What if these headlines had reported a 13% Tory deficit?
November 1st, 2007
Would Blackpool have been different if a poll had not been suppressed?
November 1st, the day Labour was planning for the general election, is probably a good moment to reflect on the amazing events of the past six weeks. And one element that nobody’s really focussed on is the impact of Observer decision not to publish on September 29th an Ipsos-Mori poll showing the Tories 13% behind.
For if it had been the splash lead rather than what did appear (above) then would the conference, which started that day, have gone so easily for the leadership and could Labour’s hoped for Conservative implosion actually have happened?
Let’s recall the sequence of polls during that frenzied week after Gordon had made his first conference speech as Labour leader and Prime Minister. On the the Saturday afterwards the Times and the Telegraph both published polls reporting double digit leads for Labour. Populus had Labour 10% ahead while YouGov in the Telegraph reporting an 11% Labour lead.
The next poll that was due to have gone out was the main Ipsos-Mori’s survey for the month putting Labour on 44% to 31% for the Tories where fieldwork had finished the previous Wednesday. So the three main surveys that weekend would all have had double digit leads with the last to be published putting the gap at 13%. The move to Labour and Brown would have seemed unstoppable. What an awful start for the Tory conference?
But something happened at the Observer four days earlier to make them think twice about publishing it. Instead they commissioned a second survey from Ipsos-Mori, this time a phone poll, which showed a 7 point Labour lead - the same as a BPIX survey in the Mail on Sunday.
This had a remarkable affect on the mood in Blackpool. Somehow being seven points adrift felt manageable in a way that a 13% deficit would not have. And although you should only compare surveys from the same firm there was little doubt that the polls published that Sunday morning looked slightly less daunting as delegates enjoyed the Blackpool sunshine.
In years to come political nerds will produce lots of counter-factuals about the November 1st general election that wasn’t.
I’m convinced that it was the Observer that did it for Dave.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
or maybe the Brown bounce was just far lower. all polls worked themselves up into a competitive frenzy. whoever gave the biggest lead got the biggest headlines.
many analysts worked back to the GE 2005 and considered Brown’s lead was about 3% taking into account likelihood to vote.
the false figures manoevred Balls into pressuring Gordon into an early poll.
once the real fight was on, the Conservatives seemed to be in shockingly good shape as they knew Brown was working from false information, having their own marginal polling showing Labour were actually in a weak position.
Cameron appeared to be acting out an overly weak hand to try to get Labour into making the error of calling the election. He made few confidence building manoevres until the Party conference, following Napoleon’s dictum - Never Disturb Your Enemy When He’s Making A Mistake.
The lesson is. don’t trust national polling organisations that get very excited around election time especially. run your own polling. it’s far more reliable.
Labour presumably had their own polling as well as the Conservatives. But for some reason it must have been overly optimistic. Maybe unable to tell Gordon the truth. Classic bad management.
What advantage lay in an early election for Gordon Brown himself? I backed no election at 11/4 because I could not see why Brown would want one, and I’m not sure this opinion poll would have changed that.
Much of the pro-election hype (and, indeed, preparation) appears to have come from Douglas Alexander, who had previously made a mess of the Scottish election in a way that hurt Labour while ineptly seeking an unfair party advantage, and Ed Balls who is in danger of becoming to Brown what Peter Mandelson was to Blair: the trusted advisor turned failed minister.
Presumably the Obscurer didn’t publish it because they didn’t believe it. After all, one poll in twenty is a “rogue” in the nature of things - and how many have we had since the beginning of September?
O/T - Australian Federal election, 24/11. There is a new set of polling figures for each individual constituency on:
http://pulse.ninemsn.com.au/forecast/
According to William Bowe on his pollbludger.com website,
>
Such an overall result would of course be a landslide. The forecast includes the fall of both Bennelong and Wentworth.
5. Woops! The quote from William Bowe of pollbludger.com is
” …the data has been carefully weighted by people who know their onions, after the fashion of YouGov (speaking of which, what became of them?). It can thus boast remarkably plausible electorate results with “a sample of between 340 and 390 voters in almost every seat”. Taken together it shows Labor on 81 seats and the Coalition on 58, with both independents re-elected and nine seats too close to call (though I count 10).”
tapestry @ 2 — the Brown bounce was genuine and had long been predicted on this site, with its mechanism being the return of Labour supporters disillusioned by Blair and Iraq.
The significant change happened on the Conservative side. During the policy reviews, the only reason for voting Tory would have been that you liked the cut of Cameron’s jib. Cameron was not the widely loathed Blair, so he had a poll lead till Brown took over; but then Brown was also not Blair.
Then, at the Tory conference, policies were announced which gave people reasons to support them once more, and they did.
Nothing very mysterious happened, in that various people here had predicted these changes, aside from Labour’s ludicrous decisions to re-open Iraq wounds and throw away Brown’s reputation as an adroit statesman.
According to the Polls there has been a swing against Labour from 10+ percentage points to 5- points.You could say that the high figures were inspired by Labour’sConference and that a correction occured the following week,but this is more than that.
What has Brown done wrong ?
1.’Bottler Brown’.Noone died,an election was rumoured….it didn ‘t happen.
2.The announcement of troop reductions in situ rather than in the HOC as previously specifically promised.This looked ugly.
3.Stealing the Oppositions clothes.This looked pathetic.
SuperMac talked about “events,dear boy”. I sometimes think that between elections it isn ‘t ‘events dear boy’ but the reporting of events, dear boy, and only when the time comes do people think about things like the pound in their pocket.
I think Labour are up against it in the short and even mid-term because the REPORTING of events is bound to be unfavourable to them.
Following the election that wasn’t Ming Campbell was not the only one deposed - the editor of the Observer also seems to have lost a power battle. Could this decision have played a part?
What was it that made the Observer distrust a headline grabbing poll? Perhaps good journalism - the volatility of polling changes meant they wanted a more recent result to hang their story on or wanted confirmation.
Is Mike’s point the real reason the Observer is now editor-less?
Claire Kelley, as widely anticipated, got the LD nomination in Harrogate and Knaresborough last night. She’ll hold the seat comfortably I imagine.
What has struck me is the difference between the hystria about it all on PB.com , witness Mike’s intemperate language above, and the complete and utter indifference in the wider world to the events of the last few weeks . Frankly people don’t care. It would have made no differnce to their lives.That is my opinion too, my life would not be appreciably different whoever is elected.The public are not stupid, they know that too.
The issue in my mind is more the decline of democratic politics as something which the man or woman in the street views as an important influence on their personnal and family well being.
In all probability a November eletion would have hit a record low turnout - no matter closely fought.
URW@8
…is undoubtedly correct. This explains the early stategy of Cameron, getting the press more in line, that was stupidly criticised by Heffer and co. A classic example is this morning: local councils want an extra £250m to look after immigrants. The BBC are reporting this as “a quarter of a billion” which sounds so much worse.We now wait for a real “extraneous” event to knock Brown off course to see how that is reported.
Defining moments in history normally take longer to evaluate but this one looks simple.
Camerons policy of aggravating Brown personally is leading GB to start to contemplate some pretty stupid policy like the possible unilateral funding issue.
The more team Brown go into bunker mode the more he looks distant and out of touch with reality.
The wheels could come off quicker than the average pundit thinks….
The troops issue is another example where activists lose sight of the plot. URW @ 8 - When I heard that news I thought “great - some blokes are coming home”.And that is as far as I thought.That the figures are dodgy, that he announced it during a party conference as a political stunt meant “absolutely nothing” (to quote Edwin Star and Frankie goes to Hollywood).
You are undestimating just how stable it is in the UK
“It’s the Observer wot won it”
An unlikely headline if ever there was…
For years I thought The Observer was some commie rag read by public sector workers and maths teachers with elbow patches sewn onto their blazers. I bought a copy a year ago for one of the music supplements and have been a fairly frequent reader ever since. Yes, there’s a hint of leftism but it has certainly given Dave and the New Tories a fair hearing. It’s a damned good newspaper - though not enough to make me give up the Sunday Times after all these years.
To call it a defining moment in history is laughable
15
You are not an activist then ?
I wouldn’t necessarily say that John Wheatley. If 09 produces a Cameron landslide which serves to destroy the Labour Party in the same way as they were in the 80s, we may look back at this period and conclude it was defining.
As for historical - maybe not, as a History teacher I don’t see this making the national curriculum very soon. We tend to teach about very few elections - 1830s, 1847, 1906, 1945 etc etc
“For years I thought The Observer was some commie rag read by public sector workers and maths teachers with elbow patches sewn onto their blazers. I bought a copy a year ago for one of the music supplements and have been a fairly frequent reader ever since.”
Sorry, Bob, you may think this is “irony”, “humour” etc, but actually it is the sort of comment that looks some types of Tory totally out of touch. I thought you had a more considered turn of thinking than that! Looked at from my standpoint, the Observer has a fair bit of the right about it to balance a generally liberal approach - for instance it has supported Iraq broadly.
“Sorry, Bob, you may think this is “irony”, “humour” etc, but actually it is the sort of comment that looks some types of Tory totally out of touch. I thought you had a more considered turn of thinking than that! Looked at from my standpoint, the Observer has a fair bit of the right about it to balance a generally liberal approach - for instance it has supported Iraq broadly.”
And this is the kind of post that does neither you personally nor us as an online community any favours. You have deliberately misinterpreted this comment.
20 - er, well yes, that was my point. By actually reading it fairly often over the past year, I have changed my perception of the paper. It’s not some commie rag, but nicely balanced with just a leftish tinge to some of the writing. And yes, it did support Iraq, and it has given the Tories a fair and balanced hearing most of the time.
O/T - Did anyone else here Cameron tank it on immigration on the Today programme this morning? A few good headlines don’t seem to have much new thinking behind them - he presented no new ideas (or indeed any concrete polices other than a ‘transition’ period for new EU entrants) and just seemed to echo the status quo.
So, no new policies, but good headlines… surely DC isn’t raising immigration simply for political benefit… is he?
*hear*… oh dear… I haven’t had my coffee yet!
18 of course I b****y am, but I haven’t lost my sense of proportion
My “seant issue”, to give it a name is that once you have a situation where inheritance tax or similar is a major energiser of the body politic,or even the EU for that matter, then it reaffirms the irrelevance of politics to the wider world - and I mean the wider world in the broadest sense.
It also reaffirms my belief that the vast majority, like over 90%, of the UK are so well off that they are on the imperialist side of the balance of power, with a hugely exploitative relationship with the rest of the world - who are seriously poor
To give it a geographical sense, the disparity between the standard of living on one side of the Mediterranean to the other is not sustainable. It is a moral and a practical issue. The moral case is obvious, but modern transport means at a practical level it is not sustainable either, so ther is no hiding place.
We can never look at politics in a purely UK/House of Commons etc way again. We have gone past that.
23
Isn’t it the job of the leader of the opposition to point out the failings of the government ?
19 - the reformist governments made major changes. Today’s governments only administrate - that is not a criticism, just a recognition of reality, and will continue to be so.
Got to take my daughter to school… she’s late
27
A good job your spleen exploded BEFORE you got in the car. Drive safely.
23 - I heard it and he didnt “tank” at all, he dealt with John Humphrey’s quite comfortably I thought and Nick Robinson following him focussed more on the govt’s difficulties with this issue. I think you heard what you wanted to hear old bean!
25. Is there not a contradiction between criticising imperialism while regarding political failure in other countries as primarily our problem?
29 Thought he did OK but he should have lost it with Humphries when Humphries played the race card - isn’t it just black immigration you want to stop stuff.
23
Trevor Phillips certainly doesn’t think so.
‘RACE and human rights champion Trevor Phillips yesterday made a surprise gesture to the Tories on immigration.
“For the first time in my adult life I heard a party leader clearly attempting to de-racialise the issue of immigration,” he said of David Cameron.
29 - We ALL hear what we want to hear in interviews, PMQs etc. Most of us are so biased that it is hard to be objective. But I *do* try
23 - Whether Cameron “tanked” on the Today programme (he didn’t) is irrelevant.
The popular narrative now - which will be reflected in the next set of opinion polls - is of an incompetent and deceitful government failing to deal with immigration properly and Brown’s dishonest “British jobs for British workers” nonsense was a spectacular misjudgement in hindsight.
Er, Tim, I think Bob is agreeing with you and gently deriding his own stereotypical assumptions - pity to tick him off for it.
On topic: It’s an entertaining speculation for us politics addicts. On current evidence I suspect it would have worked out pretty close if the election had been called.
John Wheatley is right that the general public doesn’t much care, and that’s something practicing politicians need to keep in mind as fortunes ebbs and flow. When we forget we go into hubristic excesses (yes, like my speculating that we might be moving into Labour landslide territory), and if the public *does* notice those it reacts against them. The next Tory poll should be juicy for them but nonetheless I think they are slightly overplaying their hand at the moment - the Halloween poster is a bit like the Demon Eyes one, which many people thought a bit off (I thought it was cute, but there you go). Because of the tribal dislike that many activists have each others’ leaders, it’s easy to forget that most people think that both Brown and Cameron seem reasonably decent “for politicians” (not a high bar to jump in the public’s mind).
fr 28 - trite and unworthy
Woodpecker @ 23. “So, no new policies, but good headlines… surely DC isn’t raising immigration simply for political benefit… is he?”
I should think he is, and quite right too.
I think it is a measure of how far Cameron has come in decontaminating the Conservative brand that he is able to say such things and not be howled down. I see that in the DT this morning Trevor Phillips of the Equality & Human Rights Commission is saying that on balance he agrees with DC and that he his happy that at last we have a Tory leader who actually talks sense on the subject rather than just spouts bile and dog-whistles.
Frankly I can’t imagine Trevor Phillips or anyone of that ilk saying anything remotely like that 3 years ago. Cameron got a lot of flak from both the right (Heffer et al) and from the left for being “vacuous” while he was doing all the husky and hoody hugging, but the decontamination strategy has obviously worked. These days he is able so say sensible right of centre things without being pilloried as a swivel-eyed fascist by the chattering classes.
34
Ah yes, that speech which Nick “we thought it was wonderful in the hall” Palmer said was so good.
34: Stewart - we know each other slightly and I try not to criticise colleagues. But hasn’t it struck you that the unremitting harshness of your posts alienates uncommitted opinion here?
23. A new teenage Labour spinner who can’t spell it seems…
39. …while the spinmeister himself continues to hide partisan attacks behind a veneer of politeness.
Compare and contrast Humphries interview with Cameron to Humphries fireside chat with Blears half an hour later on the same topic and tell me he isn’t biased.
39 - You are the site’s treasure! I always read Stewart J’s posts and think “mmm, not much gravitas there”. Your posts Nicj are always thoughtful and honest. People may not agree with what you write, but at least you are temperate in your views.
“Yes, there will be different interpretations of certain rights between different religions, just as there
are different interpretations within each religion, but the universal agreement of such values brings
together diverse cultures for the benefit of humankind – for men and women equally.”
Cherie Booth on equality for women - managing to ignore the treatment of women as second class in many religions - hers included.
Even though its in the news, it strikes me that the immigration issue is subject to what could be called “Foot’s Connundrum” after the esteemed ex-leader of the Labour Party
Through out the 80’s the research of public opinion was consistent
Q What is the biggest issue in politics today?
A Unemployment
Q Wich party has the best policies for tackling unemployment
A Labour
Q Which party are you voting for
A The Conservatives
I see the Immigration issue as falling into this. In someway given the scale, it is amazing how muted the rsponse is
39 - Nick - I’m afraid I don’t see it like that.
But I do remember the remorseless attacks by your party on every aspect of the Conservative government from 1994 onwards, the exploitation of a tiny number of personal foibles by Conservative MPs, the ridiculing of John Major, the very personal nastiness, the outright lies (e.g. the so called Tory plans to abolish pensions at the 1997 General Election for example)and the sheer brutal onslaught of New Labour’s “attack unit”
My comments are small beer in comparison. Harsh? If you can’t stand the rough and tumble then maybe you should get back to theoretical mathematics and stop assuming than only the Left have a right to be critical.As it happens, I believe that this Labour government is ruining my constituency and my country and I will do everything in my power to get rid of it.
Live with it and stop whingeing.
36
It was a little joke that clearly missed the mark. I certainly didn’t wish to offend. Sorry.
45. Bravo Stewart
45 well said.
Yes, proof positive I’m afraid. Viva Nick!
45. Sound!
39 - Nick, that surely must be for Stewart to decide - freedom of speech and all that - not yet abolished under your Govt etc
re Mike’s analysis, although I think the Observer would be thrilled at it, I suspect he underestimates the backbone of party activists if he reckons publication of that poll in particular would have resulted in Tory implosion at Blackpool - activists knew the polls were bad, but also knew enough to know that polls vary during the conference season until the last one is done, and were waiting to see what was on offer - then came Hague, Osborne, Iraq visit, Major, Cameron, non-election, spending review, and the rest, I fear for GB, is history….
17-Why i said it could be construed as a “defining moment in history” is that this country was on the verge of lurching towards a one party state if GB would have had his way.Everything was set up for the supposed annhilation by Ed Balls and his cronies of the Tory party. It could still happen i suppose but the odds have lengthened massively against this turn of events.
When we look back in 2 or 3 years Sep 29 will be a date that GB will want to erase from his memory.
Re. My post at 45
Whilst I might intensely dislike the Labour government, it would be remiss of me not to concede that Nick Palmer is always unfailingly polite and agreeable in person!
45 - hear hear - the pre-1997 Labour party machine was undoubtedly the most ruthless and “nasty” operation we have seen in modern politics. It didnt mind if it destroyed individual’s lives as long as it achieved the aim of gaining power.
Now it has gained power what has it done? Ruined our pensions system; gerrymandered our constitution; destroyed public confidence in the voting system; led us into conflicts all round the world; manipulated intelligence; lied, lied and lied again. Truly this Labour administration has been the most corrupt and reprehensible since before voting reform in the 19th Century!
53. Well said.
5. The Brown bounce went from about 3/4% behind the Conservatives to about 3% ahead, and no more. The rest was hype. A 6% swing in a month is surely enough for most peoples’ estimates of what a Brown bounce would consist of - adding 20% to Labour support.
The polls were already suggesting a 30% increase, The Observer would have been a 40% increase. It was already nuts. That wold have been supernuts, and it was time that a shock was delivered to bring some sense back into play.
It was the hype which did for Brown. He and his advisers were believing it all. The Conservatives played their cards well, letting Brown overextend himself, and then fired with all guns blazing at a very exposed target. The hype collapsed and Brown’s lead with it.
45. Cameron is doing everything humanly possible to decontaminate the Tory brand, whilst Stewart Jackson MP seems to be doing everything he can to reverse that process.
54-I totally agree with your precis.
Difference with Labour today is that they still think they have the machine to destroy the Tories but in truth they have nobody to work it smoothly and effeciently.
There is no comparison of Ed Balls to Peter Mandleson or Alistair Campbell.
They have got too entrenched in their comfort zone.
I don’t think it would have made a huge difference. The defining factor turned out to be Brown himself.
If he had been ruthless, if he had really wanted an early election, then he would have called it for October 25th, and damn any accusations of foul play connected to conference times. Instead he allowed himself to get into a situation where he was going to allow just a small number of polls to make the decision for him. Ludicrous.
It demonstrates who Brown is. He is not the grand strategist of legend. His much vaunted moral compass is likely to be prone to wild swings in the eddies of public opinion. He has defeated himself.
I picked up a bit of military strategy, and one of the core concepts is “Maintenance of Aim”. This means that it can be better to pursue a flawed plan (provided it is not too flawed) with vigour and determination, than to continually tinker with and modify a plan in the face of minor reverses in the vain pursuit of unattainable perfection. There’s no use being half-hearted about implementing a plan once you’ve engaged the enemy. (A charge that could be levelled at some of the Tory shadow cabinet)
39 Nick, the post at 34 was not unremittingly harsh. Just a bit partisan, which is less welcome here than one which has a sense of balance. However Stewart was responding to another partisan post.
That said Stewart is right that the next set of polls are going to be interesting. A stable Labour poll? An increase in Labour? Or a fall?
All the bad publicity carried in the media against Labour would tend to lead me to expect a further fall in Labour’s support.
The LDs are also getting a little positive publicity which contrasts to the negative stuff they brought on themselves during last year’s Leadership context.
How boring this site has become - Tories egging on other Tories into flights of hypocritical hyperbole. Keep on screaming into that bubble boys, while the rest of us live in the real world.
39
‘But hasn’t it struck you that the unremitting harshness of your posts alienates uncommitted opinion here?’
I suppose that’s one way of trying to deflect justified criticism of the absolute shambles your party has made of immigration in this country,you should be ashamed of all the lies and deceit your party has been peddling for years on this issue.
61-What is the real world????
53. Nick’s public persona is certainly much more pleasant than that of many of his esteemed colleagues - the odious Campbell, Whelan, Draper etc.
But we shouldn’t forget he fully signed up to the tactics and agenda that these characters have pushed over the last decade - and I’m not referring to policy issues here, but rather the vicious personal attacks, smears, outright lies and media bullying that have become the stock in trade of his party.
Being nice in public doesn’t in any way absolve him from collective responsibility for all this. Indeed, his apparent obsession with enforcing a certain standard of conduct on others reeks of humbug.
63 - Outside of this thread. Normal people instead of net-posting addoes like us!
Off topic, LabourHome is becoming less loyalist and hosting a wider range of views in the Labour tent. The articles are worth a read. Will Parbury’s for example are still partisan but link to some interesting research.
http://www.labourhome.org/
Poor old Nick - Gordon denied him the 1997-esque Labour landslide that NP was confidently predicting only a few weeks ago.
Mystic Meg is safe in her job..
65-Im going to the shops today.
I will let you know what its like out there..
Oh dear! Tories complaining about the nasty, but of course successful Labour election machine, only concerned with gaining power. Sorry but isn’t that the purpose of any political party, gaining power, as for the rest of it, you’ll have me wringing out me hankie.
Ruined our pension system! wasn’t it the last Conservative government that persueded, thousand of people who were in occupational pension schemes out of them, into private ones which then collapsed, which the present government had to compensate.
Wasn’t it the last Conservative government which brought in the poll tax, costing billions to set up, billions to scrap and resulted in vat being raised to 17.5%.
Then there was….. all governments will have mixed records this one, the last one, the next one. What joys a Cameron government has in store for is, we do not yet know, I for one cannot wait.
I’m sorry we didn’t have a GE today, (weathers ok isn’t it) I’m even more sorry the Conservatives didn’t win it! Then I (and others) will have the great joy of commenting on the cock ups (they’ll happen) as they arrive, which will blight them, as they’ve blighted every government.
61
‘Yes, proof positive I’m afraid. Viva Nick! ‘
I see what you mean.
State of the Lib Dem party? One stat that will be revealed with the LD Leadership results in mid Dec are the Membership numbers.
In Dec 06 membership was 68,743 down from the 72,000 in their elections at the start of 2006. Also down from what must have been a peak level of 101,091 at the internal election of 1994.
All parties have suffered a loss of Members, Labour falling most last year (-7.9%), Conservatives the least (-2.4%) and LD in the middle (-4.6%). So where are the Lib Dems now? Down another 4.6% to 65,605?
What did it for Cameron was his party holding together and him having a good conference.
69 This governments record on pensions is priceless. They;ve even stolen charlie falconers! (hearts bleeding all over the country)
69- No G O M, you miss the very obvious point (perhaps deliberately)
Nick Palmer complains that my reading of the political situation now - and I’m not an expert psephologist or pollster - but a practising politician, was “harsh” and partisan.
I was merely pointing out that by comparison the political debate is a lot less “robust” than that practised by Mandelson, Alistair Campbell and their ilk and he should be grateful for that.
Labour may well have been desperate for power in 1997 but their methods were repulsive, dishonest and began the long process that they have continued in government of trashing the reputation of all politics and politicians.
Remember the “spontaneous” members of the public bussed in to Downing Street on May 2nd 1997 who all just happened to be Labour Party members and supporters choreographed for the occasion?
They started as they meant to go on - with artifice.
And by the way Nick, why should Lord Ashcroft not choose to help your Conservative opponent (with his own money) when Amicus gave you £5000 in the 12 months to the 2005 General Election, on top of your Incidental Expenses Provision and postage?
69Ruined our pension system! wasn’t it the last Conservative government that persueded, thousand of people who were in occupational pension schemes out of them, into private ones which then collapsed, which the present government had to compensate.
You are confusing two pension mess-ups here.
Misselling occurred between about 1988 and 1994. Up to 2 million people transferred out of occupational schemes who should not have done. £13 billion of compensation was paid under the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986. Labour’s role was confined to applying Tory legislation.
The schemes that collapsed have mostly done so since 1997. the Tory designed Minimum Funding Requirement was adequate in 1997 and 1998 but became less so as market conditions changed. Rather than strengthen the MFR, Labour cut it twice (in 1998 and 2002) and only introduced the safety net of the Pension Protection Fund in 2005. Labour’s failing here was to do nothing between 1998 and 2003 while 125,000 people lost part of their occupational pension. As the Tories were in opposition, it’s a bit rich to criticise them for what happened at that time.
Pension provision in the UK is immeasurably poorer after 10 years of Labour rule than it was in 1997.
73. I do not like Charlie Falconer nor his many slimy actions in Govt. However on this issue I have the utmost sympathy for a man who took a lower Govt salary than he was entitled to but then finds he has been shafted by Brown with a lower pension. Brown is so morally wrong on this that it simply beggars belief. Whatever happened to the Manse? The one time that Falconer “did the right thing” he actually loses out.
Maybe its poetic justice?
LAB 286-CON 284=Win 526
CON 286 LAB 284=Win 531
LAB 326 CON 244=Lose 208
CON 326 LAB 244=Win 530
LAB 366 CON 204=Lose 608
CON 366 LAB 204=Win 930
So the only disastrous result is a huge Labour Maj and the bonanza is a big Tory Maj but everything around the dead-heat mark within the NOM band is good.
Best realistic result is a Tory seat holding over 300 up to 324.
LAB 320 CON 250=Win 186
CON 320 LAB 250=Win 870
Small but perfectly formed.As this is a BETTING Forum perhaps some of you would be kind enough to publish your figures.
Profit taken £22.Some of those figures do not include punitive commission rates particularly the Tories at 366.
74
For F**cks sake grow up, I remember Mrs T, (when leader of the opposition) on a walk about in Winchester, and the remarkable reception she got, we’ll she would do, Tory party members had been bussed in from all over the South. Cecil Parkinson on a phone in on LBC, got nothing but friendly callers, Tory HQ had contacted all the Pary chairmen ibn the London area and they had arranged for members to swamp LBC’s phone lines. I could go on.
What is interesting is Boris, backing Hilary, wow! with Boris’s record with crumpet, you don’t thing he’s noooo, can’t be, about as likel as a Tory MP having gay sex with a member of the Royal family: no chance….
76 agree about falconers case. says a lot about GB that this is allowed to get into the press and maybe the courts simply due to GB hating bliars gang so much. its a lose-lose for Labour and GB and yet he still wont budge.
78: The difference is that Blair was telling everyone how honest he was and yet his first act in office was to partake in a sham.
78 - You are a real class act aren’t you Grumpy Old Man.
I can see you’re getting a little over excited. Are the polls getting to you?
75 - “Pension provision in the UK is immeasurably poorer after 10 years of Labour rule than it was in 1997.”
And blaming Labour for that is as silly as blaming miss-selling of personal pensions on the Tories.
78
Oh! how different to ‘Honest’ John Major, back to basics, then slipping his tongue into a ‘Good hot Currie’ then there was, ‘We have no intention of putting vat on domestic energy’ then doing it. Or Mrs T, ‘We have no intention of doubling VAT’ then doing it.
All politicians tell fibs, mislead, tell lies, its the job.
No Party will have a monoploy on virtue, if you believe anything different, then quite frankly your an arse.
Wait until you’ve had at least two years of a Cameron government, before you start making judgements, it won’t be any different.
83. God what a bore you are.
Ralph @ 80 on Blair’s honesty — a more interesting counterfactual than the missed election is what would have happened if the Conservatives had attacked Blair’s honesty from day one. Could they have worn away Tony’s teflon?
The ammunition was there right from the start: his favourite food, “Bobby”, Humphrey the cat, Bernie’s million quid, … ah, but I suppose Tory sleaze was feared to be too fresh in the memory.
80 - So, Ralph, at what point did Thatcher or Major admit to being liars then? What about Thatchers ludicrous promise, quoting St Francis of Assisi:
“Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope.”
This was at the same time as Ridley was gearing up to smash the Unions, and her government was prepared to see millions unemployed as the price worth paying to control inflation.
A sham perhaps?
Neither side can claim to be any better than the other.
46 fr accepted. No problem. Much as I love Pb.com, I often have a sense of a huge political world out there, which is completely passing by many of the people on here.
Mike - Many congrats on the huge increase in site traffic last month. Of course there were a number of special factors at play, yet despite this, I have no doubt that it will not be long before you are again reporting record downloads - quite remarkable.
The only surprise is the very limited amount of advertising you continue to carry, unlike certain other sites that spring to mind. Presumably for now, at least, this is intentional on your part.
84
Obviously the truth bores you.
Someone like you only want to come onto this site and read propaganda, (Of the Tory variety) I don’t do propaganda, for anyone! left or right. I have my views, but deep down inside I know all politics is bollocks. Events and human failure are the name of the game.
One thing that would have caused problems at the Tory conference would have been ConHome’s finding that slightly more Conservative members disapproved of David Cameron’s leadership than approved (a finding that was given substance by Yougov’s poll showing only 45% of Conservative voters approved). Wisely, Tim Montgomerie sat on that particular bit of information.
In all honesty, I don’t think Labour’s real lead ever was in double digits. I’d say that at best, it was 5-6%.
WRT newspapers, I find the Guardian surprisingly good, provided you ignore Seamus Milne, Polly Toynbee, Madeline Bunting, and the Education supplement.
Smashing the unions did bring hope to a very large number of people, and harmony where there had been discord - but I suspect you are too young to remember the 1970s.
re 74 - Nick, it does seem a bit rich to lecture about Ashcroft’s money on this site if as Stewart claims at the same time you’ve been personally benefiting from Amicus union cash for the same purposes - if its true (and you can easily refute it if not), on the face of it a mild whiff of hypocrisy here….?
G-O-M (Coldstone was a better name by the way). Without doubt correct. Both lots do it, moral ourage is pointless.
Campbell will deny it although Mandelson will probably not, that it was Labour’s media management what won it in 97, as it was the Tory’s in 79 and onward.The ability to kill off debate on immigration so effectively, even in the middle of an election,as they did in 2005 is another testament.
What do you expect in a culture that has “celebrity” to important.
The questions are only how effective are they, and have they crossed any vital moral boundary. I think the Tories have been quite good of late (aided by a poor performance by GB)
77. I’ve got a few quid on Huhne at 3.7 but his odds are refusing to tighten. Clegg appears to have this sewn up with MPs - but what about the grass roots ? And where are the polls ?
94. There seems a remarkable lack of interest generally in the Lib Dem leadership, compared to last time around.
95. I guess that leader of a party circa 20+% is more interesting than one on 12%-14%
85: There was a period which lasted well past the 2001 election when whatever Labour did it didn’t seem to matter to the media or the public.
86: If you come in telling everyone you’re ‘an honest sort of guy’ and you’ll be ‘whiter than white’ it is best not to start things off with a massive sham event.
Blair’s biggest lie was to tell everyone he would be a ‘Labour PM’.
Interesting post on Guido’s comments.
Gordo’s bungling of gold sales has cost the Uk £14bn - puts the £4bn wasted on black wednesday in perspective !
http://www.order-order.com/2007/11/brown-bottom.html
93
Someone called me a grumpy-old-man, so I changed I think I’ll go back. My wife read a couple of my posts and her comment was, ‘Your much grumpier in real life than you are on there!’
I agree with you, complaining about the, ‘other lots’ news management, spin, lack of honesty, must be the most sterile argument ever. All parties do it, when they complain, its only because deep down their thinking, ‘Bloody hell, that was clever, wish we’d thought of that’
86
I can remember the 1960s and “In Place of Strife” - a failed attept at sorting out the unions by Barbara Castle. That sowed the whirlwind of the 1970s. I can assure you that any sensible perosn.. even Neil Kinnock - recognised that Miltant and their supoorters in the Unions were wrecking British industry. See Arthur Scargill.
If you want to suggest that Mrs T was wrong, then be my guest. You will have zero supporters from those over 50 with a brain.
As far as the current political situation, I cannot believe Labour can be so crassly incompetent. The way the immigration story is unravelling: lies, false statistics, Gov’t Ministers clearly lying on the % of jobs created for “British” workers.. and now councils being shown to be correct in past pleas.
I can only assume GB is in the process of some red rage about DC which clouds his vision. Cos he sure looks like a man who has lost the plot.
I’m also afraid that Labour Ministers remind me of the Callghan Government of the 1970s - but this lot appear even less competent.
And once the media latches onto a story, they keep finding new stories to back it up.. (see Heather Mills).
Unless the Government appears to get on top of its clear problem areas.. (apologising after the event is no good… ).. and is seen to be proactive in solving them, imo the poll drift will continue.
Being proactive does NOT - in my book - include obvioulsy adopting other parties’ thinking. That suggests a certain bankruptcy of ideas.
92 - You are quite right Orlando
Nick might want to address the fact that some of his colleagues want to use valuable legislative time to block Ashcroft money, whilst at the same time the Trades Unions effectively write parts of the Labour Government programme (e.g. the Warwick Agreement) in return for millions of pounds of campaign funding. By comparison, Ashcroft has NEVER sought to influence policy and operates his fund through a de facto blind trust at CCHQ.
And he might want to justify the Union Modernisation Fund, whereby taxpayers funding is remitted to help, inter alia, communications projects (sic) and the like - and by pure coincidence, thoses self same unions remit campaign donations back to Labour?
92 - You are quite right Orlando
Nick might want to address the fact that some of his colleagues want to use valuable legislative time to block Ashcroft money, whilst at the same time the Trades Unions effectively write parts of the Labour Government programme (e.g. the Warwick Agreement) in return for millions of pounds of campaign funding. By comparison, Ashcroft has NEVER sought to influence policy and operates his fund through a de facto blind trust at CCHQ.
And he might want to justify the Union Modernisation Fund, whereby taxpayers funding is remitted to help, inter alia, communications projects (sic) and the like - and by pure coincidence, thoses self same unions remit campaign donations back to Labour?
back by popular demand.
100
Broadly agree with that, the failure of, ‘In Place of Strife’ produced its inevitable response, ‘Thatcherism’ The tragedy was that working class communities have never managed to recover, from the loss of their basic industries, coal, steel. Coal could make a comeback, certainly with the present oil price, but who will invest in coal mines, other than on a very small basis, its hard to see.
103. Yes I am sure some of the 1,100,000 unemployed, clearly desperate for work, would jump at the chance to go down a coalmine for 7 hours a day.
“If you want to suggest that Mrs T was wrong, then be my guest. You will have zero supporters from those over 50 with a brain.”
When I was at University, there was a very dignified young gentleman with whom I was able to share some mutually enlightening political discussions, about heriditary peers, the malleability, or otherwise, of “human nature”, on the history of revolutions. Our views were… very different. I leaned towards Trotskyism and he leaned towards the view that allowing the House of Commons to become pre-eminent over the House of Lords had been a mistake.
Nevertheless, we were capable of discussing our reasons for holding our viewpoints, rather than pointlessly hurling insults at each other. (It is normal to call such insults “childish”, but that does a disservice to children).
You may believe Thatcher was right, intimating that I am a brainless idiot for thinking otherwise is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile exchange of views. For the purposes of the point I was making I think that deliberately precipitating the largest industrial dispute in history, for the sole purpose of destroying an opposing political force, is an extremely aggressive act that sits very uneasily with her words upon entering 10 Downing Street.
Whilst it may have brought greater harmony for the money men in London, there is ample evidence that it led to a complete social breakdown in the communities more directly affected.
And, yes, I was born in 1980.
103. There was much fanfare recently when a coal mine went back into business in South Wales. Not sure if it will last long.
On topic, I’m just wondering whether Labour have the resources to spend on private polling that the Tories do. The headline figures only tell you so much, what really matters is the marginals. What surprises me is that ‘clever’ men like Balls would put so much faith in headline figures. If certainty to vote goes up in safe Labour seats, who cares?
103 - Hey Marcus, the boys at Tower colliery gave up their redundancy money to buy the pit- which lasted for another 15 years. So don’t knock mining!
Well, I wondered how long it would take for our two Honourable Gentlemen to cross swords… what strikes me about their exchanges is that one has only served on the government benches, the other on the opposition ones (and he defeated possibly the least-liked MP in the whole House): both adopt a tone which serves their interests (and, perhaps, reflects their constituencies: I get the impression that Broxtowe politics are genteel, those in the Fens a tad less so).
I think Trevor Phillips’ remarks are significant, as a straw in the wind - and I concur with John Wheatley at [27]: to-day’s governments administer first and foremost. The Tories may enthuse their activists with policies, but they’ll win over the electorate by harping on governmental c*ck-ups - themselves a function of office-weariness rather than ideology. Providing, of course, that they can demonstrate superior competence themselves. In that connection, having Boris Johnson as the most high-profile Tory office-holder in the land may not be the first thing David Cameron thought of…
“But something happened at the Observer four days earlier to make them think twice about publishing it”
Well I should imagine there was an identifiable problem with the poll itself, otherwise they would have jumped on the opportunity.
O/T re the US elections
Intersting piece from Michael Barone in US News and World Report
2 points I found interesting from a betting/polls perspective
- Hilary could have the nomination locked up after New Hampshire, which means that independents in open primary states will vote in the Republican primary, helping Giuliani and perhaps McCain,
- Some of the pollsters (e.g. Rasmussen) are only polling registered party members and not independents, which favours Thompson.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/10/30/giuliani-on-a-roll.html
grumpy-old-man @ 83 says “Wait until you’ve had at least two years of a Cameron government, before you start making judgements, it won’t be any different.”
Quite right GOM, and what will the consequences be?
From a partisan perspective, I would like the next general election to give an overall Conservative majority of about 30, and a similar result in the election after that. If the Lib Dems don’t get massacred in the process like 1970 or 1979, the party under either Clegg or Huhne will be well poised to take electoral advantage when the government becomes unpopular and the electorate is ready to switch horses.
Support for the Liberals grew during the Heath era, and even more so under Thatcher and Major. Despite the Lib Dems currently performing poorly in opinion polls, there is an underlying bedrock of a much better organisation and a larger number of councillors and activists than there was in the early 70s and 80s.
In contrast, the Labour Party is only sustained by the money and influence it attracts by being in office. Once they lose power, these advantages will be much less, and more importantly there is no philosophical reason to help them to help themselves. After 1970 and 1979, the common bond of being socialists kept the party together despite the SDP defections.
Having shed many of its original policies and ideas in order to win in 1997, and become ever more pragmatic since then, the Labour Party has become philosphically pointless. The now-never-mentioned “Great Labour Movement” has vastly diminished in size as evidenced by the reduction in numbers and influence of trade union membership.
It has long been my belief that the Labour Party could slowly collapse when the Blair & Brown generation of conviction-free government comes to an end. There is no reason for the party to continue now it has lost any pretence to possessing a philosphical backbone. Tribal loyalties and a synthetic dislike of their opponents will be insufficient.
In contrast, the Lib Dems have enduring beliefs however loosely they are defined and/or sneered at by opponents. The Jo Grimond vision of Liberalism being the non-socialist alternative to Conservatism had never gone away.
A Cameron government will inevitably become unpopular, and I believe it will be the Lib Dems who will take advantage electorally. If I live long enough and barring totally unforeseen circumstances, I expect subsequent general elections even under first-past-the-post to provide ever increasing numbers of Lib Dem MPs. Once the total of 100+ is achieved, there could be a critical mass develop with a huge jump to 200+ in say 15 years time.
103 not a response to specific posts by you but overall - agree that all governments have their ups & downs but what stands out for me over past 10 years is that the Blair/Brown one has never stopped campaigning and just got on with governing. Bt that I mean that every announcement has been spun with an eye on polls and /or attempt to attack the opposition.
So for first term it was always with eyes on winning second one, second term was in part wrecked by Iraq but every other day seemed to be a case of trumpeting some initiative for press headlines. Third term has been dominated by Blair/Brown feud and now its Brown’s electioneering.
As critics as various as Hattersley and the Sun have said can we just have some competent government please.
Not sure though that Brown can get away from campaigning mode.
107. Quite right RedFlump. What a shame that kind of initiative wasn’t evident more widely in the industry in the 1970s and 1980s (and indeed earlier).
Instead the miners allowed themselves to be used and abused by populist demagogues like Scargill & McGahey, turned themselves into the enemy of much of the rest of the country, and ultimately wrecked their own industry.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490925&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
If Labour were to adopt these proposals, I think we could safely say that the 1983 Manifesto was not the longest suicide note in history.
113. Something the post office workers are busy doing now.
tories now ahead at betfair for overall majority and most seats. looks like we’re heading back towards the pre-brown mood in the country.
114
Looks like a last stand to try and protect the much discredited and totally failed multiculturalism,they just don’t know when to stop their nonsense.
117 Do they actually believe what they say, or do they just say it to annoy?
118 - So, that’s what Tyson does when he’s not posting here.
119.
:)
Seriously though - this looks like a time warp, a rewind to the ultra-loony left days of Hatton, Bellos et al. Bring it on!
[111] Yet Another David wrote: Having shed many of its original policies and ideas in order to win in 1997, and become ever more pragmatic since then, the Labour Party has become philosphically pointless.
I’ve been saying that on and off here for ages (well it seems like ages to me…)
But it isn’t as simple as that for the Lib Dems. Just as likely a scenario is a four-party system (or five, with the assorted non-English parties making the fifth) - a celebrity-driven populist anti-immigrant, vindictive fear’n'rage outfit joining the others. It could well win seats in the “white highlands” north and east of London, Cornwall, the Fens and elsewhere. Cameron could win his third term with the support of fewer than one voter in five
105
“I think that deliberately precipitating the largest industrial dispute in history, …is an extremely aggressive act that sits very uneasily with her words upon entering 10 Downing Street.”
Sorry but if you had been alive at the time, you would know that Scargill was determined to bring down the Government - and said so - and as I said before, due to the failures of prior Governments (incl Heath as well as Wilson), there would be a confrontation inevitably.
I don’t see any Labour politicians saying bring back coal mining so I suggest my assertion stands.
I don’t deny it was a tragedy for those involved.. but people had a choice and some did not strike and some did.
Anyway it’s all history, thank goodness.
BUT
I expect the next big political strike in around 2015 -2020 on civil servants retiring at 60 and gold plated inflation linked pensions.. which we cannot afford now and certainly not by then. We are talking £trillion liabilities.
(By then N Sea oil will have gone and those liabilities will start being paid in large sums an dthe Gov’t of the day will be unable to pay - without ruinous taxation (which taxpayers will not stomach)
64 I agree with this.
Stewart Jackson MP may come across as hard, which jars with the polished banalities that Nick Palmer MP favours.
But, Stewart J has never tried to ban people from pb.c — which is recurrent Nick P failing.
118: To quote a Muslim mate of mine ‘Only white Christian lefties think we want things like this’.
114 - but I thought Lefties cancelled christmas last year ? and 2005,2004,2003,2002 2001,2000,1999,1998,1997,1996….
Bugger me ! dont tell me it hasnt happend again .
Just as I was writing my list for Winterval
125 - Daily Mail readers would be disappointed if someone *didnt* try to cancel christmas every year.
118 - Who the daily mail ?
Yes, Innocent Abroad @ 121, there is every likelihood of a 4th party which you describe as “a celebrity-driven populist anti-immigrant, vindictive fear’n’rage outfit”. And it would led by an egotist and puffed up by the Sun and the Daily Mail.
Fortunately however, it would probably be a relatively short-lived bubble because :-
a) it will have little organisation at the grass roots, nor many experienced people who know how to fight elections against the established parties on a continuing basis.
b) its leader will be flawed in some way, and there would soon be in-fighting amongst the other leading lights
c) ultimately any party has to have positve beliefs rather than just be based on being against X, Y or Z
History is littered with examples of parties both local and national that spring up suddenly, then quickly collapse, merge with others or fade into obscurity. Just think of Kilroy-Silk and UKIP, Oswald Mosley and the BUF, David Owen and the SDP, Dr Taylor and Health Concern, and the unforgettable Burnley Dogs Party.
123 - To be fair, politics in the Fens is no rougher than elsewhere and I have good relations with opposition councillors and others in my constituency.
It seems strange that in the era when people complain that politicians are so alike and have no differences and therefore stifle choice, so many sensitive left of centre types take issue with a robust but civilised, fact-based debate and dialogue?
Have to say, the tipping point on this can be summed up in three simple letter I H T.
Anyone that doesn’t live in London and the South East (as well
as non political aspirants in other areas)simply can’t start to understand how important an issue this is to the aspirational working class upwards.
When Osbourne made his statement, he ’switched on’ an unquantifiably large tranche of voters who, for the first time in ages, had done something important for them financially or offered hope that in the future their labours would give them the full rewards they believe they deserve.
Simple as / end of !
Regards/must fly
TB
more laughing than I’ve had all day reading the daily mail website :
“If you take away Christmas they’ll be riots the length and breadth of this country.
James Mills, Nottingham”
URW, I’m not sure what the benefit of knowing is to anyone else, but as you asked…
Tory majority - i.e. 326 seats - win 3,300 on SpreadFair - win 1,000 on IG
Labour majority - i.e. Lab 326, Tories at 249 LDs at 50, others 25 - lose 600 on SpreadFair, lose 1,000 on IG.
I managed to get into this position by being brave through and after the Labour conference.
That’s why I have mwmi in the brackets.
‘Birthing ceremonies’ - now that is frightening.
On the issue of christmas, the question is ‘can an event like that maintain it’s status when the percentage of the population who are christian is slowly falling?’
What really bothers me is that these people’s essential problem with christmas is that it’s an inclusive religious event. If I was a committed christian I would be rather more offended by the way our dominant culture has commercialised the event into a consumer dream of presents, partying and gluttony. No government will dare get in their way.
77. URW. I couldn’t follow what your post @77 was about? I assume it’s something to do with your current or past spread betting positions? I woud be interested if you could clarify?
Back on topic:
“Cameron meltdown as public urge early vote” is still a pretty negative headline for the opening morning of a pre-election party conference. And, in fact, I didn’t even read this as I was travelling to Blackpool. So I don’t think activists and the leadership would have been any more affected, one way or the other, by the Observer revealing its earlier 13% poll.
In some ways the ‘everybody hates us, but we don’t care’ attitude