Is this Labour’s “Winter of DISContent” 2007-style?
November 22nd, 2007
Did Darling mislead the House?
Some wag on the Today programme used the joke featured in the headline this morning - and after this evening’s release of emails from the National Audit Office it appears to be even more apt.
For documents have just been released (you can download them here) which shed further light on the circumstances leading to the dispatch by HMRC of the missing data discs.
Most importantly they cast doubt on the statement by Alistair Darling to MPs on Tuesday that the blame can be solely attributed to a “junior” official. For a senior official was copied in on the correspondence and that the National Audit Office had made it clear that they “did not need address, bank or parent details” in the download.
But the full data was sent because as the correspondence notes “I must stress we must make use of data we hold and not over-burden the business by asking them to run additional data scans/filters that my incur a cost to the department”.
As the Guardian web-site notes “The documents appear to contradict Alistair Darling’s assertion that the loss of the two CDs was down to a “junior official” who acted alone in breaching procedures, a version of events backed by Gordon Brown during prime minister’s questions yesterday.”
We are entering into serious territory here and it will be hard for the government to resist making a further commons statement.
The worse thing for Brown-Darling is that this will keep the affair in the news.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Have just completed a very brief Yougov voting intention survey which includes a LibDem leadership poll question .
Darling must go.
OT — noisy summer: check the Mourinho price [ref two threads ago].
This morning’s favourite is now out to 10/1 on Betfair.
The Economist articles are quite bad for Gordon this week:
“Mr Brown is maniacally ambitious but politically timid. He is intellectually curious but cripplingly indecisive. ”
“During the non-election fiasco in October, the country witnessed the low political calculation and fake ecumenicism, the shallow bombast and obfuscation, the indecision and ultimately the cowardice.”
“This is an old and flawed government, these debacles remind people—and the architect of some of those flaws is now leading it.”
“Mr Brown is not yet a lame duck, but his hopes of leading anything more than a tail-end government look increasingly forlorn.”
Ouch!
4- Sorry, no link, the articles are for suscribers only.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/portal/2007/11/22/ftbrown122.xml
Review of biography of Brown ..
Seldon cannot foresee the future, but believes the signs are not good.
“There are parallels with Eden: both were brilliant but suffered from serious flaws in character; and both spent too long in one job – Eden at the Foreign Office, Brown at the Treasury. Brown descended into blocking, obstructing and obfuscating during what I think of as his wilderness years from 2001 to 2007, when he chafed in the face of Blair’s refusal to hand over the crown.
Can he now evolve into a more positive figure? I’m not sure. I think there’s a one in three chance he won’t be Labour PM into the next general election.”
6-If that is correct then the Betfair price for Cameron being the only leader at the next GE looks good at around 6/1
I agree that this is a serious development.
Not good news for the people of Hull effected by flooding?
“Water firm refuses floods payouts”
if Labour attempted to force brown out, wouldn’t he call a GE just to spite them?
9- why would they try anyway? they haven’t got any replacement available.
Madasafish @ 6 re Brown. Brown’s problem is that he starts from where other Prime Ministers have finished: surrounded by a small, hand-picked coterie of yes-men.
Luckily for Brown, he can escape if he wants to. Just do what he said about returning to Cabinet government, sack Alexander, and let Balls develop his own career somewhere low-key.
10 Straw?
how can brown be forced out? I thought Labour rules meant it is impossible to get rid of a PM, hence Blair hanging around like a bad smell for months
12- I can’t see it. anyway this is not a resigning matter for a PM. It could be for Darling though.
O/T Sorry, but apparently Steve McClaren will still be attending the FA Christmas Party, which has a “Cinderella” theme.
He is going dressed as a pumpkin, and is hoping that someone will turn him into a coach . . . .
The HMRC and NAO memos are not the only qusetion regarding Darling and Brown’s integrity.
We were told that the reason for the delay informing the public was that the banks requested more time,in to-day’s Telegrapph several banks have been interviewed but not one can be found that requested a delay.
Darling also informed the HoC that the banks would cover any individuals that suffered fraud resulting from this fiasco,again the banks have advised otherwise in that they do not cover account holders for fraud resulting from negligence.
Disraeli, you are Basil Brush and I claim my £5. Boom-boom
OT on ID cards
I understand the new ID system is NOT going to have a new database but is going to use the existing NI database: which is a complete and utter mess.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/03/nmigrants203.xml
This means that all the claims for ID cards raised by our beloved Government are - as one might suspect - founded on a basis which is incorrect.
Only an sadly deluded and incompetent IT person would spend £billions to extend a proven faulty database.
Our Government clearly employs such people.
:-((
re 9 last time I looked HM had a say in the matter as well.
6 — talking of Seldon, is his new book Blair’s Britain 1997-2007 any good?
Everyone getting excited by a couple of red-herrings.
It doesn’t matter whether the NAO wanted sensitive information on this occasion or not. There will be occasions where sensitive data is required by the NAO or other organisations. The problem is that the HMRC officials (junor/senior?) knew they were sending out sensitive data and should have had much stricter control of the handling and distribution.
Email quoted from the previous thread:
“Please could you ensure that the CDs are delivered to NAO as safely as possible due to their content”
I think this confirms what the goverment were claiming ie. junior staff were instructed to distribute the data as ’safely as possible’ - this was not done! What on earth has that got to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
However, facts and logic will not apply in this story. The government are going to cop the blame regardless. The media, backed by the opposition and the public, will twist and conflate every little innocent detail to apply as much pressure as possible on ministers.
In the Economist webpages, a few choice words.
“The prime minister’s personal responsibility may extend beyond this if it can be shown that HMRC’s failings are linked to an administrative merger and job cuts that he pushed through as chancellor…
Under Tony Blair, Mr Brown’s predecessor, the government got a reputation for bungling, with notable mishaps at the Home Office. When Mr Brown took over, his calm handling of incidents as varied as a terrorist plot and summer floods raised hopes that he could at least run a competent if uninspiring government. But this week’s string of disasters suggests a potentially fatal loss of grip in the economic and financial realm where he and Labour had once appeared so effective.
The lost benefit records have already caused the resignation of Paul Gray, chairman of HMRC. Mr Darling will be next in line if the security breach leads to actual fraud. But the chief loser is likely to be Mr Brown. After his self-harming election that wasn’t, the prime minister has been badly hurt by this week’s disasters. Mr Brown is not yet a lame duck, but his hopes of leading anything more than a tail-end government look increasingly forlorn.”
re 7 Cameron only now in to 9/2
21 - “The media, backed by the opposition and the public, will twist and conflate every little innocent detail to apply as much pressure as possible on ministers.”
That will balance out for a decade where the media, unimpededed by the crappy opposition and the public who didn’t give a toss, twisted and swept under the carpet every condemning detail to give as much leeway as possible to ministers.
16.I would like Osborne to ask for evidence of the Banks asking for a delay in informing the public. I would also want to get a clear guidelines on who will compensate account holders for fraud resulting from this negligence and how we will be able to prove it if it occurs?
6
sorry not read it
21
If you call being in charge of HMRC, being warned repeatedly about security lapses, ignoring it, being warned your IT systems are at risk and ignoring it, .. then I think any logical person who thinks about the issue will conclude:
1. It was ministerial policy not to worry about security
2. It was ministerial policy to ignore warnings
If you think the Chancellor is not implicated, go ahead… The media and Opposition are right.
Stop Press
Cons +9% lead.. You GOV
41% Cons 32% Lab
Charles Kennedy on BBC1 now suffering with a cold. Hope he doesn’t contemplate a tot of whisky to help with it.
I wonder how many people still think he’s Lib Dem leader.
see c4 news
Channel 4 News reporting Yougov poll:
Con 41%
Lab 32%
The Tory who asked at PMQs on Wednesday whether Brown had received an offer to resign from a cabinet minister was presumably referring to Darling (although Jacqui Smith is another possibility). Doubtless, on the basis that Brown is not a liar he was hoping for an embarrassing “yes” reply which was not forthcoming.
Late last night, I gave Darling a 7 out of 10 chance of surviving today, my corresponding assessment for tomorrow, taking account of the fact that he is an honourqable man, would have to be 5 out of 10.
29 Pay up Nick!
29- any other details ? LD? others? date of fieldwork?
re 29 that implies a big jump in the LDs then.
31- The kittens’ picture has been displayed in vain
from yougov as well!!! ICM is gunna be very very painful, especially with the new email revelations.
49% blame gordon. that is going to sky rocket on the lack of funding emails.
from yougov as well!!! ICM is gunna be very very painful, especially with the new email revelations.
49% blame gordon. that is going to sky rocket on the lack of funding emails.
29 - 14%
I expect Labour and Lib Dems to spin this poll as a disaster for the Tories as we haven’t moved above 41%
Presumably most/all the field work for this poll was undertaken before Discgate?
37- 41/32/14 gives a Con majority of 24 for Baxter
re 37 what LDs on 14% which means Others on 13% then - don’t believe it.
The biggest lead for the Tories in their polls since Black Wednesday…..
Looking good for the doggies!
Change on Yougov 18.11.2007
Con n/c
Lab -3
Lib +1
I may be missing something but why is the last letter from the NAO signed by “Second Director, HM Revenue and Customs (Financial) -His/Her name is blacked out. The letter is addressed to the Revenue and Customs - why have they signed it?
39
Must be.. last weekend
(doing another one now.. see above) on voting intentions plus LibDem leadership YouGov
41 possibly some weird “rounding” again. Suspect it might be prudent to round up the Tories and LibDems - but round down Labour (no reason - just for a laugh…)
42- And if it is BEFORE discgate, it is even worse news for Labour
44
I assume NAO split their audit staff by function audited so the writer was the NAO Auditor for HMRC.
(Note the assumes:-)
I’ve just put these YouGov figures into Electoral Calculus and on this basis both Chris Hulne and Nick Clegg would lose their seats.
Mike, I think it puns even better as “the Winter of Disc-content”.
Wish I’d though of that! Bugger….
Up to a point, Mada (45). Mine (can’t speak for others) had only three questions. The last was whether I was a member of the Liberal Democrats. The second was a Huhne/Clegg question. I forget the first one.
So not really general voting intentions (unless the first one was, of course).
PS. Many thanks for your comments about computer systems etc - most informative.
51
Mine had
Whom would I vote for at GE
Who made better PM : Cameron or Brown.
And whom did I want as LibDem leader..(I replied neither because I am more impressed by Cable than Clegg or Huhne).
47 - no, post-Discgate. I’m moderately surprised this isn’t worse for Labour: the Tories appear to have a ceiling of 41%: if they can’t go above it after this it suggests it will take something absolutely catastrophic for them to go up further.
Equally, I suspect the detail will show Labour’s economic competence lead has been destroyed permanently, and in many ways that’s more useful for the Conservatives than a 45%+ showing in the longer term.
The ray of hope for Labour is that they’re slippage isn’t going to the Tories, and it hasn’t even gone (much) to the LDs - it’s gone to not voting/others/don’t know. That suggests it’ll be somewhat easier to recover if they can sort this mess out quickly.
if it is the “winter of our discontent” who’s the son of York who’s going to make it “glorious summer” again?
So You Gov questions do vary a bit….. Humm
I thought the reverse-Roger was a dead cert.
Having read the emails I think I understand now. If anyone remembers my points about why the junior didn’t do the encryption they are now NULL and VOID.
The key techie point is
1 - The raw data extract was unintelligble without a data schema and came in hundred separate files.
This tells us they were *straight* out the mainframe and not pre-processed into PC friendly format which explains why a junior official would be UNABLE to encrypt and make them safe. It would need an expert and hence would have cost money. Basically the raw data would be in some horrendous binary format with no delimiters or other good stuff us mere mortals are used to.
It also explains an odd comment on Newsnight that the data *had another layer beyond passwords of security but wasn’t encrypted* - Basically a mainframe expert could convert the binary outputs into something intelligble but not a casual hacker.
Bottom line - the blame shifts away from the junior and up the food chain
when was fieldwork?
this feels good
56- 9 Daves for You Gov could translate in a full reverse-Roger for ICM
54 There’s a David Cameron Educational Foundation Grant set up in York.
In South Carolina. Probably not quite what the Bard was referring to…
http://www.aie.org/Scholarships/detail.cfm?ID=17669
I thought a “reverse Roger” meant something else.
54. Isn’t David Davis is a son of York.
56 “I thought the reverse-Roger was a dead cert.”
The correct technical term is an Ave It, Gabble.
54. David Davis is a son of York.
61 - if you are Labour, a reverse Roger means you’re buggered.
Sorry!
53. Remember that this is a yougov poll. It is not weighted by voting intention. If this was ICM which does apply a voting intention weighting, i think we’d see a higher tory % and lower labour % due to the demoralising effect that this saga has probably had on labour supporters.
It is also the biggest gap yougov have shown between the tories and labour for quite a while
Test (58) - You are feeing happy that the Liberal Democrats are doing better in the You Gov polls? Wonders will never cease….
66. How relevant is weighting by voting intention when we’re about 2.5 years away from a GE?
66
Biggest gap since 1992.
54. Steve McClaren was born in York…
14% for the LDs in YouGov. World domination beckons!
72 What Wayne’s World?
;o)
Which joke, sorry I’ve missed something
9% deficit for a unpopular government mid-term is hardly a disaster for Labour though is it ?
74- not a disater but a sufficent margin to lose a GE.
So any bets on when we get the U turn on ID cards…? (I mean Labour’s U turn; the Tories did theirs a couple of years ago.)
As Ave it 07 would say, wipeout..
User-defined Prediction
The predicted results in the country, given the National levels of support which you entered, are as follows.
National Prediction: CON majority 38
Party 2005 Votes 2005 Seats Pred Votes Pred Seats
CON 33.24% 209 41.00% 344
LAB 36.21% 346 31.00% 250
LIB 22.65% 66 14.00% 25
Show
prediction
map
Edit current prediction, make new prediction, or go back to home page.
List of predicted seat changes
Aberconwy CON gain from LAB : Betty Williams
Angus CON gain from NAT : Michael Weir
Arfon NAT gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Argyll and Bute CON gain from LIB : Alan Reid
Barrow and Furness CON gain from LAB : John Hutton
Basildon South and East Thurrock CON gain from LAB : Angela Smith
Bath CON gain from LIB : Don Foster
Battersea CON gain from LAB : Martin Linton
Bedford CON gain from LAB : Patrick Hall
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk CON gain from LIB : Michael Moore
Birmingham Edgbaston CON gain from LAB : Gisela Stuart
Blackpool North and Cleveleys CON gain from LAB : Joan Humble
Bolton North East CON gain from LAB : David Crausby
Bolton West CON gain from LAB : Ruth Kelly
Bradford West CON gain from LAB : Marsha Singh
Brecon and Radnorshire CON gain from LIB : Roger Williams
Brentford and Isleworth CON gain from LAB : Ann Keen
Brigg and Goole CON gain from LAB : Ian Cawsey
Brighton Kemptown CON gain from LAB : Desmond Turner
Brighton Pavilion CON gain from LAB : David Lepper
Bristol North West CON gain from LAB : Doug Naysmith
Bristol West LAB gain from LIB : Stephen Williams
Broxtowe CON gain from LAB : Nick Palmer
Burton CON gain from LAB : Janet Dean
Bury North CON gain from LAB : David Chaytor
Calder Valley CON gain from LAB : Christine McCafferty
Camborne and Redruth CON gain from LIB : Julia Goldsworthy
Cardiff North CON gain from LAB : Julie Morgan
Carlisle CON gain from LAB : Eric Martlew
Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South CON gain from LAB : Nick Ainger
Carshalton and Wallington CON gain from LIB : Tom Brake
Ceredigion NAT gain from LIB : Mark Williams
Chatham and Aylesford CON gain from LAB : Jonathan Shaw
Cheadle CON gain from LIB : Patsy Calton
Cheltenham CON gain from LIB : Martin Horwood
Chester, City of CON gain from LAB : Christine Russell
Chippenham CON gain from LIB : Unknown (new seat)
Cleethorpes CON gain from LAB : Shona McIsaac
Colchester CON gain from LIB : Bob Russell
Colne Valley CON gain from LAB : Kali Mountford
Copeland CON gain from LAB : Jamie Reed
Corby CON gain from LAB : Phil Hope
Cornwall North CON gain from LIB : Dan Rogerson
Cornwall South East CON gain from LIB : Colin Breed
Crawley CON gain from LAB : Laura Moffatt
Croydon Central CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Dartford CON gain from LAB : Howard Stoate
Derbyshire South CON gain from LAB : Mark Todd
Devon North CON gain from LIB : Nick Harvey
Devon West and Torridge CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Dewsbury CON gain from LAB : Shahid Malik
Dorset Mid and Poole North CON gain from LIB : Annette Brooke
Dorset South CON gain from LAB : Jim Knight
Dover CON gain from LAB : Gwyn Prosser
Dudley North CON gain from LAB : Ian Austin
Dudley South CON gain from LAB : Ian Pearson
Dumfries and Galloway CON gain from LAB : Russell Brown
Ealing Central and Acton CON gain from LAB : Andrew Slaughter
Eastleigh CON gain from LIB : Christopher Huhne
Edinburgh South CON gain from LAB : Nigel Griffiths
Elmet and Rothwell CON gain from LAB : Colin Burgon
Eltham CON gain from LAB : Clive Efford
Gedling CON gain from LAB : Vernon Coaker
Gloucester CON gain from LAB : Parmjit Dhanda
Great Yarmouth CON gain from LAB : Tony Wright
Guildford CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Halesowen and Rowley Regis CON gain from LAB : Sylvia Heal
Halifax CON gain from LAB : Linda Riordan
Hammersmith CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Hampstead and Kilburn CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Harlow CON gain from LAB : Bill Rammell
Harrow East CON gain from LAB : Tony McNulty
Hastings and Rye CON gain from LAB : Michael Foster
Hendon CON gain from LAB : Andrew Dismore
Hereford and South Herefordshire CON gain from LIB : Paul Keetch
High Peak CON gain from LAB : Tom Levitt
Hove CON gain from LAB : Celia Barlow
Ipswich CON gain from LAB : Chris Mole
Keighley CON gain from LAB : Ann Cryer
Kingswood CON gain from LAB : Roger Berry
Leeds North West CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Leicestershire North West CON gain from LAB : David Taylor
Lincoln CON gain from LAB : Gillian Merron
Loughborough CON gain from LAB : Andy Reed
Manchester Withington LAB gain from LIB : John Leech
Milton Keynes North CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Milton Keynes South CON gain from LAB : Phyllis Starkey
Morecambe and Lunesdale CON gain from LAB : Geraldine Smith
Newton Abbot CON gain from LIB : Richard Younger-Ross
Norfolk North CON gain from LIB : Norman Lamb
Northampton North CON gain from LAB : Sally Keeble
Northampton South CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Ochil and South Perthshire NAT gain from LAB : Gordon Banks
Oxford West and Abingdon CON gain from LIB : Evan Harris
Pendle CON gain from LAB : Gordon Prentice
Perth and North Perthshire CON gain from NAT : Peter Wishart
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport CON gain from LAB : Linda Gilroy
Poplar and Limehouse CON gain from LAB : Jim Fitzpatrick
Portsmouth South CON gain from LIB : Mike Hancock
Pudsey CON gain from LAB : Paul Truswell
Reading West CON gain from LAB : Martin Salter
Redditch CON gain from LAB : Jacqui Smith
Ribble South CON gain from LAB : David Borrow
Richmond Park CON gain from LIB : Susan Kramer
Rochdale LAB gain from LIB : Paul Rowen
Romsey and Southampton North CON gain from LIB : Sandra Gidley
Rossendale and Darwen CON gain from LAB : Janet Anderson
Sefton Central CON gain from LAB : Claire Curtis-Thomas
Sheffield Hallam CON gain from LIB : Nick Clegg
Solihull CON gain from LIB : Lorely Burt
Somerset North East CON gain from LAB : Dan Norris
Somerton and Frome CON gain from LIB : David Heath
Southport CON gain from LIB : John Pugh
St Austell and Newquay CON gain from LIB : Unknown (new seat)
Stafford CON gain from LAB : David Kidney
Stevenage CON gain from LAB : Barbara Follett
Stirling CON gain from LAB : Anne McGuire
Stockton South CON gain from LAB : Dari Taylor
Stourbridge CON gain from LAB : Lynda Waltho
Stroud CON gain from LAB : David Drew
Sutton and Cheam CON gain from LIB : Paul Burstow
Swindon North CON gain from LAB : Michael Wills
Swindon South CON gain from LAB : Anna Snelgrove
Tamworth CON gain from LAB : Brian Jenkins
Taunton Deane CON gain from LIB : Jeremy Browne
Tooting CON gain from LAB : Sadiq Khan
Torbay CON gain from LIB : Adrian Sanders
Truro and Falmouth CON gain from LIB : Matthew Taylor
Tynemouth CON gain from LAB : Alan Campbell
Vale of Glamorgan CON gain from LAB : John Smith
Warrington South CON gain from LAB : Helen Southworth
Watford CON gain from LAB : Claire Ward
Waveney CON gain from LAB : Bob Blizzard
Weaver Vale CON gain from LAB : Mike Hall
Westminster North CON gain from LAB : Karen Buck
Westmorland and Lonsdale CON gain from LIB : Tim Farron
Winchester CON gain from LIB : Mark Oaten
Wirral South CON gain from LAB : Ben Chapman
Wolverhampton South West CON gain from LAB : Robert Marris
Worcester CON gain from LAB : Michael Foster
Ynys Mon NAT gain from LAB : Albert Owen
York Outer
re 76 probably only after any polls showing the populace wouldn’t want to touch them with an extremely long barge pole now
will correct sorry should be 41 32 14
Baxter wells Electoral Calculus National Prediction: CON majority 24
Party 2005 Votes 2005 Seats Pred Votes Pred Seats
CON 33.24% 209 41.00% 337
LAB 36.21% 346 32.00% 258
LIB 22.65% 66 14.00% 24
Show
prediction
map
Edit current prediction, make new prediction, or go back to home page.
List of predicted seat changes
Aberconwy CON gain from LAB : Betty Williams
Angus CON gain from NAT : Michael Weir
Arfon NAT gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Argyll and Bute CON gain from LIB : Alan Reid
Barrow and Furness CON gain from LAB : John Hutton
Basildon South and East Thurrock CON gain from LAB : Angela Smith
Bath CON gain from LIB : Don Foster
Battersea CON gain from LAB : Martin Linton
Bedford CON gain from LAB : Patrick Hall
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk CON gain from LIB : Michael Moore
Birmingham Edgbaston CON gain from LAB : Gisela Stuart
Blackpool North and Cleveleys CON gain from LAB : Joan Humble
Bolton North East CON gain from LAB : David Crausby
Bolton West CON gain from LAB : Ruth Kelly
Bradford West CON gain from LAB : Marsha Singh
Brecon and Radnorshire CON gain from LIB : Roger Williams
Brentford and Isleworth CON gain from LAB : Ann Keen
Brigg and Goole CON gain from LAB : Ian Cawsey
Brighton Kemptown CON gain from LAB : Desmond Turner
Bristol North West CON gain from LAB : Doug Naysmith
Bristol West LAB gain from LIB : Stephen Williams
Broxtowe CON gain from LAB : Nick Palmer
Burton CON gain from LAB : Janet Dean
Bury North CON gain from LAB : David Chaytor
Calder Valley CON gain from LAB : Christine McCafferty
Camborne and Redruth CON gain from LIB : Julia Goldsworthy
Cardiff North CON gain from LAB : Julie Morgan
Carlisle CON gain from LAB : Eric Martlew
Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South CON gain from LAB : Nick Ainger
Carshalton and Wallington CON gain from LIB : Tom Brake
Ceredigion NAT gain from LIB : Mark Williams
Chatham and Aylesford CON gain from LAB : Jonathan Shaw
Cheadle CON gain from LIB : Patsy Calton
Cheltenham CON gain from LIB : Martin Horwood
Chester, City of CON gain from LAB : Christine Russell
Chippenham CON gain from LIB : Unknown (new seat)
Cleethorpes CON gain from LAB : Shona McIsaac
Colchester CON gain from LIB : Bob Russell
Colne Valley CON gain from LAB : Kali Mountford
Copeland CON gain from LAB : Jamie Reed
Corby CON gain from LAB : Phil Hope
Cornwall North CON gain from LIB : Dan Rogerson
Cornwall South East CON gain from LIB : Colin Breed
Crawley CON gain from LAB : Laura Moffatt
Croydon Central CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Dartford CON gain from LAB : Howard Stoate
Derbyshire South CON gain from LAB : Mark Todd
Devon North CON gain from LIB : Nick Harvey
Devon West and Torridge CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Dewsbury CON gain from LAB : Shahid Malik
Dorset Mid and Poole North CON gain from LIB : Annette Brooke
Dorset South CON gain from LAB : Jim Knight
Dover CON gain from LAB : Gwyn Prosser
Dudley South CON gain from LAB : Ian Pearson
Dumfries and Galloway CON gain from LAB : Russell Brown
Ealing Central and Acton CON gain from LAB : Andrew Slaughter
Eastleigh CON gain from LIB : Christopher Huhne
Edinburgh South CON gain from LAB : Nigel Griffiths
Eltham CON gain from LAB : Clive Efford
Gedling CON gain from LAB : Vernon Coaker
Gloucester CON gain from LAB : Parmjit Dhanda
Great Yarmouth CON gain from LAB : Tony Wright
Guildford CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Halesowen and Rowley Regis CON gain from LAB : Sylvia Heal
Halifax CON gain from LAB : Linda Riordan
Hammersmith CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Hampstead and Kilburn CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Harlow CON gain from LAB : Bill Rammell
Harrow East CON gain from LAB : Tony McNulty
Hastings and Rye CON gain from LAB : Michael Foster
Hendon CON gain from LAB : Andrew Dismore
Hereford and South Herefordshire CON gain from LIB : Paul Keetch
High Peak CON gain from LAB : Tom Levitt
Hornsey and Wood Green LAB gain from LIB : Lynne Featherstone
Hove CON gain from LAB : Celia Barlow
Ipswich CON gain from LAB : Chris Mole
Keighley CON gain from LAB : Ann Cryer
Kingswood CON gain from LAB : Roger Berry
Leeds North West CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Leicestershire North West CON gain from LAB : David Taylor
Lincoln CON gain from LAB : Gillian Merron
Loughborough CON gain from LAB : Andy Reed
Manchester Withington LAB gain from LIB : John Leech
Milton Keynes North CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Milton Keynes South CON gain from LAB : Phyllis Starkey
Newton Abbot CON gain from LIB : Richard Younger-Ross
Norfolk North CON gain from LIB : Norman Lamb
Northampton North CON gain from LAB : Sally Keeble
Northampton South CON gain from LAB : Unknown (changed seat)
Ochil and South Perthshire NAT gain from LAB : Gordon Banks
Oxford West and Abingdon CON gain from LIB : Evan Harris
Pendle CON gain from LAB : Gordon Prentice
Perth and North Perthshire CON gain from NAT : Peter Wishart
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport CON gain from LAB : Linda Gilroy
Poplar and Limehouse CON gain from LAB : Jim Fitzpatrick
Portsmouth South CON gain from LIB : Mike Hancock
Pudsey CON gain from LAB : Paul Truswell
Reading West CON gain from LAB : Martin Salter
Redditch CON gain from LAB : Jacqui Smith
Ribble South CON gain from LAB : David Borrow
Richmond Park CON gain from LIB : Susan Kramer
Rochdale LAB gain from LIB : Paul Rowen
Romsey and Southampton North CON gain from LIB : Sandra Gidley
Rossendale and Darwen CON gain from LAB : Janet Anderson
Sefton Central CON gain from LAB : Claire Curtis-Thomas
Sheffield Hallam CON gain from LIB : Nick Clegg
Solihull CON gain from LIB : Lorely Burt
Somerset North East CON gain from LAB : Dan Norris
Somerton and Frome CON gain from LIB : David Heath
Southport CON gain from LIB : John Pugh
St Austell and Newquay CON gain from LIB : Unknown (new seat)
Stafford CON gain from LAB : David Kidney
Stevenage CON gain from LAB : Barbara Follett
Stirling CON gain from LAB : Anne McGuire
Stourbridge CON gain from LAB : Lynda Waltho
Stroud CON gain from LAB : David Drew
Sutton and Cheam CON gain from LIB : Paul Burstow
Swindon North CON gain from LAB : Michael Wills
Swindon South CON gain from LAB : Anna Snelgrove
Tamworth CON gain from LAB : Brian Jenkins
Taunton Deane CON gain from LIB : Jeremy Browne
Tooting CON gain from LAB : Sadiq Khan
Torbay CON gain from LIB : Adrian Sanders
Truro and Falmouth CON gain from LIB : Matthew Taylor
Vale of Glamorgan CON gain from LAB : John Smith
Warrington South CON gain from LAB : Helen Southworth
Watford CON gain from LAB : Claire Ward
Weaver Vale CON gain from LAB : Mike Hall
Westminster North CON gain from LAB : Karen Buck
Westmorland and Lonsdale CON gain from LIB : Tim Farron
Winchester CON gain from LIB : Mark Oaten
Wirral South CON gain from LAB : Ben Chapman
Wolverhampton South West CON gain from LAB : Robert Marris
Worcester CON gain from LAB : Michael Foster
Ynys Mon NAT gain from LAB : Albert Owen
York Outer CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Seats whose winner
What were the figures prior to Blair going? I’m sure I remember a Tory 9-point lead some time in the Spring. If so, we’re just back where we were then - or at least, were when this poll was taken.
13% is surprisingly high for others. Any thoughts on the details? SNP and PC to gain a bit at Labour’s expense outside England? What else? Can’t see much reason for Respect or UKIP to have moved forward so that leaves the Greens and BNP. It could all be noise at the bottom end of course - that many small parties each with their own margin of error will produce fluctuations.
Oh, and wasn’t Nick’s bet based on the ICM polls, so the pussies aren’t starving just yet!
absolutely completely off topic but I see that even activity in private which is completely harmless will not get you on the sex offenders’ register. There is no privacy in this country any more.
re 82 should have been “now get you”
74 9% deficit for a unpopular government mid-term is hardly a disaster for Labour though is it?
No, it isn’t. However, it would be very difficult for Labour to recover from a 13%-14% deficit, which we may yet see, even with two and a half years to go before a GE. The real problem they have is that the economy is turning down sharply and is unlikely to recover within that time frame.
The poll was conducted by YouGov for Channel 4 News on 21-22 November. They surveyed 1600 adults.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/poll+blames+brown+for+data+fiasco/1083347
84. If the discgate continues and GB And AD are proven to be lying then hopefully we’ll be in 13-14 terrority.
I’d rather hoped we would be 42/43 in this poll. Still can’t complain too much at 9 daves.
The CD fiasco was not Labour’s fault. They should not suffer in the polls - PROVIDED ID cards are ditched very very soon.
Good poll for us Conservatives, Anthony Wells calculator gives us a majority of 12!
I am off down the pub!
Brown and Darling still (just about) trusted more on the economy:
How competent at running the economy?
Gordon Brown, the prime minister, and Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the exchequer
Very competent 15
Fairly competent 36
Fairly incomptent 23
Very incompetent 19
Don’t know 8
David Cameron, Conservative party leader, and George Osborne, shadow chancellor
Very competent 9
Fairly competent 37
Fairly incomptent 24
Very incompetent 13
Don’t know 16
re 89 but looking at the data the other way 42% reckon Lab are incompetent at running the economy and only 37% reckon the Tories would be.
More bad news for Brown, both BBC and C4 reporting that former chiefs of Staff at the MOD have attacked him in the Lords in what appears to have been a free for all over his funding of the MOD when chancellor, predicting “blood on the floor of the MOD”
Pretty damning stuff!!
re 89 or removing the don’t knows the percentage of the sample expressing an opinion that think Lab or C are competent at running the economy is a tie at 55%.
I believe Mr Brown knew that there was more to this story during yesterday’s PMQs. When he tried to foist blame on Mr Cameron, arguing that it all had something to do with costs, it struck me that this was a really bizarre answer. I now feel that Mr Brown was fully aware of the email exchange that indicate departmental costs were a consideration at the time, and that it was on these grounds that the CDs were sent they way they were. To me this also explains the struggle we have all had in trying to understand why some 23 year-old ‘junior’ was able to do what he did without permission. Perhaps he was simply obeying orders?
O/T an hour ago, I backed Fergie at 379-1 and Arsene Wenger at 84-1 to get the England job. Value or what?
93 A smart observation David - if you’re going to tell lies, you need to be darned good at it!
89. That’s mainly down to don’t knows. The net figures are:
GB+AD: (15+36)-(23+19) = plus nine
DC+GO: (9+37)-(24+13) = plus nine
Even stevens.
what is this on sky headline figures please for the times poll
re 89
If we use turn these numbers into net approval ratings, then:
Brown and Darling = 51 (competent) - 42 (incompetent) = +9
Cameron and Osborne = 46 (competent) - 37 (incompetent) = +9
So its pretty much even at the moment.
govt trusted on economy falls from 61% to 28%
“Brown ’shows contempt for forces’”
So straight the way we see Labour losing ground over discgate. Bearing in mind most scandels take at least a week, and possibly two or three to really sink through the public mood, for polls to already be moving is terrible news for Labour. Odd on they will be under 30% by mid December.
Peter from Putney @ 94. No. What you have are big prices, not value.
I never really understand these competency figures. We are measuring one lot on the job they are doing, and the other either on a different job (ie opposition) or on the job we think they might do.
It’s a bit like appraising my accountant, and somebody else (perhaps a wallpaper salesman) who would like to be an accountant. Daft… and meaningless.
look at sky news ticker folks
102 - disagree. Whilst neither of these guys will get the job, the odds may drop enough for a chance to lay the odds at a lower level.
re 102 GIN in which poll? How about £10 at 1/2 if the average of YG, Mori, CR and ICM show Lab at
104 Test
It’s 41/35/13 isn’t it?
81 Others in the YouGov poll are:
SNP/Plaid Cymru - 4%
Green - 3%
BNP - 3%
UKIP - 2%
Respect - 0%
Other - 1%
I’m always amused by these competent/incompetent questions in polls. I would suggest that out of, say, 100 people polled, fewer than 20 would be able to correctly name the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the case of his Tory shadow, I would be surprised if the figure exceeded 5. In the main voters support one party or another and to some extent its leader. Otherwise near total ignorance prevails.
107 That would be C (nc), L (-3) , LD (+2)
94. Fergie wouldn’t be value at 1000/1. It’s never going to happen. Wenger might - just might - be someone the FA would like to think about, but I can’t see any reason why he’d leave Arsenal, money included.
Peter from Putney 109 “I would suggest that out of, say, 100 people polled, fewer than 20 would be able to correctly name the Chancellor of the Exchequer.”
Indeed, and even though I know full well that Darling is the Chancellor I still get a mental image of Brown each time the word “Chancellor” is mentioned on the TV news.
New thread - Tories take their biggest ever YouGov lead
111 - “Fergie wouldn’t be value at 1000/1.” You know that and I know that. But there are some idiots out there who may back him at 66/1 in a few days. Back at 379-1 and lay later.
111 Benitez didn’t exactly rule himself out in an interview I saw earlier. Can’t see the FA going down that route though. Agree with what you say about Fergie and Wenger.
What odds are there on Steve McLaren for Sports Personality of the Year?
The sad fact is that you usually find a footballer making the top 3. Guess not this year!
111 Fergie wouldn’t be value at 1000/1
Just to enable yout to put your money where your mouth is David, and generously giving you a 50% discount against the odds you mentioned, would you like to give me odds please of 500-1 against my stake of £2 on such an appointment?
117 - Ever heard of cost of capital?
117. With the current market sat between 129/1 and 299/1, I’m afraid I’ll have to pass on this ‘generous’ offer!
. Actually, I don’t lay odds of that length anyway - I could get a 0.2% return in a couple of weeks in my savings account with a lot less risk! Thanks for asking though.
119 With the current market sat between 129/1 and 299/1
Ah, shame! Still, having backed him at 379-1 and since sold at down to 130-1, this sort of proves my point about value. I now have a potential 4 figure profit for a net investment of precisely £nil!
The same applies to my bets on Arsene Wenger, who I happen to think is a real prospect for this job - a nice prestigious position to round off his career - but I agree, money could be a problem.