Is there money to be made from the yellow optimists?
October 27th, 2007
What’s behind the Lib Dem price rally?
If you feed the latest figures from the main pollsters that have reported since the Tory conference into the Anthony Wells commons seat calculator the highest number that you get for the Lib Dems is 21 MPs from the Populus survey three weeks ago. The latest ICM poll makes it 18 seats with both YouGov and Ipsos-Mori showing a bare 11 seat total.
Martin Baxter’s Electoral Calculus site is even worse with his poll of polls producing precisely zero Lib Dem MPs after the next election on his seat calculator.
Yet just take a look at the overnight spreads from Sporting Index and Spreadfair reproduced above. The current LD buy levels are equal and in Spreadfair’s case, higher than what was available after the party’s conference in September when ICM was reporting a 19% share and Populus 17%.
This is not just affecting the Lib Dem spreads. The number of Tory seats being projected by the markets is now much lower than the seat predictors are suggesting.
Now the standard Lib Dem answer, which I buy into, is that the party incumbents have a very good record of holding on in spite of what national conditions might be like. Highly selective targeting of resources and activists tends to lead them to retaining seats that the national trends would suggest that they should lose. Also there is the tactical voting element. If Labour supporters want to impede the Tory resurgence in LD>CON marginals then there’s a strong incentive to switch.
It might be, also, that we’ll see Tory tactical voters in LD>LAB marginals like Manchester Withington.
But surely the punters risking big money on the spread markets don’t believe that Huhne or Clegg’s Lib Dems will finish up only being down 12 seats on their 2005 total?
With three polls due out in the next few days we might see a bit more movement. The spread that is under-valued here is the Tory one and a buy bet here might be the right thing to do.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Which 12 seats are the most likely to fall?
I do think the Libs are vulnerable to a Tory resurgence in the South West because the Euro constitution, which they support, will be a live issue and the SW is very sceptic. I’m sure the ppcs will have it in their literature.
I disagree about buying Tory seats in this case. If you think the markets are exaggerating the number of LibDem seats then just sell LibDem seats. Mixing in the Con-Lab battles will just confuse things. I can’t believe that the LibDem figure will hold up much longer anyway, and is ripe for a bit of a correction.
Now that Mike’s pointed it out it may well happen. PB affects those sites.
Alex 2. I look to short-term movement and there seems to be more chance of that happening with a CON buy than a LD sell.
Generally I don’t keep open spread positions for more than 2-3 weeks. Take the profit or cut your losses
Mike Smithson
Looking at it purely in terms of advice for those who bet on this market, I wonder if there’s going to be much movement at all in the next few weeks. The no-change YouGov was highlighted as a huge swing to the Tories because the last Telegraph poll was before the Tory conference, but it’s had little impact on the prices. The next polls will (I think) be compared with post-conference polls and are IMO likely to show no huge changes, or possibly a slight Tory slippage.
Selling the LibDem price looks a slightly better proposition. I imagine the next few polls will show the party still well adrift of the 2005 result, and although we all think sitting LD MPs are hard to dislodge, the chance of actual LD net gains looks small, so the upside risk (that punters will suddenly predict huge LD gains) is minor. Also, if I read the screen correctly, once the current £30 at 48.5 has been sold, there’s only £7 left before it drops below 46?
re 5. There has been quite a bit of movement in the Labour spread during the week even though the only poll reported no change.
Labour on Spreadfair was 303-306 and is now 295-299.4.
Mike Smithson
The outlook for the Lib Dems and most definitely seatwise is very grim, almost irrespective of their share of the vote nationally.
You can draw a direct comparison between the ability of the third party to gain seats and the failiure of the Conservatives to gain votes.
In 1983 the newly formed Alliance got 25.4% of the national vote to win a miserable 23 seats.In 1997 the Lib Dems received only 16.8% and yet obtained 46 seats.These are the two extremes but the overall pattern is clear and constant.Since 1997 the Lib Dems have increased their seat holding but their share of the vote has gone up also.
Next time,current predictions suggest a goodly rise in the Tory share of the vote from 32.3%.That is the first disaster for the Lib Dems which could quite well be compounded by their own drop in percentage terms from a high(for the Lib Dems) of 22%.
Thanks for this Mike. I bought Conservative seats at 265.4 expecting a move to at least 300 - Given the polls the Tories clearly are going to walk the next election.
Is the market saying that these polls just a flash in the pan - The Tories will start squabbling again, Gordon will become decisive and the Lib Dems will find a new Messiah, or at least a John the Baptist.
OR is the Spreadfair market a bit illiquid, should I hang on?
Test The current “official” Lib Dem view, ie that there should be a wider referendum on Europe and our place in it would provoke the debate many on both sides of the argument would have. I don’t think the limited Tory position that we should spend all that money and go through all that heartache, just to validate a fairly limited set of proposals to ensure the EU works more smoothly (and by implication, every time a new set of rules comes into play). Apart from anything else, why don’t we have referendums on all major issues? And Tories would be under criticism for not conceding referenda on the Single European Act (the consequences of which have created much of the heartache about over-regulation).
So, in sum, don’t think the SW Lib Dems will suffer especially on this - Tories have been ever hopeful on this since 1992, and it hasn’t worked yet!
Mike@4-I bought CON seats at 270.8 average shortly after you sold LAB seats at 300.4.At that time I had the option of doing either,but went for the CON buy believing the LIB DEMS will do badly for the reasons given above.
I think there is a slight anomaly in the relationship between Spread prices and Betfair prices and exists because of GB’s potential to call an opportunist election.
I am currently re-reading Ian Gilmour’s Whatever Happened To The Tories ? andin it he relates how Attlee TWICE messed up his timing of the election.
I’d agree with some of what Nick says… actually beyond the small bids on the screen the genuine larger bids for LibDem seats are somewhat lower.
I know the motivation of those bids at least, becuase they are mine. I expect that Nick Clegg will win, and that the vote-destroying policy on the constitution will be handled appropriately. In those circumstances I don’t see more than 15 LDs who are genuinely at risk.
If Huhne wins and/or we make a hash of the constitution then I won’t be on the bid any more, as I think there is a chance we could be back to 1992 levels.
“That said” I would never want to be hugely short of LibDem seats in the mid-40s. If you had 1k a seat on the upside is a car but the downside is a house. They won’t trade below 30 in any plausible circumstance before the election.
PS Somebody just paid me at 275 for Tory seats so I guess it is a little higher now.
5 - I’d agree regarding LibDem MP and the security they derive from their own incumbency, at some point the national trend will trump that, not saying that it wont suceed in insultating a string of LibDem MPs against a national trend against their party, but at some point and in some seats the trend will be such that they will be unable to rely on incumbency to sheild themselves.
7 - In 2005 the LibDem benifited from an unpopular Labour government and a Conservative oppostion that was still seen as unconvincing, so it’s hardly a surprise that in such an ideal political climate the LibDems did well (although they should probably have done even better).
Now, prior to this since 1992 the LibDem had been able to ride the wave of anti-Tory sentiment that swept Labour into office in 1997 - for the first time in their history it seems highly likley that at the next election the LibDems will see a Conservative revival and (almost regardless of their leader) it could hit them very hard.
9 Tim - I imagine the Tories would claim they learn from their mistakes.. plus it was nearly 15 years ago now. Eventually even they can be rahabilitated.
As we’ve discussed many times before Europe does hurt the LDs in the SW. When I was membership secretary not long ago it was by far the biggest cause of lapsed membership for example. It is beyond dispute that we get a very low share of the vote in Euro elections compared to General Elections, and virtually all of that goes to Eurosceptic parties of varying degrees of sanity.
9. I’m afraid voters in the SW know better than that this is “a fairly limited set of proposals”. Almost nobody thinks that.
You’ve got two Europhile former MEPs vying for the leadership. Tories can make hay with it. Since 92 we’ve never had a situation where a massive loss of soverignty was about to be enacted.
My view is that Libs in the SW, especially facing very sceptic Tories, are going to see large vote loss.
9 of the notional (uk polling report) LD constituencies out of 63 will not have a sitting MP standing.
The 9 without incumbents and the LD candidates listed are:-
Chippenham - Duncan Hames (Majority: 2.73%)
Cornwall South East - TBC (Majority: 13.2%)
Harrogate and Knaresborough - TBC (Majority: 16.1%)
Hereford and South Herefordshire - Sarah Carr (Majority: 2.9%)
Oxford East - Steve Goddard (Majority: 0.5%)
St Austell and Newquay - Stephen Gilbert (Majority: 1.6%)
Truro and Falmouth - Terrye Teverson (Majority: 13.3%)
Winchester - Martin Tod (Majority: 14.9%)
York Outer - Madeleine Kirk (Majority: 4.51%)
Sentiment seems to be that the 2005 LibDem gains may be lost but that the party’s ability to create a strong incumbent advantage will hold most of the gains made in 97 & 2001. Lib Dem seats in my mind fall into four areas - South West England, North West Scotland, Middle Class England and Wales. The latter is pretty unimportant in terms of seat totals.
In South West England there are signs of a Conservative resurgence but Lib Dems are strongly established at local level. 2005 showed that the advance across Wessex could be halted but I doubt Tories will make much more than an inroad.
North West Scotland is more interesting as the SNP could well damage the Lib Dems. Depends on Alex Salmond’s continued popularity but currently Scotland seems to be trending to a two major party model with Lib Dems suffering most from the squeeze. SNP seem to have stolen their policies - what’s the USP anymore for voting for a Lib Dem in Scotland? There is mention in press today of an ICM poll last week in reference to Scotland but I can’t find one.
Middle Class England - the well off SW London suburbs , Hampshire, other well off rural seats, rich suburbs of metropolitan areas (Sheffield Hallam for example) - here Osborne’s well targeted tax breaks seem to have done the immediate damage. We are going into a period a lower growth, tightened purse strings and Brown’s taxes are starting to hurt. While in some seats incumbency will enable the polls to be bucked I think that these are the ones that the Tories will make great inroads into on current polls and trends. Perhaps that’s why the two contenders for the leadership both represent these type of constituencies - a recognition that unless the Lib Dems really fight for middle class England they will be pushed back to the geographical fringes.
Not sure that the policies currently espoused are that attractive in a time of tightened circumstances to the “coping” classes - so it will be an uphill battle which unless something radical happens I think the LDs will lose.
Next election looks more like 1992 than 1997 and I’d think LDs would be at or around 30 seats as a result.
I would think a more interesting market is whether there will be a new Labour leader at the next General Election, 2009 or 2010 is a long way off?
Re the Lib Dems, with no election now, they have been saved a hammering. In two to two half years they will be okay and will probably gain seats.
I will bet on 70-75.
I’m happy to be in a tiny minority here. I think the LDs will do better than lose 12 seats at the next GE. The incumbency factor is a given.
The LDs do well if one or both the main parties is struggling.
GB’s socialist/newlab party will be more unpopular at the next GE than TB was at the last election. DC is making a good job of re-building the tory brand, but as the excellent Roger keeps pointing out, restoring a damaged brand takes years. And the ‘noise’ surrounding DC from Heffer and his ilk has a negative impact of the politically dis-interested, but tory inclined voter. His attitude is that DC is a nice enough chap ‘but doesn’t seem quite on the pace’. Detail? Why? He’s no idea, and no interest.
There will be loads of opportunities for the LDs, having unloaded the ludicously inappropriate grandpa Ming.
You are long at 58 though aren’t you David!
8. 300+ would be a hell of a result for Cameron and almost certainly put him in Downing Street. It would mean around a hundred gains, which is close on the sort of result Blair got in 1997. I don’t think there’s any way the Tory Party will simply walk up to that level, starting where it was in 2005.
Mike’s question is as much one of psychology as pure betting. Yes, I do think the Lib Dems are rated too high in the market: they will probably recover from the 11% low (for their own sake, they’d better do or they will be back at pre-97 levels), but getting up past 15% won’t be easy while there is a relatively popular Tory Party and no reason to vote against Labour on the scale of the Winter of Discontent or the ‘83 manifesto. The low scores aren’t wholly down to Ming.
However, from Mike’s point of view, selling LD seats is sensible if the market moves his way in the next few weeks, not in two or three years’ time - and that relies on other people seeing things the same way. The new leader should bring his party a bit of a boost in the polls, which itself will mitigate against any slide on the party’s spreadbetting total.
As much as anything, if that is the outcome of the Lib Dem election - and it will be in mid-December, so the announcement will probably be crowded out by Christmas ‘noise’ - the most significant impact will be on the party the Lib Dems make their recovery from. Four points off the Tory party would put it back neck-and-neck with Labour; four points off Labour would mean it was looking very seriously at opposition. Those changes would shift the markets.
17. Is that a genuine offer of a bet?
I think the Tories had better concentrate on real elections rather than polls. in the North West, for instance, they are consistently going backwards both in Lib Dem-held seats and also some of those they ‘need’ to win, such as warrington South (Lib dems trouncing them at local elections) and Sefton Central where, this week, in the Tory parliamnetary candidate’s own council ward there was a swing of 11 per cent against her Ashworth-funded campaign and the Tory came fourth in May in the ward next door.
After reading 22 one can almost hear the sound of the white coats flapping. As another Liberal always says it is real votes in real elections, so how does a party actually gaining a seat come off as a loser?
Answers to Peter Brown (Lib donor in a cell) please
18 - There is little evidence of the LibDems doing well when “one of the main parties are struggling”.
22 - Who is Ashworth, and why is he funding local by-elections?
23 - Who is Peter Brown?
David (18) I think you understate the weakness of the Libdem position.
1. The Libdems (and before them the Liberals) do best when the Tories are weak. This trend was even the case in the late 1950s onwards. So increased support for Cameron will have an affect. We even saw this in 2005 when a modest improvement in Tory fortunes resulted in Libdem losses to the Tories.
2.In 2005 this trend was offset because losses to the Tories were more than matched by gains from Labour. However, these gains were often in ‘university’ seats in Cardiff, Manchester, Bristol etc. Students move on and so the incumbency factor will be weaker as the electorate changes rapidly. Also, the Iraq war will be less of an issue as British troops will probably have been withdrawn by then.
David (18) I think you understate the weakness of the Libdem position.
1. The Libdems (and before them the Liberals) do best when the Tories are weak. This trend was even the case in the late 1950s onwards. So increased support for Cameron will have an affect. We even saw this in 2005 when a modest improvement in Tory fortunes resulted in Libdem losses to the Tories.
2.In 2005 this trend was offset because losses to the Tories were more than matched by gains from Labour. However, these gains were often in ‘university’ seats in Cardiff, Manchester, Bristol etc. Students move on and so the incumbency factor will be weaker as the electorate changes rapidly. Also, the Iraq war will be less of an issue as British troops will probably have been withdrawn by then.
On the spreads. 2005 GE result Lab 356 Con 198 LDs 62 Others 30. Total 646. Lab+Con 554. Lab+Con+LDs 616.
Using the approx midpoints of the spreads Mike has highlighted today for the next GE. Lab 297 Con 271 LDS 49, leaving Others 33. Total 650. Lab+Con 568. Lab+Con+LDs 617.
When I decide to buy or sell Lab or Con seats I use the above references. The midpoint sum of Lab+Cons over the last few months has hovered around 565. Currently 568. The LDs are fairly steady around the 49 mark having droppped a few points then rallied.
I agree with alex that the simplest thing to do is to buy or sell the party which you think is moving up or down. But the liquidity on Spreadfair can be very thin at times so the relative scores can be useful.
In addition to the 9 LD seats without an incumbent, the following table has the top 15 LD incumbent MPs in marginals Vs Conservatives. Incubency is generally at its peak in the second election. This table shows that 6 of 15 have 2005 incumbents although Westmoreland is hopeless as it is the only one of the 15 without a Conservative candidate.
Notional Maj Swing Year elected
1 Romsey and Southampton North 462 0.55% 2000
2 Cheltenham 515 0.55% 2005
3 Eastleigh 530 0.55% 2005
4 Westmorland and Lonsdale 836 0.90% 2005
5 Carshalton and Wallington 1044 1.25% 1997
6 Taunton Deane 1702 1.50% 2005
7 Torbay 2755 3% 1997
8 Sutton and Cheam 2870 3.30% 1997
9 Richmond Park 3649 3.60% 2005
10 Cheadle 3950 4% 2005
11 Portsmouth South 3181 4.25% 1997
12 Southport 3838 4.65% 2001
13 Newton Abbott 4573 4.75% 2001
14 Brecon and Radnorshire 3905 5.10% 2001
15 Mid Dorset and North Poole 5270 5.45% 2001
If 2nd term incumbency added a 2% swing for the 2005 MPs, then the Conservatives need to get a swing of 5%+ to take most of the 15 from this list. At present the polls indicate that the C vs LD swing averages 9%.
[19] I’m afraid so…..
27/28: For the Lib Dems to win seats from the Tories, Cameron has to do worse than Howard did in 2005. Is that likely?
One question which I’m sure has been asked before but is perhaps worth asking again is in regard to the attitude which the new Lib Dem leader will take towards the Conservatives.
Assuming that either Huhne or Clegg succeed Ming, both represent constituencies where the Tories are the main opponents, something which has not been the case since 1997 - when the Tories were hardly a threat to Ashdown.
If Huhne were to be chosen, there will no doubt be an almighty battle on the south coast to unseat him in 2009/10, which with a majority in only three figures should on paper be almost a given (though things can be different when dealing with high profile candidates).
Clegg has a safer majority, though still not the rock-solid numbers that Kennedy enjoys - it’s about the same as the Tory lead was in ‘92, before the Lib Dems won it. The Labour vote also looks to have been squeezed as far as it will go, unlike in Eastleigh.
Both men have got where they are by opposing and defeating Conservatives. However, doing the same thing nationally will probably undermine their local base - probably fatally so in Huhne’s case. Will they be constrained by that knowledge once elected, and how will that affect the party dynamics at a national level?
23. As I understand it a parliamentary candidate is meant to ATTRACT votes if (s)he is to gain a parliamentary seat where the council seats are split 12-9 between Tories and Lib Dems even though it is entirely represented by Labour MPs at the moment.
In Debi Jones’ own ward, despite copious external funding of the Tory campaign, the votes between the only two parties which matter (Local papers have already said that Labour has run up the white flag as their last two councillors departed to Peking and possibly prison respectively) have been thus:
Tory Lib Dem
May 2006 1795 547
May 2007 1652 701
Oct 2007 922 767
No, this is not as bad as Mark Bigley in neighbouring Southport who lost seats and votes over three years befire he jumped or wasa pushed - and I am not saying at this point that she absolutely can’t win at the General Election. Just that she seems to be going the wrong way (ie backwards not forwards) and Lib Dems are NOT going backwards against Tories in any real elections I can see. Lib Dems have only been WINNING council seats and vote share off the Tories in their NW held parliamentary seats and also several ‘juicy’ targets such as Warrington South.
The third party does well when the main opposition party was not doing well. The exception to this in the past 30 years was the 97 landslide.
The heartland for the Lib Dems has been the 3 Celtic areas of Scotland, Wales and the South West.
In Scotland the Lib Dems are being pushed from 2nd place (by SNP) to fighting for third place with the Conservatives and in Wales a similar trend is underway.
The South West is the area where the Lib Dems still are in the lead although the infighting in Cornwall and retirement of key MPs does open up possibilities for the Conservatives.
The trends in Scotland and Wales pre-date the present poll slumps.
33 - I really think it’s pushing it to suggest that Nick Clegg’s seat, + incumbency boost + leadership boost isn’t anything other than ultra solid. And the current lead is 10% over what the Tories had in 1997.
35 - not true. You are confusing number of seats with share of the vote. There is no example of the Libs profiting from Labour weakness.
When Labour are strong and Cons are weak Lib vote share suffers but tactical voting gives them huge potential for advancing in terms of winning seats.
When the Cons are strong and Labour are weak the Libs effectively become a truly national party in terms of where they can hope to attract votes (as the second party of choice for left wing voters). So they have huge potential for advancing vote share, but their prospects on seat share are bleak.
% Vote Shares based on mid point: Con 37% Lab 34% Lib Dem 22%
Average October polls: Con 39% Lab 38% Lib Dem 13%
I think it’s far more likely that the actual result will be halfway between the two: Con 38% Lab 36% Lib Dem 18% which would give us: Lab 314 Con 283 Lib Dem 25
36. In normal circumstances, it probably would be. The question is, would that still be the case if Clegg were to prop up Brown in a hung parliament. Hallam is natural Tory territory, returning Conservatives in every general election for a century before 1997 (including 1945). If Clegg were to keep Labour in power, it would not be difficult to imagine the way the local Tory association would play it: a Lib Dem is a Labour MP in disguise and your local man is personally responsible for that. In those circumstances, I don’t think the seat would be that ultra-safe.
On the majorities, it depends on how you look at it. Clegg’s is currently about 8700; in 1997, the Lib Dems overturned a Tory majority of about 6750. That’s a similar ball-park, although I accept that the lead is now more in percentage terms.
I think this depends on who wins the leadership; although some are trying to paint this as a competition of two very similar people I think the result will be more crucial than that.
I cannot see Clegg being able to attack the tories effectively given that he is closer to Cameron, both politically and presentationally, and I worry that seats would be lost to the tories if Clegg was leader. I know that is a minority view but I’m prepared to back it up with significant cash. With a resurgent tory party then a leader who can provide something different would be able to hold the line better, the greener, economically astute Huhne may get tory waverers and appeal to the left liberals.
OT:
Might be some value on a third party bid in 2008.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/what-does-stephan-colberts-13-tell-us-about-2008/
Just checking in briefly from Chepstow, am very gratified at the response to the Ten To Follow post. That’s plenty good enough to make the effort worthwhile and I’ll get back to everybody next week.
Mike - agree with your anlysis. Hold LD, buy Tory.
Icarus - I did warn you about the Cat! What happened to La Traviata though? The fat lady didn’t sing?
I’m not sure any of the Electoal calculus type formulae
help that much,(and I’m not convinced by them either) I suspect there will be a fair bit of tactical voting come the General Election
42. How much credibility should we give to someone who states that McCain is Giuliani’s main rival? What about Romney or Thompson?
I’m not sure what you mean by asking whether there will be a third-party candidate. There will probably be several as usual, though will equally probably have little impact on the result (2000 was a very unusual election in that respect).
The main question with any third party is: if you’re serious, why not run with one of the main parties? There’s usually no good answer. If they’re good enough to win without a party, then they’d certainly be good enough to win with one - though candidates like that come along once a generation at most (and there isn’t one now) - if they’re not good enough to win a nomination, how can they be taken seriously at the general election? If they are looking to ‘fill a gap’ on the ballot paper (e.g. if both nominated candidates are from New York), aren’t they then equally sectional in their appeal?
We know there is disillusionment with the political process in the States, as here. Any hypothetical ‘third-party’ candidate will sweep up some of that vote in a poll, but running is another matter, with the money, organisation and effort involved, and the certainty of a loss at the end of it.
15 I think you may have to differentiate the Cornwall seats. This is such a LD heartland that much of the usual Tory opening when an incumbent steps down is negating.
12 Yup. But the Tories have such a mountain to climb that they will have little to spare in seats like NS and IS, and we could wee LD gains in such seats offsetting inevitable Tory gains. If we assume 15 gains from Lds would be at the top end of Tory expectations and assume not unreasonably 5 gains from Labour are on the cards for them. Then net they’d be down Ten. A blow certainly but not wipe out
16 I think their 2005 gains are safer actually. Firstly incumbency wears off after the first one or two re-elections you already extracted all the benefit. Secondly the bulk are from Labour. If Labour are on the backfoot they should certainly be easier to defend than say Torbay or Romsey against a resurgent Conservative Party
Overall were the Election tomorrow they would certainly be hit for more than 12. But it isn’t. If we see at least some LD gains from Labour and I’m convinced about an increase but not the extent thereof of Tory tactical voting why is it unreasonable to think it hard for them to be a net down more than 12. You would have to see the Tories knocking out some poerful incumbents and/or breaking into Cornwall and that’s tough for them
38 Ordinarily yes. But 2005 left them far closer to Labour than ever before in many seats, meaning their starting platform is far more conducive to actually translating support into gains from Labour then the early 80’s where they often only did enough to help the Tories in. Now in many cases they are clealy in 2nd as Challengers
33 The Conservatives in Hallam as in Cumberland and Westmoreland are inastate of collapse . It may have been a rocksolid Conservative seat at one time but it is not now . The last Conservative councillor will lose her seat next May and the local Conservative Association is already moribund and does not function enough to produce annual accounts .
27 Think! It’s not the student but the Lecturers/associated staff who stay and who count. As Mr Fear points out large student associations have not helped the Tories in sucvh seats in the slightest. They will hold those seats especially if Labour are on the defensive
35 Bit odd re Wales. They are the 4th Party already. The Tories are actually fighting to get clear of PC as the 2nd Party. And even in when the Tories were wiped they could only expand from 2 to 3 Seats
33 No voters always like a Leader unless there’s a Rinka factor in play. Mr Fear believes and I concur that if Huuhne wins he will near certain hold Eastleigh. That doesn’t detract from the worth of the Local Tories fighting it hard both to tie him down and divert resources as well as generate LD Leader under threat Press headlines
48 I’m genuinely amazed at how much you know, Mark, how on earth do you know all that?
45.
I’m not saying that McCain is Giuliani’s main rival overall, but I am saying that Giuliani voters are more likely to move to McCain than any of the other candidates (ditto McCain voters). As I said in an earlier article, ever since August the centrist share of the vote (McCain + Giuliani) has stayed relatively stable, suggesting that they are both competiting for the same voters. (see http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/what-can-we-learn-from-the-weekly-rasmussen-poll/)
I disagree with your assesment of a 3rd party candidate’s chances. Anderson was at 25% at one stage in 1980 and McCain has broader electoral appeal than JA ever did. I could see a repeat of 2006 with a McCain/Lieberman ticket overtaking Romney (or Thompson) by late September and then the Republican vote moving to the strongest anti-Hillary candidate. McCain has thrown some cold water on the notion of a 3rd party bid (but he did the same in 2003 joining the Democrats and we know now that he came very close to joining them).
Sorry, I meant to say Thompson or Huckabee, since I don’t rate Romney’s chances at all (and obviously McCain wouldn’t run against Giuliani).
I think the LD are potentially looking down the barrel of a gun at the next election in terms of MP numbers. I think the next election will be all about change and Cameron is the obvious change. The LD’s are not serious challanges for Government, unless they are in a colition with one of the two major parties.
I think that this leadership change may well backfire on the LD’s as if Nick Clegg is supposed to appeal to Tory supporters, what will happen to the Labour tatical voters?
For this reason i do think the electoral map will be very different after the next election. I would hazzard a guess that if the Tories fot 41, Labour 38 and the LD’s 11. The Tories might actually get an overall majority, although the level swing calculators do not show this. I think the Labour vote will not be much more than last time. 3 term governments looking for a fourth, never increase their vote.
The only chance for the LD’s is if Bush goes and bombs Iran and Brown is caught up with this. I think this could remind the electrate of Brown’s pivotel dual preimership with Blair and taking the UK to war on a lie.
OK decided to be a bit of an anorak (recognising that sample sizes get smaller). Compared April 2007 ICM poll which had Labour weak, Tories strongish and LDs OK (25%:38%:21%) with last Sunday Telegraph Poll after Tory Fightback (Lab 36%:C 43% : Lib 14%)
Lib Dems -
In April 15% men and 24% Women supported LDs, now 13% & 13% so down 5% among men but 11% among women
In April by Social Class AB24%, C1 23%, C2 19%, DE 16 %; October change AB -8%, C1 -7%, C2 -9%, DE -5%
In April 3% of 2005 Conservative voters would support LDs, 11% of 2005 Labour voters and 76% of 2005 Lib Dem voters.
In October 0% of 2005 Conservatives, 3% of 2005 Lab and only 64% of 2005 LD voters would still do so.
Where had Lib Dem voters gone? In April 11% to Conservatives and 7% to Labour; In October it was 24% to Conservative and 10% to Labour.
Lib Dems have lost significantly more of their female support (Tories have gained 5% amongst women, Labour 10%). They are attracting hardly any votes from 2005 Conservative or Labour voters and in fact have lost 34% of their support in ratio 24 C: 10 L to those parties.
One surprising change (in my mind) between April and September was a huge rise in DE support for Tories from 31% in April to 43% in October +12% in that social category, Lab lost 2%, LDs lost 5% and others fell 6%. Who would have thought IHT was such a concern? Maybe Cameron the Toff isn’t such a turn-off after all.
There are 22 LD seats where there will be a first-time incumbent defending at the next election. On average over the past 3 elections LD 1st timers have increased their vote share by 5%. So some marginal seats (e.g. Eastleigh, Westmoreland, Bristol W, Ceredigion, Withington, Rochdale, Solihull, Cheltenham, Taunton, etc) are probably a bit safer than they look.
On the other hand there are five seats (so far) where incumbents are standing down. On average over the last 3 elections, such seats have seen a 5% loss in vote share. So Winchester, Hereford and Cornwall SE are more vulnerable than they look.
I think it’s a given the LibDems are going to lose seats overall - after all, 2005 was the most three-cornered election since 1923! However, the recent polling levels (allowing for a full slate of candidates) are showing the LDs at equivalent to where they were in the 1950s…. I don’t think that is a realistic outcome of the next election. I personally would be surprised if they ended up at sub 1997 seat levels. Perhaps a dozen and a half losses, compensated by a handful of gains from Labour is about the outer limit in my view.
However if they choose the ridiculous Huhne as leader, all bets are off.
50 Much of it is a matter of public record for example the fact that no accounts have been filed for several years , no Conservative parliamentary candidate been adopted and there are local musings that the last Conservative councillor will not even try to defend her seat next May as even her strong personal vote will not be enough to save it .
48. What evidence do you have for that?
What you have got to understand Mark is the days of local associations being pivotel is on the way out. Central organisations in the two main parties are capable of trumping “local LD” commitees. The problem for the LD’s at the next election is they are not with the tide like in 1997. The tide is going against them and instead of being on the coat tails of Labour. Labour will be the mill stone dragging you down.
Will Parbury highlights some analysis from EPOP about the GE 2005 on various aspects of the main 3 parties campaigns.
http://tinyurl.com/3ya48f
The mean number of campaign workers per Constituency in 2005 was significantly up for Conservatives to 85 (from 61), Labour were down from 32 to 27 and the Lib Dems up from 20 to 26. Perhaps one of the reasons why Conservatives had a nett gain in Lib Dem seats which was against the swing?
In 2005 Labour will have suffered because of Iraq but has had a significant decline in Councillors and members since 2001. Lib Dems had the boost of Iraq particularly in Labour areas.
Where would we expect these numbers to move to in 2009? My view based on; the polls, the trend in Councillors and the dimunition of the Iraq effect, would be:-
Conservatives over 90
Labour below 25
Lib Dems back to 20
This will strengthen the advantage Conservatives have in tight contests as they can deploy bigger resources across multiple constituencies. A 4:1 ratio is a significant advantage.
47- “But 2005 left them far closer to Labour than ever before in many seats, meaning their starting platform is far more conducive to actually translating support into gains from Labour ”
or maybe it can mean they’re already towards their highest level in many Lab held and it would difficult to grow again. It’s not that because they advanced last time, they have to advance forever.
49. “Bit odd re Wales. They are the 4th Party already”
In terms of GE they were third in 2005 ahead of Plaid.
56. Thank you for highlighting any organisational problems, the tories will now redouble their efforts in these seats to win them back. You must remember, short term point scoring, leads to long term losses!
Mark Williams MP (Ceredigion), Roger Williams MP(Brecon & Radnorshire) and David Steel declare for Huhne
54 Ted, thanks for that insight.
The polls that tried to forecast what would happen if GB became PM did predict a situation where Labour gained a little but the Conservatives gained the most and the LDs lost votes to both.
The actual position we have arrived at is not precisely what the polls forecast, but the nett direction of movement has been the same.
Martin Day@53:”The only chance for the LD’s is if Bush goes and bombs Iran and Brown is caught up with this.”
We haven’t discussed this scenario much here, but there must be a reasonable possibility that it will happen - either fairly soon or in the runup to the US Presidential elections. And the probability of it leading to an ongoing war shouldn’t be overlooked either.
If the thing is spun, as it may well be, as triggered by an attack by Iran on US forces in Iraq or something similar, am I right in assuming that both Cameron and Brown will back the US? This would certainly be an opportunity for the LibDems to get votes back off Labour, and they may even be able to chip a smaller percentage off the Tories as well.
63. I think Labour and the tories would have to back the US.
Iran is more dangerous than Iraq due to the religous political angle. Really Bush attacked the wrong country as whilst Saddam was bad he was not Mad. That President of Iran is a fruit cake.
I would see an opening for the LD’s but Iran would not be a land war it would be an air war with missiles and bombs doing the fighting.
The only prospect for the LD’s would be if it reminded the voters of Iraq, otherwise i cannot see the LD’s getting much from it.
I personally would support an attack on Iran as it would be very dangerous if they have nuclear bombs. The joker in the pack are Russia & China, the former could be persuaded to let it happen if the european missile shield did not go ahead imo.
The joker in the pack are Russia & China, the former could be persuaded to let it happen if the european missile shield did not go ahead imo.
One of the reasons why the US wants a missile shield is to protect against this, if the Iranians are stopped from having a nuclear bomb it may be a good bargining tool with the Russians.
A couple of good examples above of why it isn’t that bleak for us. If anyone fancies a bet on Tim Farron retaining his seat I’m on for it.
Of course there is are a number of seats which looks safe where the LibDem is doomed… and at least one I expect us to take from the Tories.
The issue in the South West for Lib Dems is that they have 3 seats without an incumbent and 3 others that are marginal. That is a lot to defend for a party that flourishes by shipping around its regional resources in a few seats.
The battle in 2009 for Lib Dems will be very different to 05, 01 or 97 where they primarily focused on acquisition. In 2009 2 out of 3 Lib Dem Mps will primarily focus on retaining their own seat. They will not release resources to their neighbours.
Also Conservatives have a bigger resource base and the scale of the challenge for Lib Dems maybe too great for them to keep more than two of these 6 vulnerable South West seats.
64 I don’t think either of them would to be honest…. but if they do Mike had better get his LibDem seats back in sharpish for a move over 100.
Though it will probably be the end of the world anyway so who really cares.
57/60 I have given you some evidence Martin , where is your evidence for your bold assertion that the Conservatives are making any efforts at all to regain Hallam and Cumberland never mind redoubling them .
63/64 My G*d someones actually fulfilling Edmund’s forecast post of “Will the coming Armageddon affect Lib Dem prospects in marginals” (not quite his phrase but close)
Sarkozy has indicated support, Merkel seems to be OK with it, Brown was careful in PMQs not to rule it out. If it’s late in Bush’s presidency then the Russian elections would be over with a new president and PM Putin - Russia would protest but not act; China much the same.
US, UK and others would need to be ready for an upsurge in Iranian backed terrorism but that’s already at a pretty high level - the Arab world would protest while being happy to see the Shi’ites dealt with. Main problem would be Pakistan and the destabilisation there. Increased Iranian support to Baluchistan seperatists and into the NW frontier. Israel would probably take advantage to get at Hezbollah again which would raise the temperature in the middle-East.
Looks to me more likely than not that US will attack Iran.
68. Don’t worry mate it won’t be the end of the world!
It would not be an invasion just a air campaign. As said above, the Russians may even be brought on side by the European element of the defence shield been withdrawn.
64-Martin-”Really Bush attacked the wrong country as whilst Saddam was bad he was not Mad”
Iran didn’t have the power that they have today. At that time(2001), they had powerful enemies(Taliban and Iraq), so they felt threatened by both. With the fall of the Taliban in 2001, and Saddam in 2003, they had nothing else to fear in the region, so they could elect a radical president and develop a nuclear programm(that can be peaceful or not). Without the Iraq invasion, everything could be different.
69. where is your evidence for your bold assertion that the Conservatives are making any efforts at all to regain Hallam and Cumberland never mind redoubling them -
No i di not say that, i thanked you for highlighting any lack of organisation and i will contact the relvant Tory HQ bods to get things shaped up!
Mark, i don’t want to insult you but you are begining to become the comical ali of this website! Seeing things that are not their, unsubstantiated and pure fantasy. By the way the LD’s in hallam had a 25% fall in their membership subscritions since 2005. Me thinks this means membership has nose dived as people do not generally pay more than the going rate for subscriptions, they tend to bump the figure up elsewhere!
54. Ted, interesting assessment but I think on the DE’s shift you may only be considering part of the reason. Since April it has become much clearer that the Conservatives are not as weak in traditional areas as their opponents might want to claim. So greater confidence in their policies on:
Immigration
Crime
EU
Combined with the idea that the Conservatives will cut taxes where possible and the Government as not as safe on the economy as previously may explain it much more fully.
72. Yes you are right, i was looking at the region in todays terms not 6 years ago! Think the rest of what i was saying is probably correct though!
The main power that Iran has is not military but economic. If it all kicked off in the Gulf oil prices would go to $200 - maybe even more. Not only would there be no Iranian production they could seriously cut all the gulf flows down too.
I would think it much more likely the US lets Israel do their dirty work for them - but it would still cause a terrifying crisis.
I simply fail to understand what attacking Iran is supposed to achieve.
67. I’m not sure that either Huhne or Clegg will play well in the South West on the EU. Will the Conservatives be able to make hay on that issue?
54. Another thought - are we starting to see the Murdoch effect?
76. Spot on mate on the oil price, the Iranian president has said he would nuclear bomb isreal if he had the bombs. Sometimes it is better to take the problem out before it develops.
64: You get ride of the easiest target, Saddam, and hope that a functioning democracy next door boosts the stock of the pro democracy camp in Iran. If you attack Iran first you turn on the nationalism button which unites all Iranians together against you.
54. I don’t think Cameron’s background is a problem at all. Labour cannot exploit it as Harmen is Cameron’s cousin!!!
The LD’s cannot exploit it as neither Clegg not Hunne was dragged up either!
75-and I think the US should pay more attention to Pakistan, they already have the bomb, and the country is a mess..
74 Agreed - the Who knew IHT was so popular? was a comment on posters who assign the Conservative bounce-back to a single cause. It wasn’t just Osborne or even Cameron but a well presented suite of policies touching “core” and soft issues that worked. Even Mr Clegg is recycling a few Tory ideas in his interview today - vouchers, choice, work/life balance. Good thing our working groups have provided such a universal source for policy development.
It does however seem to show that Roger & Tyson’s repetitive class based attacks on Cameron don’t have much sway in the real world except in the champagne socialist one.
Work life balance a recycled tory idea… dream on!
76. “I simply fail to understand what attacking Iran is supposed to achieve”. The destruction of Iran’s capacity to manufacture atomic weaponry. Nothing more than that is needed.
As far as the Russians are concerned, yes, Moscow certainly has closer links with Tehran than Washington does - and probably closer links than Washington is happy about - but they also have at least as big an incentive to ensure than Iran does not develop the weapons.
73 I do worry about you Martin , you seem incapable of even reading a set of accounts properly . Look again at Sheffield Hallam LibDem accounts for 2005 and 2006 . Membership numbers static on 2005 . Total income down compared to 2005 by £6,000 odd but of course 2005 was a GE year . Compared to 2004 total income up by nearly £ 6,000 . Now let’s have a look at the equivalent Hallam Conservative accounts - oopps there are none filed .
84 The way Clegg presents it is so much Cameron’s Happiness Index that it’s embarrassing. His sole differentiation seem to be his Europeanism, amnesty for immigrants and putting alcohol into the drug classification and control legislation.
And that’s expected to bring back the lost voters?
86. No that is your spin. It says that membership is static. I do not believe it. You lie Mark, sorry nothing other to say than that. I said Subscritions were down about 25% since the GE. I am right and you are wrong, don’t try and do a politicians awnser on it and say tyhe whole income is X.
You talk about tory tory accounts but the LD ones do not show a surge to the LD’s. You have been caught with your pants down. You really should try and engage in the issues: I always thought LD’s did not like the party politics between Tory and Labour. It is something that you seem to soley do. No wonder the LD’s have had two leaders in two years!
:lol: 
88 The Conservative Party is in a bad way in Sheffield Hallam - its a seat we should be doing well in but we have no candidate selected, no real presence and need to take action. Lib Dem membership might have staled or whatever but Clegg has a very strong local position. Doesn’t mean that we give up but its going to be a hard and in beginning unrewarding slog.
89 Ted, when Huhne takes the top job at the LibDems and Clegg joins the Tories out of pique (having been promised a SENIOR Cabinet position in the next Government), then the Tories will take Hallam back that way….so not so unrewarding a slog!
According to uk polling report there are 33 Lib Dem seats easier for the Conservatives to take than Sheffield Hallam. But it is interesting that this is the level of seat that Mr Senior wishes to engage in debate on.
I think the Tories will take Hunnes seat at the next election.
The LD are fighting for their existence: nothing more nothing less. The third party has become irrelevant, there is no need for it.
92. It’s always been a risk for the LDs in electing Huhne.
Imagine the tory campaign in Eastleigh in a GE if the prize was the scalp of the leader of the Lib Dems! Would/could Huhne switch constituencies?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/27/nbrown127.xml
“In an evolution of Mr Brown’s “big tent” politics, there is even speculation that he could appoint politicians from outside the Labour Party. Either Paddy Ashdown or Sir Menzies Campbell, both former Lib Dem leaders, could be asked to join.”
re 92 & 94. If Huhne is leader then he’ll be as near a certainty that it’s possible for a Lib Dem MP to be. Leaders get all the media focus and the local pride element kicks in.
Martin - I would be very happy to enter into a private wager on this once the leadership is settled and the members, as I think is looking more likely, go for Huhne.
92. If i were the tories though i would not advertise it. I think the LD’s saying they were going to decapatite members of the tory shadow cabinet backfiered big style.
90. I think Project Cameron has some way to run before Clegg could even join the Tories, never mind would do so. Defections of that magnitude just don’t happen - who was the last person of that stature within their party to switch to another? Probably those of the SDP gang who ended up in the Lib Dems, but even they went via a breakaway party of their own first.
I agree Sheffield Hallam is out of reach, for the foreseeable future. I think that Huhne has a sufficiently high profile to retain Eastleigh, whether he’s leader or not, particularly as the Lib Dems dominate the local council.
But were there an election tomorrow, I’d expect the Conservatives to gain 10-15 net from the Lib Dems.
Huhne’s chances dpend upon what happens in next May’s local elections. If the LDs lose 3+ councillors in Eastleigh, then a Conservative win looks possible.
96 agreed but a strong challenge would keep Huhne tied close to Hampshire during a campaign - not good if Lib Dem showing remains low.
98 - well the Liberals have split more than any other political party in UK, so never say never
95. If that happens it will be fantastic news for the Conservatives.
Many people still think Ashdown is leader of the Lib Dems, let alone Campbell. Any association between Ashdown / Campbell and the government reinforces the idea that the Lib Dems side with Labour against the Conservatives.
This is ideal for getting Con / Lib Dem floating voters to vote Conservative.
98. The Tories don’t want to start importing a fresh generation of eurofanatics so soon after their own old guard of Brussels backers has faded into obscurity.
88 No Martin I do not lie , I just tell some uncomfortable truths which you find hard to accept but anumber of other Conservative posters do acknowledge . Your constant stream of inane posts rivalled only by Ave It add nothing of any substance to this site .
100 Much more likely isfor LibDems to gain Hamble ward from Conservatives next May , Eastleigh South ward is vulnerable to Labour but incumbency should help the LibDem councillor to hold this ward . Council would then be LibDem 38 Con 4 Lab 2 .
Conservative posters are quite right to feel very happy and optimistic based on their better position. BUT they are, I suspect, very misguided if they try and imagine that this is what will be the position in 2009 or even 2010.
As for silly comments like the Lib Dems are “irrelevant”, give me strength, I suppose that is what the constituency folk feel where their MP is a Lib Dem?
Also, and they constantly avoid thinking about where they and the Lib Dems are in co-alition at present.
I suggest a bit more balance and objective thinking might be helpful, otherwise in a couple of years some folk are going to be awfully disappointed.
105 Asking for objective thinking from Martin Day is hoping for a lottery win when you have not bought a ticket .
104 - Mark I really think you are wasting your time with Martin Day.
You can explain the facts to him until you are blue in the face but you’re never going to be able to give him the brains to understand them.
102- I want to see the press reaction, because when Brown created his “big tent”, the press was loving him, and they told us that this was masterstroke, but now, things are different, what will the press tell us?
96 - I think this is a slightly complacent attitude. Huhne has a majority in triple figures! It doesn’t matter what the combination of incumbency and leadership does for him, he can by no means be considered a certainty, in the face of a large national swing to the Tories (and bigger Lib/Con swing). If he remains a “certainty” then it will relying significantly on local factors as well IMO.
BTW on the “local pride” issue. Is it local pride or is it hard nosed self interest that generally causes leaders to buck/exaggerate national swings? No Prime Minister’s constituency will ever be given anything other than special privileges, so voters would be actively working against their self interest were they to reject a potential PM.
Whether a LibDem leader can present himself as such is, however, a different matter…
98 - The only realistic scenario for high level LibDem defections would be if they had a General Election collapse and it became clear that the medium term prospects for the party (as regards getting into power) were bleak. Confronted with the loss of their careers some would be bound to jump ship.
(Alternatively a split in the libDems caused by a hung parliament).
106, 107: You really do underestimate me at your own peril. Yes i make spelling mistakes and gramatical errors. Who was right about the election? Who posted on the BBC website and on here about Labour’s phoney recruitment drive? Who was right? I was:
I think Mark you are complete prat, coming on here claiming to be a LD and then sound like the worst type of labour partisan. You have no idea looking at how the tories are from a single piece of information. You are a one trick person Mark and you are that poor at it: your figures do not even support it! I pity you mark: Your leads range from Pantsdown to Pisshead to OAP. I think the next LD leader will just be pointless - A bit like you!
:lol: 
I would say Huhne as leader would only be in danger if the Lib Dems were nationally unpopular. Other than that I think it’s a fairly good bet that most party leaders would keep their seats, whatever the majority.
Sheffield Hallam LD ACCOUNTS
2006 2005
Donations 24715 25938
Subscriptions 430 558
The most recent accounts show both Donations falling and a slump in Membership subscriptions of some over some 20% from 2005 to 2006. It must be remembered that the LD’s have slumped in opinion polls and in national Local elections since this point in time and so whilst the LD’s may have done relatively not as badly in the areas within this seat. It is hardly an indicator that LD membership has “surged” or for that matter remained static.
The link to the LD accounts is as follows:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/SheffieldHallamLibDem_25639-19052__E__N__S__W__.PDF
I think that saying their membership is static is highly misleading as a 20% fall in subscriptions is dramatic.
Galloglass: you really are an insulting prick. I have been to University twice, even passes all my professional qualifications first time. So don’t say i cannot understand something.
113 - “Membership - Our membership remains static at about 320”
You really are embarrassing yourself a bit here Martin.
Subscriptions:
Subscriptions in 2006 - £430
Subscriptions in 2005 - £558
So you really beieve a comment like Membership - Our membership remains static at about 320.
Is it independently verified? NO would a decline in figures indicate a fall in memebership - I think so!
Now the Govt is in trouble…they’ve pissed off Keef:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7065262.stm
He is obviously worried about NHS geriatric care - so the last tour bombed, did it?
about does not sound very specific to me.
Some great quotes in the Times:
“Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let that money provide thousands more police officers on the beat in our local communities. ”
Tony Blair, as Leader of the Opposition, Labour Party conference, October 1995
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article2748892.ece
116 - Martin. Considering in the previous two years the Sheffield Hallam accounts reported a slight decline in membership then i don’t see why we should disbelieve them. I note that Subscriptions in 2005 nevertheless went up! (despite the stated decline in membership).
They obviously don’t record subscriptions on a accruals basis and there obviously isn’t a set subscription amount.
112. Most party leaders start off with a rather more secure base than Huhne currently has.
120 (con) - ie. a load of people paid up in General Election year.
Martin, I think you’re maybe being a little extreme in the way you’re making your points here. The personal abuse isn’t nice to see and detracts from the argument.
119 Even funnier:
Jack Straw, Home Secretary, visiting a Bournemouth old people’s home during the 1999 Labour Party conference, to a resident: “Do you know who I am?” Resident: “No dear, but if you ask matron, she will tell you.”
Falsifying Statements of Accounts is of course a fairly serious allegation to be chucked about on zero evidence other than a misreading of subscription income.
They could have a load of life members, for example, who are no longer contributing subscriptions to the party (but may obviously still be providing income via donations).
Surely that’s another ban or suspension if rules are going to be enforced?
127 - Well it’s a more open and shut case than some on this thread’s evidence.
Perhaps Mike should set up an Internal Audit function?
120. How do you know that?
Your just reading into that for convience sake, Their is no verification at all.
As i have worked for a political party: I can tell you that people tend to pay only the minimum. Yes they may top it up later with extra donations. It is a condition of human nature. Would you give someone an extra £10 when buying insurance? course not.
It cost about £9 to join in sheffield Hallam.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/support/join.html?ref=joinq
By my reckoning we would have lost three posters (two regular) in less than a day if there was some sort of rule against abuse or accusation. Is that really what some people want?
130 - How do i know what?
131 - there’s no excuse for the sort of abuse in evidence on this thread. At least seant made an effort to entertain with originality when he piled in.
124 - That’s one of those old chestnuts told of several pols.