.) but this Tory-fed spin that in some way Labour winning an overall majority of less than 66 seats somehow being failure is drivel. Complete drivel.
Only one thing matters: if Brown goes for it now (I don’t think he will) he needs a comfortable majority. 25+ is the target and would do just fine for an historic 4th term.
Ted. I also have a feeling he might disappoint his supporters-it’s difficult to appeal to the Mail and Telegraph without doing! I think he’s competent and my memory is long enough not to yet want a Tory government which is the only alternative.
I also don’t know what Cameron stands for-which wouldn’t matter too much-if I thought his instincts were right but anyone becoming a Tory activist during Thatcher’s time would have an uphill battle convincing me of that.
108 - the motives for the talented individuals becoming Tory activists during Thatcher’s time were exactly the same as those of the talented individuals becoming Labour activists in the 90s.
82 Maggie Fan. A majority of 25 would be far more workable than in the Major era for 4 reasons.
1. There are more SF MPs and other minor parties MPs so Opposition discipline is more to muster.
2. As 1 but with a substantial block of say 40+ Lib Dems MPs.
3. Potentially fewer by-election losses as MPs are younger than they were.
4. It’s likely the experience of the Major government would act as a harsh lesson to Labour not to be repeated.
O/T but the Daily Mail reports that Patrick Mercer has left the Big Tent; says he had finished the job Lord West asked him to do but also hit out at the Iraq announcement on non-troop withdrawal.
107 - agree with the Rev - you can expect to govern for 4 years with a majority of 25 these days. MP’s are generally much younger now, living longer and so with less chance of dying in office (car accidents and auto-erotic strangulation aside….)
By-elections are a rare treat now - they used to be quite regular events, not infrequently with two on he same day.
106 Roger, “I also don’t know what Cameron stands for”
Rather than reeling a list of the policy statements and principles, we just have to accept that you have “tuned him out”, if you believe that after the past week.
But are you a person of the centre right? If not, then you are not someone Conservatives need to target.
What really matters is what the centre right media decides to do and on that front the Conservatives have to accept that they still face an uphill struggle with those that prefer their own agenda rather than the only main party with a centre right agenda.
From the point of view of getting things done that would help Labour in the long term, I’d say a majority of 25 would be ideal. Helps prevent the administration from getting carried away and implementing things like ID cards that will hurt them when they screw them up, and also prevents them from repeating Iraq-style foreign policy fiascos, unless the Tories insist on taking a pro-fiasco stance and voting with the government (again). If Bush attacks Iran, which he could well do, this could turn out to be important.
The large majority is a virility symbol that is all. All a government needs is a sufficient majority to get its legislation through the HofC etc, 20/30 is enough for that.
MP’s for instance are much more valued, by the government, if they need them all. Parliament is much more representative of the country as a whole, if one party is not too dominant.
Reflecting on the current situation. In someways the Tories are now in a worse position than a few weeks ago. A few weeks ago, they were resigned to defeat, their expectations were low. Now they have been raised, they are hoping for some sort of victory, perhaps not government, but a considerable improvement.
Is it Ealing and Southall, all over again?
98- Ted- all politicians ultimately disappoint their party and country. Nature of the beast
Ian Jones.
There’s only 18 months till the ‘normal’ time to go for a PM. Also the Brown people always planned on an early GE; they wanted May 2008, though. If he waits till 2009/10 his strategy of presenting himself as a ‘new’ PM leading a ‘new’ Government will be dashed. Also a lot of Labour MPs are thoroughly spooked by the weight of Ashcroft money likely to descend on them over the next year or two. They’ve said so publicly.
So there’s a lot of logic in an early GE but I agree that a majority of 20 would be seen as a rebuff. A majority of 50, on the other hand, would be an excellent result, better than Blair, adjusting for boundaries( which is how the broadcasters will present the figures). And remember a fourth GE victory should be more difficult to achieve than a third victory. ‘Defying political gravity’ is how David Milliband described it.
It would also be historic; Labour’s first ever fourth GE victory in a row and the first time in modern political history that a fourth GE victory was won with such a big majority.
The problem GB has is that the Southern marginals, in particular, look shaky post the Tory Party Conference and he can’t get a decent majority without them. I think the odds are against a GE for that reason alone.
I’m not sure that these much vaunted marginal seat polls will help him much in making a decision. It’s very difficult to get a feel of regional variations in these polls which had a pretty spotty record last time.
What might tip the odds back in favour of a GE would be any sign in the weekend polls that some post Tory Conference poll ‘froth’ was being blown off. According to Peter Riddell there was some evidence of that in Populus polling yesterday but the sample size was too small to make a big point of it.
The Reverend Doctor, but you are assuming Labour could manage easily with a majority of 25, because Labour are NOT split. This is rubbish.
Labour is split several ways - Blairites versus Brownites, authoritarians (yes to ID cards) versus liberals (no). Eurosceptics versus europhiles (an issue which looms). Socialists versus Tories. Thatcherities and Gaitskellites. Guacamole versus Mushy Peas.
Ask yourself how many Labourites were really happy with the barrel-thumping bierkeller rant of Brown the other day? The Daily Mail agenda? The Union Jack tattoos on the forearm?
Not many, I should think. They only go along with it because 1. Brown has eviscerated the party of real opposition, like a Burmese general, and 2 because they think Brown might, just be a winner liker Blair.
As soon as Brown starts to weaken, as soon as he starts to look just a tiny bit of a loser, the opposition - on all fronts - will rise. I just can’t believe, in their heart of hearts, that lefties are happy with their party turning into Paul Dacre’s Christian Democrats.
They are not.
Good article Mike. Is the interview going to be available on you tube?
HF. His political career didn’t start last week. He was also Michael Howards right hand man. If you read Cambells diaries you realize-whatever you thought of Blair-that his politics were worked out over several years. I don’t get this sense with Cameron just that he articulately puts over what his team decide is ’sellable’. It’s what advertising and PR is all about. What will your client buy and how best to sell it to them? It’s a simple formula.
As a Scot Tory of course I hope there is an election as the party has nothing to lose (the only way is up). One area which noone seems to be talking about is how the Lib Dems will do in an election. Is there going to be a 3rd party squeeze and if so how will they split? This information will be hard to get from polling and is the reason I think that Brown will not go for the election.
O/T The orange bloc finally scrape home in the Ukraine. Putin will be furious; can’t these guys even stuff ballot boxes efficiently? Still it’ll be a very narrow majority. But Yulia’s back it, seems, as PM.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071005/twl-ukraine-vote-6b0205e.html
120 Um its a political memoir. Like all political memoirs, its job other than just making money is to make the author and by extension his friends look good. Something to ponder..
39 “in relation to international affairs Mayor had bravery and vision- Norther Ireland, Iraqi Kurds, Maastricht.”
sorry couldn’t let that one pass
and add the disgraceful betrayal of Bosnia
I lurk often in this marvellous site but don’t post a lot, mostly because somebody usually says what I wanted to say before I get the chance! I am, however, having read all of today’s offering disposed to ask why there has been no discussion of what I consider to be the underlyng threat posed by Brown, his Stalinist tendancy, highlighted by his own side, encapsulated by the exuberant Welsh clown of grinding into the dust those of us who have oposing views to the received mantra of Gordon. Someone in a position of power who thinks there is only one way of doing something is completely chilling, more so when he sets out to gather into his ‘big tent’ totemic people as if he has brain-washed them. I think he has got to the stage where he feels he can walk on water.
Roger, 10.15. Yes, it’s good that Blair worked out his politics over several years.
For instance, I understand that Blair agreed to go to war on Iraq, with George Bush, several years before they concocted a reason to do so, and several years before they told the rest of us, and several years before they actually killed 700,000 people for no reason.
Yes, it’s certainly good to plan ahead by several years.
As voters get nearer making a decision, that moment they hold the stubby black pencil in their sweaty little hands, they will way up the options.
Going into the winter, with economic uncertainty growing day by day, is this a time to change horses mid-stream? That will be foremost in their minds.
118 Great post seant, where I think you’r wrong is, once upon-a-time Labour MP’s liked argument more than they liked being MP’s, now its the other way round!
118 seanT. We need to distinguish between the ability to govern for a full term and the quality of that governance.
Since WWII we’ve had a number of governments that have served a full term with majorities of around 40 and below :
51-55 .. 70-74 .. 74-79 .. 79-83 .. 92-97.
118. Obviously the Labour party is not monolithic. Brown instinctively has more support in the party than Blair - the latter was always viewed as a bit of an outsider. Brown is more orthodoxly Labour in terms of where he is coming from, and why. Labour have the ability to be pretty disciplined these days. The scars of the wilderness years will never heal, and they will not commit suicide in the way that Major’s shambles did. The latter, incidentally, was because some Tories assumed they just needed one stint in opposition before their divin right to rule returned. They got a terrible shock at the scale of defeat.
The only people suggesting 25+ wouldn’t do fine are Tories. Tells you all you need to know.
Incidentally, one thing that does convince me that the Tories are in for a serious fight is this sort of dissembling. There is a greater degree of skullduggery on their part than I can remember for some time. Comes from the top I think - Cameron is as unprincipled a leader as the Tories have had in a long long time. Which worries me - because people like that can take a long time to get properly rumbled.
125 - I agree with you. I think the only reason we are still awaiting his decision is that he misjudged his opponent. He thought that the Tories would snipe at each other and bicker over how to tackle the election threat. They didn’t they just turned the elevating screws and started shelling the PM’s position. He now realises that he has lost the inital dogfight in the airwar, and is looking hard to see if he can still win the groundwar.
The message from the marginal Labour MPs contacted by the media so far seems pretty clear. None of them seem keen on an election. In fact reading between the lines their real responses to Gordon are probably unprintable.
Re 34, Tyson, ” Thatcher/ Railtrack privatisation”
That was John Major.
124 There were other actors in that play. The French sympathising with the Serbs. The Germans with the Croatians etc. Above all until Bill Clinton made the call to unleash the US Airforce, it was going to carry on regardless of Major
129: Tories play politics shocker. On page two sun comes up in morning.
132- gosh Benedict- this site gives you a kicking when you get your political facts wrong.
Anyway- how are you old friend? Do you want to double or nothing on that tenner you owe me?
125
New Labour has been the most incredible hoax in the history of politics. It’s only reason for being is to keep the tories out and their own lot in. They therefore maintain a formidable Goebbels style propaganda machine whose sole job is, as Kinnock said, to grind the opinions of those who disagree with them into the ground. One party state, 1000 year reich, whatever you like to call it, that is what we are up against, with our money paying for it. I have money on a 2007 election because Labour will always put the party before the country.
130. James Burdett at 10:28.
Excellent analogy. I do like a nice wartime analogy!
Brown is like Hitler deciding whether to invade Britain in Operation Sealion.
Like Hitler, he doesn’t actually have to do it. Time is on his side. He can wait. However he hates the Tories - and fears them subconsciously - as Hitler hated, envied and subconsciously feared the Brits (for all his Nazi bluster).
So Hitler was tempted into a foolish and pointless early strike on Britain, and Brown has been tempted into an early strike on the Tories.
To do this both have to win the airwar first - or the “media war”. Both have been supremely confident of victory, aided by the bragaddocio of Goring (Ed Balls) and Goebbels (David Miliband).
But now the airwar has been lost. And with it a certain confidence. It’s the first real defeat for both tyrants. And now they wonder what to do… as the plucky Tories sit in their bombed-damaged houses, drinking cups of tea and eating snoek and smiling in relief at their miraculous survival.
Of course Hitler could then have invaded anyway, despite losing the airwar. But the invasion would have been very tricky, it would have been a dreadful war of attrition, and it might have crippled his army.
Hiler sensibly decided against. What will Gordon “bierkeller” Brown do?
130- James- that was such a good little comment it prompted to have a look at your blog which is also very good.
The longer Osbornes tax plans see the light of day the more they disintegrate.
No rush for an election
Just spotted this:-
http://thewrongman.typepad.com/home/2007/10/gordon-goes-off.html
About a minute or so in and Gordon is saying “I won’t go, I won’t go” whilst being pushed by Edward. A metaphor I think.
Isn’t the fact that lots of Tories want a GE a reason from Brown’s point of view to do the pulling-the-proffered-hand-away-and-thumbing-the-nose routine rather than going through with what was expected? Sun-Tzu and all that.
—–
Re. Guardian piece: “emerging from a premature battle in the November dark with a diminished majority and diminished authority”: I don’t know if anyone’s said this before, I haven’t seen it, but if he emerged from that dark November night on a similar share of the vote to 2005 and an even lower turnout then it wouldn’t even be much of a “mandate” - the only supposed reason for going so early. I can imagine the psephologists on the night calculating what proportion of the country actually voted for him.
—–
Interesting that the Spreadfair market on Labour seats turned down after the sellers dried up the other day. At the time I wondered if it meant the figure was going to rise, but from this it seems as though it may have meant the opposite. That would appear counter-intuitive in terms of supply and demand. Might be worth watching to see if the phenomenon repeats - any level II or level III traders out there who might know whether this was just a coincidence or whether it’s actually a viable trading strategy?
—–
Don’t have Sky but well done.
New thread - How Dave’s speech changed the ratings
Re 73 Grumpy old man, “Agree, Wilson’s failure to enforce, ‘In Place of Strife’ led to the Tories victory in ‘70, the disasterous Ted Heath. Mrs Thatcher would never been elected, if, ‘In Place of Strife’ had been enacted. So when Labour attack Thatcher and Thatcherism, they were responsible for it.”
Thatcherism was merely what Claghan or Heath would have done if they had the balls, but alas they didn’t. When it came to having to do it it was less pleasant then it otherwise would have been.
That said there is an argument to say that you could only implement those reforms once it had got so bad that it became politicaly acceptable.