Can Dave really do what’s only been done once since 1945?
December 3rd, 2007
Are the markets over-stating the chances of a Tory overall majority?
It is a sobering fact that in only one of the seventeen general elections since the end of the Second World War has a party with a workable commons majority been replaced by another with a workable majority.
In 1951, 1979 and 1997 the outgoing governments had ceased to have effective commons majorities. In 1964 and February 1974 the incoming governments had either minuscule majorities or were in a minority and second general elections followed not too long afterwards. Only when Ted Heath’s Tories took over from Harold Wilson’s Labour in June 1970 was a party with a reasonable majority replaced by another.
It’s in this context that Cameron’s general election goal of becoming Prime Minister of a Conservative majority government needs to be judged. It’s a massive ask and requires a huge number of gains.
So what are we to make of the movements in Betfair’s general election outcome market reflected in the chart above? The graph, using betting prices expressed as an implied probability, tracks the changes in punter perceptions of the election over the past six months to the point where this week a Tory majority could replace a hung parliament as the punter’s favourite.
But how realistic is this? Yes there has been a good spate of opinion polls and the fact that Cameron’s party now seems to have broken the 40% polling barrier does suggest that a majority might be possible - but should it be the favourite?
On the commons seats spread-betting markets, where the serious gamblers play and where much greater sums are put at risk, the Conservative buy price is about 303-304 seats - somewhat short of the magical 325 figure that Dave needs to be sure that he’ll be driving up the Mall to see the Queen.
The current indicators suggest that Labour is in danger of losing power but no more. This might change but there is always the danger that it could go in the opposite direction.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
“Yes there has been a good spate of opinion polls and the fact that Cameron’s party now seems to have broken the 40% polling barrier does suggest that a majority might be possible - but should it be the favourite?”
No, it shouldn’t - a hung parliament should remain favourite. IMO, although none of the current odds are far out, both Labour’s amd the Tories’ chamces of making an overall majority are currently overstated. I’d have thought 25% Con / 20% Lab / 55% neither was nearer the mark. For the Conservatives to win outright will, as Mike says, require a very large number of gains, including seats where the local lie of the land is currently unpromising. For Labour to win outright means not losing more than about 30 seats (depending on by-elections and defections in the next couple of years). That seems possible but unlikely with both an economic downturn in the offing and a government as accident-prone as Gordon Brown’s is turning out to be.
If anything, the ‘once since 1945′ fact probably overstates things as they are now. Up until the early ’70s, the Northern Ireland MPs all counted as Conservatives and there were few Nationalist MPs from Wales or Scotland; up until 1997 there were few Liberals / Lib Dems. Although the Lib Dems may lose a few seats next time round - the lack of an Iraq factor and the squeeze the smaller parties usually feel when it’s close between the big two will count against them - they’re very unlikely to return to a pre-1997 sort of total, and overall Nationalist representation is, if anything, likely to go up. The number of gains that either big party needed to go from opposition to government was far fewer than is now the case. As has been pointed out on many occasions, the starting point for Cameron at the next election is similar to that of Kinnock in 1987.
I think this is just one of those long term questions where the opinion polls are going to be fairly useless because where the parties are now is going to have very little to do with the eventual outcome of a 2010 election.
More relevant is whether you think Brown & co have it in them to recover to at least a respectable standard or whether you think Cameron can continue to build on the success he’s enjoyed so far. The evidence so far, in my opinion, suggests that Cameron is by far the superior politician so I think the only question is how much better is he?
Of course on the spread betting it’s all about short term gains and so it’s all about the opinion polls and current opinion. Long term (which few bet on since you may as well put the money into the bank) think it’s all about how well Cameron maintains his momentum.
3. Also - I didn’t mean that to sound so one sided, Brown has a lot of substance about him but I personally think Cameron will remain far more “electable” over the long term.
How has Brown got a ‘lot of substance’? What kind of substance? Policy? Vision?
Seems like another one of those inane things people will say because some lazy people in the media said it. Msybe it’s s relative thing but I personally don’t see much substance to either of the two major party leaders and am not going to pretend they’re good just because they’re talked about and (apparently) other people support them. Why do people support them? Because they supposedly ‘have substance’…
The only major politician I have much faith in is Vince Cable and a few backbench independent MPs.
5. Politically, ’substance’ is one of those Alice in Wonderland things that exists if enough people believe it does. I imagine that plenty of people do so because of the way he controlled so much of the domestic agenda during his time as chancellor - and for his longevity in that office. That is unless Scott simply meant that he could stand to lose a few pounds (not in the Northern Rock bail-out sense, obviously).
Cameron should aim for 150 seats to insure a workable majority, but its looked unlikely even at his highest points. It would take a truly remarkable leader for the Conservatives to gain the 130 odd seats required for an overall majority.
Question: why exactly is Abrahams not in jail? He did some massively illegal things, why isn’t he in jail?
Isn’t he a bit too important for jail?
Alan Cochrane - one of the most vociferous Nat-bashers in the Scottish press - reckons Wendy Alexander is Britain’s most selfish and self-centred politician. Quite an accolade.
The answer to your question, Mike, is quite clearly not. Mr Cameron is not a patch on Sir Edward Heath (though there are some who may disagree with that point of view).
The Tories may have a relatively respectable lead over Labour in recent polls. But I do not see any great enthusiasm to have a Tory government again (except among the ranks of Tory posters on PBC, of course).
Their lead is due to a series of self-inflicted disasters on the part of the Labour Party: and recent weakness on the part of the Liberal Democrats. The latter appear to be regaining strength and this will undoubtedly have an impact on the final result of the next election.
Meanwhile the lead of the Tories over Labour is flattering in appearance, but only to deceive and disapppoint them in the long term.
O/T - Both Obama and Huckabee maintaining and extending (if only slightly) their leads in Iowa according to the latest Des Moines Register poll… DMR usually does fairly decent polling for the caucus.
There are two factors that work in terms of opinion, immediacy and trend. In immediate terms if a general election were held in the current climate there is little doubt that Labour would lose quite heavily. However if and at the moment it is a substantial if Labour can steady the ship and present a significantly more competent face then the Conservative task will be more difficult. However long term governments face trend the inexorable peeling away of support who see time for a change as a significant pull on their vote. The latest farrago will have exacerbated that and pushed the trending away from Labour. I would say that the recent events have pushed the likelihood of a majority conservative govenment significantly upward, particularly given the fact that there is a substantial timeframe that in all likelihood holds more danger for a government than opposition. Even if a period of calm ensues, the next sizeable cock up related to the government will probably be accompanied by a mass ‘here we go again’.
10. ‘Mr Cameron is not a patch on Sir Edward Heath (though there are some who may disagree with that point of view).’
I thin you’ll struggle to find half a dozen people who would agree with that view.
I think the article is probably right. 100 seats gain in one push is probably realistic. Then it’s a very different political envoirnment.
13. Ted Heath was a euro-fanatic, which in the eyes of Lib Dems gives him saintly status regardless of his many failures in office. Even his embarassing admiration for China’s dictatorship and its methods is forgotten.
I’m slightly surprised by the sentiment of many Conservatives that the next election is in the bag. Even the massive leads recently predicted in the polls would only give us a majority of about 10, which would be a disaster. The Conservatives still need a few more percent, but surely Labour will start a fightback sooner or later and start chipping away at the lead.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
13 Woody I am sure there are very few confirmed Tories who would agree with Tressage’s statement about Heath and Cameron, but there would be masses of those who might vote Tory who would agree. While Heath suffered a few spectacular setbacks in power, and it is open to question how people judged his attitude to Thatcher, he did a number of sensible things after he was PM, and he will be remembered affectionately for those. He is, in my view wrongly, of course hated by Europhobes. But I think his “ordinary” background would be looked on much more favourably than Cameron’s silver spoon - and this is an important factor I believe.
People’s views of Mike’s editorial seem very balanced so far, but I expect it will only be a while before some of the usual suspects start coming out with the line that “we have returned to 2 party politics”. We have not - we Lib Dems have gone through a difficult time - we are now emerging from that, and we already see some poll and electoral benefit from that. My money is on either a hung Parliament, or another small Labour majority, depending whether the Govt can convince people it is effective over the next 2 years.
So what if the governments in 1979 and 1992 has lost their majorities by the end of those parliaments - surely the comparisons are against the previous GE result not the state of play in parliament the day of dissolution?
I’m struggling to understand the logic behind this one.
In terms of the present “debate” on the EU - Heath took us into the Common Market - It was, err, Thatcher, who signed up (without Sean’s referendum) to the so called super state.
And continuing my theme…
“Only when Ted Heath’s Tories took over from Harold Wilson’s Labour in June 1970 was a party with a reasonable majority replaced by another.”
Major 1992 - working majority of 21 (i think) on then boundaries, would have been 30-odd on 1997 boundaries
Blair 1997 - working majority of 170-odd.
Cameron, of course, doesn’t need to do half of what Blair did in 1997. And yet the polls are currently showing 6 voters in 10 think Brown is as bad or worse than John Major as PM.
Bob 17 Actually, both Callaghan and Major were relatively speaking, struggling throughout - and they both had to call on marginal support to get various measures through. They were certainly seen by the media and the country as “weak” Governments. But, surely, Mike’s point about where they were at dissolution - because that is what the voter sees currently, should be important? Don’t follow your logic.
13 100 seats gain in one push is probably realistic.
Wholly agree - that’s why I’m starting to sell Tory seats at 305, it just aint going a lot higher than this IMHO. Once Labour’s present difficulties subside somewhat, which they will, I can see both parties tieing at around the 285 seat level in the betting markets.
Re. 14 and 13, indeed. I seem to remember his response to the Tiananmen Square Massacre was ‘Very well’, almost as grotesque as Kissinger’s comments at the time.
The problem for Brown, though, is that much of his behaviour seems to echo Heath’s frequent rudeness, sulkiness, selfishness and mind blindness. Just read John Campbell’s excellent biography of Heath and then compare some of the incidents with the stories about Brown.
It will be very tough but not impossible. We need to look at the unlikely places we won in May - South Ribble and the north-west.
15 - Suggesting a Conservative majority of 10 would be a “disaster” is a bit over the top. For Labour maybe.
RodCrosby has consistently been pointing out the strong likelihood of a hung parliament. Mike’s article makes the same point from a historical perspective. Today the chances of a hung parliament are better than the odds. But 2010 they could be a lot worse.
In 2005 I felt that Cameron would take 2 parliaments to get a working majority because he has so few seats and Labour has an advantage in the seat allocation. All Labour has to do is be within a few % of the Conservative vote.
Strategically Brown should have gone for an early election because his chances were better in 07 than 09 or 2010.
Today we wake up to the fact that we are behind childhood poverty targets and cancer recovery rates are still worse than others. The Govt’s record is now being challenged so two and a half more years of this will drive Labour’s approval rates down and lessen the chances of a hung parliament.
All the models say that a Conservative majority is very unlikely. As the election approaches the markets will start to take closer attention to the models.
On almost all historical precedent, it would seem very unlikely for the Conservatives to make a breakthough, until you look at the events of the last few weeks.
The Conservatives have come back from a position in the polls that had nearly all pundits writing them off and confidently predicting an increase in Labour’s majority. The aren’t now.
To steal a phrase from Labour, “Much done, Much more to do” The Conservatives, unlike Mr. Brown, have an electorate willing to listen to them. Time for us to set out our vision!
20: “But, surely, Mike’s point about where they were at dissolution - because that is what the voter sees currently, should be important? Don’t follow your logic”
The 1997 result and all the electoral maths that goes with it - gains, losses, swings, percentage increases and declines - is all based on a comparison with 1992. As it should be.
Any seats lost in by-elections 1992-97 would surely have been lost in the 1997 election anyway - not because of any incumbency benefit gained by the holder prior to the 97 GE - so I think it’s a little odd to infer that 1997 was somehow “easier” for Labour because the Tories had already lost their majority by 1997. And thus say “only once since 1945 has this happened”.
27 - Sorry, I meant “they aren’t now”
Thanks for this, Mike.
A few of us have persistently argued that the HP price is overgenerous, but have been quietly talked down by posters from the two main Parties. They generally give one of two reasons: the first amounts to ‘my Party will do better than you think’, and the second is along the lines of ‘the electorate doesn’t like Hung Parliaments’. The holes in these ‘arguments’ gape so wide they don’t need pointing out and one can only assume, and hope, that the protaganists do not bet.
I have been betting steadily on an HP. I used to think the main danger to my money was a fourth Labour majority. I now think there is little danger at all.
Michael Howard did a hell of a job getting the Tories to where he did at the last election but I remember thinking at the time he fell about twenty seats short of the point where his Party had a reasonable chance of winning the next election outright. 130 seats is one hell of an ask. I don’t care what the Tory lead is now; in the heat of an election battle it will diminish, and even if you project seats from current poll levels (a highly artificial and misleading exercise anyway) you barely get an overall majority.
Tories most seats? Quite probably. Overall majority? Please keep betting against it, and I’ll keep taking your money.
somewhat short of the magical 325 figure that Dave needs to be sure that he’ll be driving up the Mall to see the Queen.
“Driving”? Cycling, shurely? There can’t possibly be any possibility that Mr Cameron would be so shallow and unprincipled that he would suddenly want to abandon his green principles and be drawn into the bourgeois comforts of motorism-passengerism, just because he’s become prime minister? I’m sure that the vast majority of people would be shocked if such opportunism and careerism were to raise its ugly head in our as-yet uncorrupted and untainted polity.
Nice article Mike and IMHO Yes Dave can do what has only been achieved once since 1945.
The reason in 2 words “Northern Wreck”
Some of my garbled weekend thoughts on the matter
.
1. The amount of money which the BoE is pumping into NR is increasing by about a billion a week.
2. Virgin are reportedly having trouble raising the money needed to finance their proposed takeover deal.
3. One theory over ‘Donorgate’ is that NR paid Labour off, via Abrahams, to get the government to agree the initial BoE loan. If so, the government will do whatever it can to prevent news of that getting out.
4. February is sort of a deadline: if the BoE loan is not repaid by then, EU competition laws are being broken. Presumably Labour will then have to do some shady deal with the appropriate EU officials to be able to continue the loan.
5. In the long term, Gordie and Darling have given us all a £30bn bill (and counting), which’ll have to be repaid; probably through a devalued pound and the inflation resulting therefrom.
Must dash I have to meet “someone in the City” who has more info on Northern Wreck.
28. The process of changing from a majority government of one party to a majority government of the othe party (both with clear working majorities, not just an arithmetic majority) is the subject which the thread is talking about. Comparing two successive general elections is a different thing.
28 While I fully agree with you in psephological terms that comparisons are always drawn between the positions at GEs, I feel that the “psychological” position at any GE, and the way that voters (and the mediocracy) will assess things are very different - the position then and there will take pre-eminence over the position 4 or 5 years before. As a matter of interest, I would be fairly certain that Christchurch would not have been won by the Lib Dems in 1997 - can’t think offhand of other byelections 1992 - 7. Newbury may not have been, either. Those byelections along with the historic highs from 1993 - 5 of Lib Dems in Local Govt gave a strong boost to LD results and organisation in the run-in to 97, which (prob) boosted LD seats by around 15 in that year. The Lib Dem surge on top of “anyone but the Tories” boosted the Labour majority.
32. This is definitely the site to read for elaborate conspiracy theories…
“3. One theory over ‘Donorgate’ is that NR paid Labour off, via Abrahams, to get the government to agree the initial BoE loan. If so, the government will do whatever it can to prevent news of that getting out.”
Now that is just getting silly.
BUT even on Nick Palmer’s web site he (a very junior member of the Government) it is suggested that the Government will have to write off the interest (at least £2bn) before a deal to sell NR is done. I think he is being optimistic - We are likely to have at least £10bn at serious risk, with the possibility that we would only get about 25p in £1 back - a further loss of £7.5bn.
Does anyone know what Northern Rock are spending all these borrowed billions on? Are people taking out thousands of mortgages in the hope that it will be free money? Or are the Rock just using it to replace the loans being called in by other creditors?
27 “On almost all historical precedent, it would seem very unlikely for the Conservatives to make a breakthough, until you look at the events of the last few weeks.”
David - That is exactly the kind of purblind perception that explains the generous odds and makes punters like me very happy.
The next general election will not be fought on the events of the last few weeks. You have had the fairest of winds in your sails for some time now and yet the polls suggest you would barely get an overall majority if the election were tomorrow.
What do you imagine the reality will be when an election is called - and remember Gordon can pick his own date - and a full-blooded campaign ensures?
I do not rule out the possibility of a Tory overall majority. A few weeks back I thought it was about 10/1 against. Now I would suggest 5/1. I do not expect the likelihood to increase greatly and it would take another year of Gordon at his woeful worst before I will start to think the current odds reflect any value.
This is one of the few predictions about which I completely disagree with PfP. There’s another thing that has IIRC only happened once since 1945 - a hung parliament). There’s a reason for that - the mood of the country normally tilts one way or the other, and an HP requires that it doesn’t.
I agree with the posts that say we simply don’t know where we’ll be in 2009/10. But ‘finely balanced right up to polling day ‘ is IMO the least likely outcome.
35 Yes, Walsingham.
We are most fortunate to have the services of Herbert, who works tirelessly to produce them.
Peter the Punter (PtP) was here first - can I suggest that Peter from Putney (PfP) changes his monicer to say, PutneyPete
37. ‘are the Rock just using it to replace the loans being called in by other creditors?’
Yes.
Peter the Punter @ 30 and others.
You make some telling points. However there is no electoral law that dictates a Conservative majority is a non starter. There are however several factors that factually mitigate against it and that we should take cognisance of, especially if betting.
1. Governments do tend to gather support as the electoral cycle concludes and thus cut into the lead of the opposition if they have one.
2. Most recently the strength of the Liberal Democrats and their ability to bolster an anti-conservative majority.
3. It’s “the economy stupid!” Will the voters trust the Conservatives with the Treasury either in a period of stability or to rectify a recession.
39 Nick
That’s a good example of the second flawed ‘reason’ why people reject the notion of an HP.
How do you imagine voters will reject the notion? It is as if you believe there will be some giant caucus-like gathering just before polling day at which voters confer and decide they want ’strong Government’ and reject an HP.
You reject the notion that the election result arises from millions of individual independent choices.
Nobody can vote for or against an HP, because nobody can be sure how others will decide.
38 - I wish 5/1 was available on Betfair, Peter.
I would generally defer to your punting knowledge, but I consider that if things continue as they are, 5/1 would look very generous in a year’s time.
I’m not sure if the thinking behind pricing it up that long is the feeling that things will improve for Labour and decrease the prospect of a Tory majority….but there is no rule saying that things MUST improve. They could get worse, or stay the same, either of which would see the chances of an outright Conservative win gradually increase.
At the current 13/8 on BF I’d obviously want to be a layer…but at 5/1, I’d be a backer. Just as well you needn’t lay at that price! Happy hunting…
41 Forget it, Icarus.
Confusion over the names is not only the source of occasional amusement, it has got me off the hook more than once. “Weren’t me, Guvnor; must have been PfP…;-) “
Nick says HP has only happened once since 1945 - I joined the Liberal Party in 1964 but it wasn’t until after 1970 that the Liberals and their successors regularly achieved more than 10% of the vote. Given the rise of the nationalists and the decision of Labour and Conservatives to become meaningless brands rather than ideologically based parties. The probability that a HP will happen is surely increasing.
Perhaps Nick is referring to the scandal that even with FPTP the Labour Party has contrived a system which requires many fewer votes to elect a labour MP than an MP from another party. This will, I hope, in the long run ensure that a more democratic (proportional) system is introduced for the benefit of us all.
Peter the Punter @ 44.
You are indeed correct. The weakness of the non Conservative/Labour parties since 1945 has made hung parliaments less likely and the recent strength of the Liberal Democrats has been overidden by the landslide nature of the recent Labour victories. At other times prior to 1997 a strong Liberal showing in the 45-60 seat range would have led to several hung parliaments.
The Tories’ only real hope of achieving an overall majority at the next GE (with hope being the operative word) was by reducing the LibDems to a rump of around 20-25 MPs, which always looked unlikely (despite Baxter’s infamous zero seat projection at one time), and with Ming Campbell’s departure this now looks impossible. I always thought Ming’s election as leader was great news for the Tories, not only because of his perceived leftward leaning, but also because, frankly, he was seen by many as being too old, etc. There’s no doubt that Clegg will be a totally different and more difficult proposition for both parties, but particularly for the Tories.
Expressed in simple arithmetic terms, it is far easier for either Labour or the Tories to secure 325 seats if the combined smaller parties, incl the LibDems, were to win only, say 50 seats between them, as opposed to such parties winning 80-85 seats, which now appears more probable.
Therefore, I agree with the view that NOC is the most likely result - can anyone please suggest where the best odds are currently available on such an outcome?
Are the Lib Dems mad?
Why are they in the process of choosing between two second rate mediocrities when they’ve got Vince? There appears to be no end to his talents:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7121335.stm
45 Oh yes, Andy. Why indeed would I lay at 5/1 when I can do so at at 13/8 with Betfair?
And yes again, 5/1 may well look generous in a year’s time. It may by then be down to 5/2 in my book. That’s still way in advance of what you have right now though.
Occasionally my racing friends ask me for an plain, simple, outright political tip - a real good bet they can have on the nose. I always reply ‘Hung Parliament, at 6/4 or better; should be about 4/6.’
That’s stonking good value. One day punters will wake up to it, but I suspect it won’t be until very close to the election.
Maybe that why the anomolous price persists. There’s no rush.
44 - I think you reject the idea too soon. Not saying you are wrong but there are arguments behind it.
In the run up to an election the number of “likely scenarios” will probably narrow from the current range (anywhere from status quo to Conservative majority) to a battle between two outcomes effectively incompassing a range of 40-50 seats. The voters in those seats will be made very aware that their votes in those seats are effectively deciding the final outcome of the election.
Then those seats will be like 40-50 “mini by-elections” (just ones where the Tories have a chance through their default position of being one of the two options) where the choice is a binary one and normal swing rules don’t easily apply.
For the contest to then be close you need both main parties to accept this narrow range as the battleground and target their resources accordingly. If one of them doesn’t, and gets it wrong (eg. say Labour devote resources to trying to maintain their majority) then those seats could represent a walkover.
A related thing probably happened in 1997, when the Tories tried to hold too high a line and paid a price by losing seats that should never have been lost, even given the scale of the desire to remove them.
Too late for that now - he had the chance to stand but decided not to - time to move on.
Mike, slightly off message, but have you seen the results of a YouGov poll(commissioned by the SNP I hasten to add) which asks which is governing better? And the result is:-
Scottish Govt 54%
UK Govt 11%
Sample size 1111 Fieldwork 28th-30th November
No more details I’m afraid.
Mike “But how realistic is this? Yes there has been a good spate of opinion polls and the fact that Cameron’s party now seems to have broken the 40% polling barrier does suggest that a majority might be possible - but should it be the favourite?”
I think they are factoring in Labour’s current ability to implode under Gordon Brown. It seems limitless.
52 (con) - one only has to look at the remarkable run of results against Govts in by-elections for a long time, to see that when there is a desire to kick a Govt there is not seat that can be considered safe under FPTP. Many large majorities are the product, not totally of the political views of the electorate, but simply because there is a settled view of it being a “safe seat” and there being no reason for voters to really challenge their opinions on who they should vote for.
Give them something to think about by really giving them a direct choice in the next Govt and unpredictable things will happen. Opposing activists will enthuse and defenders will not always no how to respond. And whole electorates can get caught up in the enthusiasm.
30
Hmmm Michael Howard did, ‘a hell of a job’ twelve seats less than Michael Foot managed, don’t remember anyone saying Foot ‘did a hell of a job’
Well the way Labour’s doing all it can to speed the Tories into power, if the Tories don’t win next time, when can they win!
Obviously 2/3 years to the next election, anything can happen, and probably will. What Labour supporters must ask themselves, do you really want it? Third terms are difficult, fourth terms are a disaster.
The British system, needs and must have regular changes of power, too long in for any party and the strain begins to show, strain that soon leads to a breaking point.
Apart from anything else, I want to really enjoy myself, coming onto this site when Cameron & Osborne make some enormous cock-up (they will) and taking the piss out of test something rotten!!
Has no one else noticed the latest CallmeDave vote-winner? I refer of course to the new ‘Roman’ Barnet to try to camouflage Hague-like tendencies. Actually he’s looking more and more like Winston Churchill jr, erstwhile Stretford MP. How will this weigh in the polls?
52 Yes Alex, that could happen. Nor do I think an HP is a certainty. I rate the probability about 60%, or 4/6 in betting terms. Currently Betfair suggests 38% (13/8). That’s a 22% edge to me.
Wish I could find that kind of an edge every day at the track. Would soon be rich.
O/T: some refreshing news from Australia. Although the Kyoto Protocol was by no means the answer to every environmentalist’s prayers, today, immediately after being sworn in, new PM Kevin Rudd moved to ratify Kyoto. Quoting from the BBC new website:
“This is the first official act of the new Australian government,” he said.
Yay!
Gillian Gibbons granted full pardon:
http://tinyurl.com/2dzjyx
60 Hmmm…thanks Stephen, but I’d be a lot mor ‘refreshed’ if they’d get on with counting the sodding Bennelong votes and paid me my money.
Ah but you underestimate Conservatives - Once they begin to think they might get some power again, the various factions “To EU or not to EU”, “Green vs 4X4s”, “Privatise the NHS or Safe in our Hands” will start fighting for supremacy.
The confusion of a Chameleon Cameron vs Real Conservatives row will knock at least 5%-10% off their GE vote and help keep PtP’s bank balance healthy.
58 Not good news - bald is bad.
Still if he can afford £80 haircuts like Brown, he might get away with it for a year or two.
Tip: stay well clear of baseball caps!
59 - Yep fair point. Often people get too tied up in predictive “certainties” and binary outcomes on here, when you are obviously far more interested in the odds.
On here people give the three outcomes (Lab Maj, Con maj, HP) equal status from which point it is very easy to slip into rejecting one of them. When of course the reality is that there are hundreds of outcomes, and even on a simplistic basis several different shades of a hung parliament.
I think some posters are also seeing it from a different perspective. Conservative supporters of the “no HP” theory are doing so from the perspective of it being inevitable that we will be in the battleground scenario that i laid out above. Ie. the battleground being between Con majority and HP with Con easily largest party.
The Odds on a HP, given that we are in the battleground scenario above (Bayes formula) if i remember) probably are about right at present.
You of course have not made the mental leap to ruling out Lab maj/HP with Labour easily largest party/well hung parliament, etc which gives you a very different perspective on the odds.
You are assuming that Govt will recover (or at least that there is a significant chance of the Govt recovering), Conservative supporters don’t really foresee that happening to any significant amount.
60 - hope he’s not going to use Kyoto as an excuse for not actually taking any action. That’s what the rest of the World has done.
62 Very succinctly expressed, PtP, I agree entirely.
“a party with a workable commons majority been replaced by another with a workable majority.”
Cameron doesn’t need a workable majority under the betfair terms, simply a majority of 1. Not certain how that affects the historical precedent, but suspect that it would make your argument less dramatic.
From a political, rather than a betting, perspective, it would probably be the case that the Labour party would be so demoralised and riven with infighting, after an election in which the Tories made 100+ gains, that a majority of 1 would be quite enough for Cameron.
Well said Mike - the over enthusiasm by the Tory cheerleaders (wh now are sadly the vast majority of posters on this site) - means great betting opportunities for the rest of us.
Only in 1945 did an opposition win a majority from less than 200 seats. The seat the Tories need to gain a majority of 1 is Gloucester (and assuming they win everything below that - which they won’t). Even the most gung-ho Tories on Anthony Wells site don’t believe that’s possible.
Given that the Tories have just staggered over the 40% line given Labour’s current shambles suggests they are not yet really accepted as a likely alternative government.
I believe the next election will be fought over the mid 30s percentages (as was 2005). If Labour can pick themselves up off the floor to the 34-35% range they will almost certainly be the largest party.
There is also almost no chance that the two main parties will get more than 75% of vote between them with the Lib Dems and others picking up a quarter to a third of the vote.
Well, this is interesting… do we go with the betting expert (Peter the Punter) or the practising politician (Nick Palmer)?
Although I originally put forward my apocalyptic scenario (Con 350, Lab 200, LD 60 or thereabouts) half in jest, the feeling in my water has warmed to it over time. I just can’t see Labour polling over 30% at the next election - their competence level is back to what it was in 1983, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the 20% or so of voters who consider themselves to be left-wing to vote Labour on their record.
The question is, can Cameron pull the discontents to him? I’m attracted to Sean Fear’s view that he can, not because of his policies, or because people positively want whatever kind of Conservatism he has to offer, but because if you really really want Labour out only the Conservatives can replace them as a government. And people don’t like hung Parliaments, don’t want two General Elections in short order (King George V had that right).
The only thing I haven’t given much thought to is Scotland - about which I know nothing. Much there may depend on which of Labour or the SNP has the better GOTV resource: the narrative would suggest that the Nats will have plenty of willing hands next time, but I don’t know if they have a Rennard to plonk them down in the right constituencies.
I’m extremely tempted to break the habit of a lifetime and offer PtP a tenner at 5-1 on a Tory victory (i.e. I pay him £10 if they fail, he pays me £50 if they make it) - is that what you’re offering, Peter?
Re 7 Oliver “Question: why exactly is Abrahams not in jail? He did some massively illegal things, why isn’t he in jail?”
Because it is not his reposnsibility to check the legality of the donation so he has probably not done that much wrong. (You could argue a conspiracy though).
59 That’s a 22% edge to me. Wish I could find that kind of an edge every day at the track.
Yep, but then at the races, you don’t have to put your money down two and a half years in advance. A better bet might therefore be to buy shares in Betfair. Ah, if only one could.
66 I think that that is highly unlikely. He not only has an environment minister, but also a minister for climate change!
73 - You’re not reassuring us here!
71
The other reason could be, he hasn’t been charged, tried and found guilty of any offence, for which a custodial sentence is the norm.
As Abrahams would not be considered a, ‘danger to the public’ he wouldn’t be held on remand, awaiting trial. He could of course flee the country, do a ‘Porter’ and go and live in Israel, but I think thats unlikely.
When the country last produced uncertain results 1974, it wasn’t planned it just happened. If the cards fall a certain way at the next GE, a hung parliament is quite likely.
As a firm believer in, ‘Chaos Theory’ human behaviour is not all that influenced by planning. Politics is chaotic, its a non-linear problem despite the efforts of political scientists to convince us otherwise. The variables are too great to make to many hard and fast judgements, as the last few weeks have shown.
‘Men make plans for the Gods to mock’
65 Thanks Alex for your thoughtful comments.
The truth is I have no stron views on what is going to happen next. All I would say is that I used to think an HP was most likely, and a Labour majority was next most likely. I still think HP most likely but am not sure what the next most likely scenario is. At a push, I’d suggest Tories most seats, but by a small margin. There’s so much time before the election though that anything could happen.
70 Sorry to disappoint you, Innocent, but why would I offer you 5/1 when I can lay at 13/8 with Betfair?
I quoted 5/1 to illustrate how far out of kilter the Betfair odds were, not to give PBers an opportunity to pick up some free money!
Re 38, Peter the Punter “The next general election will not be fought on the events of the last few weeks. You have had the fairest of winds in your sails for some time now and yet the polls suggest you would barely get an overall majority if the election were tomorrow.”
Factor in a masssive loss of morale, along with this governments ability to cockup and the media constantly on the hunt for government scandals, and frankley you aint seen nothing yet.
If Icarus is right and what Nick Palmer says a and Nick is roght about Northern Rock, then there is plenty more bad news in the pipeline for this government on what we know already.
[77] I can but ask
Off thread, I know, but has anyone seen David Miliband? Is he still on adoption paternity leave? Why is the Warsi/Ahmed trip to Sudan ‘unofficial’, and why is Louise Ellman the only Labour voice on this subject? I find it seriously gobsmacking that our foreign secretary has said absolutely nothing about TeddyGate. Doesn’t he want to succeed Gordon?
76: The Tories getting a majority depends in part on tactical voting by supporters of the other two parties to keep them out. Although it will still happen at the next election we may find it reduces to be replaced by anti-Labour tactical voting.
78 Benedict - I have no doubts about the current crew’s ability to drive the ship upon the rocks, but the election is some considerable way off, and who knows what will happen in the interim.
All I’m saying is that 130 seats is one hell of an ask. You, I know, are only too aware of that. Some of your more excitable Party supporters need reminding from time to time, especially if they’re thinking of putting any money down.
The interesting thing about the polls at the moment is the solidity of the Conservative score at 40%, and the implied suggestion that the Conservatives have really not been affected either way by the recent scandals. There could be an argument that there is close to a settled view of c.40% of the population that they think they will be voting Conservative next time, which means that although Labour may recover from where they are at present, the Conservatives will not automatically fall back.
If this is the case then it puts the Conservatives in a far stronger position than many people suggest. Basically because arguments about Govts being in “mid-term troughs” usually rely on a corollary that their opponents are in “mid term peaks”. An analysis that suggests that Govt recovery will have to come from sources other than current Conservative supporters (and by implication that some of these might also be attracted in future to the Conservatives) potentially puts a different perspective on things.
If you look at the Graphs that Rod often puts up you see that (with the exception of the Brown honeymoon period) the polling graphs have been showing very clear trends, with each cycle showing a high peak in Conservative support. The implication is that each peak coincides with Govt crises, and with each Govt crisis more of the electorate is moving permanently into the Conservative camp.
81 Yup, that’s certainly possible Ralph.
It’s also possible some people will think, ‘don’t like either Tory or Labour; an HP will make them both sit up a bit straighter; think I’ll vote LD [or Scots Nat, or UKIP, or whatever].’
Not saying that will happen, but it could. In other words, I don’t believe third parties automatically and necessarily get squeezed.
80 - It’s “unofficial” so that they are seen as members of the Muslim community, and not as stooges of a Western Govt.
79 Couldn’t agree more, Innocent. It’s got my face slapped a few times, but, otoh…
Re 82, Peter the Punter, “78 Benedict - I have no doubts about the current crew’s ability to drive the ship upon the rocks, but the election is some considerable way off, and who knows what will happen in the interim.”
Well, there doing a good job of getting the tugs smashed up on the rocks as well.
“All I’m saying is that 130 seats is one hell of an ask. You, I know, are only too aware of that. Some of your more excitable Party supporters need reminding from time to time, especially if they’re thinking of putting any money down.”
its a huge ask, and will take every man woman and child in teh Conservative party out campaigning for which Cameron has to rally the troops, but doable it definately is now.
82 - PtP & others - we keep assuming the next election will be a ways off; having bottled the election this autumn, we assume GB will want to spin out his term in office with a working majority as long as possible. But is this perhaps a little complacent? There are a number of reasonably emotive items coming up before Parliament in the near future - ID cards, extending detention periods, yes, even ratifying the EU constitutional treaty. In this febrile atmosphere of Labour decay and jitters, should we be pricing in the possibility that something might arise that will bring down the government prematurely? Can we be sure of Labour’s discipline over the next 2 years?
If anything, I would suggest the chance of a HP has increased, and will comtinue to increase the better the Tories do in the polls (up to a point.)
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/polls.jpg
That point I would suggest is where the Tories are about 20% ahead in the polls. Only then does the chance of a Tory majority become a distinct possibility.
Re Heath. Labour lost 15 by-elections 1966-70, including Walthamstow West, Clem Attlee’s old seat. A rough analogy would have seen the Tories winning the Sedgefield by-election (or coming quite close.)
And please do not forget this salient fact: Heath won a 30 seat majority in 1970 by making 69 net seat gains on 1966. For Cameron to win a 30 seat majority would require almost TWICE that number of gains.
In real elections, the Tories are simply not delivering. Their current performance is really only showing that they are “not dead”, but beyond that…. not much.
If you had put Labour under Kinnock ratings into Wells or Baxter in 1990, you’d come out with something like “Labour majority of 250.”
Do you really think that would have materialised in the 1992 general election, even if Thatcher had remained PM?
As others have correctly pointed out, any diminution in the LD number of seats is likely to be compensated for by a rise in the Nats, leaving the total at around 80+.
As for the old saw, that people won’t vote for a HP. What rot! You may as well say people didn’t vote for a majority of 66 in 2005 with Labour on 36% of the vote. Or a majority of 179 in 1997 on 44%, or any other figure you care to mention. People merely vote, and the system DECIDES the outcome!
And the system inexorably, albeit unseen, has been moving towards a HP for the past 30 years…
When are we going to get Jack Straw’s statement to Parliament on Leeds Magistrates court? Or did i miss it?
Stockton North Labour shortlist:
Afzal Akram (Waltham Forest councillor)
Suzannah Clarke (opera singer, shortlisted in Bishop Auckland in 2005)
Frank Cook (sitting Stockton North MP)
Alex Cunningham (local councillor)
Barbara Roche (former Hornsey & Wood Green MP)
Neil Sabarhawal (Lambeth councillor)
Norma Stephenson (NEC member and Unison President)
88 Labour’s discipline seems to have fallen apart, Animal, but under what precise circumstances can you see an early Election?
They still have a large majority. Are these turkeys really going to vote for an early Christmas?
A very good thread, IMHO.
My view is that if the mood of the country were sufficiently hostile to Labour to give the Conservatives a net gain of 100 seats, in all likelihood there would be enough people voting tactically in Labour-held marginal seats, against Labour, to deliver a Conservative majority.
An outcome of, say, Conservative 40%, Labour 33%, Lib Dem 18%, would probably deliver a 100 seat Conservative gain, on UNS, but in reality, I think it would just about deliver a Conservative majority.
88 Also, being totally objective about things, the next GE were it to take place sooner rather than later, might be a good one to lose, with the prospect of a downward shift in house prices, a severe credit sqeeze, higher taxes, higher inflation - all these more likely than not. People might look back in 4-5 years’ time and conclude that “it was never like this with that nice Mr Brown” and vote accordingly.
Andrea - did you see the Party thread?
Is there any possibility you could come over? For you, we can certainly be flexible.
Re 94, peter from Putney “Also, being totally objective about things, the next GE were it to take place sooner rather than later, might be a good one to lose, with the prospect of a downward shift in house prices, a severe credit sqeeze, higher taxes, higher inflation - all these more likely than not. People might look back in 4-5 years’ time and conclude that “it was never like this with that nice Mr Brown” and vote accordingly.”
We can blame all that on the last lot if we win.
93 - I think that’s pushing it a bit, Sean, is’nt it? 30+ seats due to tactical voting would be comfortably above what Labour achieved in 1997.
And it’s debatable if Labour getting 33% would be quite low enough to indicate comprehensive rejection of Labour. I think they need to start losing voters in their “soft” core vote for that to happen, which probably means being closer to 30%.
89. The Tories have been doing very well in local elections under Cameron (far better than many on here and in the press believed), gaining over 900 seats in May (I believe most placed the likely figure, if they believed Tories were going to gain at all, at around 300-600). So how you can say they are doing badly at “real elections” I don’t really know. By-elections, I would argue, are special breeds - we know the Lib Dems always do well out of them, but are unlikely to get that level of nationwide support come a GE.
You are being far too negative about the Tories. They are 11 points ahead for goodness sakes (14 on one poll!) This is their best for 15 years. They are moving into working majority territory and if people do not see it as a distinct possibility they are being blinkered. However, I do concede that there’s a long way to go and we need to see how poll ratings hold up if Labour recover the initiative.
All said, I think a HP is probably still the most likely outcome, though I would be fairly confident in saying now that the Tories are likely to be the largest party in the Commons next time around, working majority or not. A Labour majority, barring a Thatcher-esque Falklands, is a very slim possibility I think.
Surely it doesn’t matter how big Labour’s majority is, but the margins by which Labour holds the seats the Conservatives need to take in order to win the election.
Andrea - did you see the Party thread?
Err….yes. He posted at # 100, 110, 119, 132, 143,149, 164, etc.
Could Andrea host a PB party in Italy?
On the subject of local elections - I know their is an analysis done of local elections to give projected shares of the vote if repeated in a GE (which is then plugged into the Calculators to give a projected share of the seats).
Has anyone attempted to try and do a direct Local election results -> GE election seats conversion to show whether votes are being gained sufficiently in the right places? Obviously this would require amalgamating Results from 2 or 3 years worth of elections, but it would probably be worthwhile for showing how trend movements are developing.
92 - I’m not 100% sure, but I could see a resurgence of the hard left within the Labour party - generally the ones with solid, non-marginal type seats - breaking with a Brown they no longer feared or respected (possibly over something like ending the link between the party & the trade unions re: funding?). This could effectively deprive him of a majority in a vote of no confidence-type scenario.
89 RodCrosby “And the system inexorably, albeit unseen, has been moving towards a HP for the past 30 years…”
Yep!
With a distinct possibility of the Conservatives having an overall majority of seats in England, but not in the UK overall.
A nightmare or a dream scenario, depending on your view of the West Lothian Question.
97 30 or so is probably a reasonable estimate of the number the Tories lost, either to Labour or the Lib Dems, due to tactical voting. A uniform swing of 10.5% to Labour from 1992 would have seen the Conservatives hold c.210 seats, but a combination of tactical voting, and extra strong Labour performance in the South East made it much worse.
I’d say that a 5% swing would be a pretty decisive rejection of Labour by the electorate, on a par with 1979.
BTW for anyone interesting in Clegg-Huhne
Seen on the Scotsman website comments page.
A young lady called Alexander
Thought she could take a back hander
But believe it or not
Oor Wendy got caught
And now seems to be lacking in candour
96 Sorry, Benedict, but it simply doesn’t work like that if, say, house prices were still falling 2 years after the Tories took over, they would get all the blame.
Of course, this scenario just isn’t going to happen - politicians of any persuasion are principally concerned with the here and now, rather than in planning on how to win 5 out of 6 General Elections between 1997 and 2020.
103. Though surely if these types could stomach Blair for 14 years they can stomach Brown now? The ‘hard left’ seems to have vanished apart from all but a few usual suspects in the PLP now, can’t see them causing outright civil war or a fuss because there seems to be the general consensus that they lost the war of ideas.
Can these people make a comeback or resurgence in Labour? I really can’t see it nowadays. It will require something pretty dramatic for the political landscape to change again (of course, it does happen - the 1940s and 1980s attest to that).
107 Excellent!
Mike isn’t it time we had a limerick competition?
RodCrosby @ 89 - I’m in full agreement that saying “people won’t vote for a hung parliament” is idiotic. We have a representative democracy - and, short of changing to some sort of awful nationwide party list system, it’s simply not possible for a single individual to vote for (or against) a hung parliament.
A suggestion for your graph - would it be possible for you to alter the boundaries of the white “hung parl” area according to the size of combined non tory+labour share of each poll?
re 30 I too have got quite a lot riding on a hung parliament but as Mike’s graph shows the price has barely fluctuated except for the time when everyone got fooled into thinking that Mr Bean had the balls to go early.
[82][83] Again, these two threads nutshell the debate.
I think the Tories will hold at 40% or thereabouts through to the next election. Can’t see them going much above that, reckon they’ve picked up all the support they’re going to get. (In other words, they’ve got all the votes they can from Labour’s blunders - additional support has to be on the basis of their positive attraction, and I don’t see any sign of that yet.)
The open question is will Labour drop to 30% or so, or “recover” to 33-34% to deprive Cameron of his overall majority? Again, I don’t think that Labour will be able to play the fear card to recover these votes - there isn’t enough ideological clear water between NuLab and Cameron’s brand of Conservatism for this to work.
Can somebody enlighten me with electoral mechanics? If a bunch of new Tory MPs are elected, when exactly do they take office (do they have to take the oath first or are they Mps on the spot, is there a break or does Parlt resume the next day?). How long do ex-MPs have to clear their desks? And lastly there is an incentive not to retire in that if you fight and lose an election there’s a payment, right? How much? You don’t get it if you just retire.
A few unconnected observations:
1) The Tories seem unable to move above the low 40s in the polls. Given the avalanche of negative publicity for the Government, this is surprising, and illustrates just how badly the Conservative brand was contaminated by the Major Government. It also suggests that a lot of the upswing in the Lib Dem vote is from disaffected Labour voters. This in turn suggests that the polling axis to watch is not Labour/Tory so much as Labour/Lib Dem.
2) Labour seems to have found a floor in its vote at around 30%. This group appear from some of the surveys to believe that Labour has been unlucky rather than incompetent or sleazy.
3) However, the polling evidence suggests that the rest of the population polled believe to an unusually high extent that Labour is incompetent and sleazy. This suggests a) that they will be harder to woo back than is normal and b) that they may be persuaded to vote tactically to vote out Labour - a reversal of the previous progressive consensus.
It seems to me a lot depends on the effectiveness of Lord Ashcroft’s activities in the marginal constituencies. The political momentum is with the Tories to the extent that it is at present hard to see how Labour can recover it, but momentum by itself will not take the Tories to an absolute majority.
109 - they stomached Blair because he was a winner. GB no longer really has that look about him.
I just wonder if there’s any principle left that a backbench rump of the PLP - a chunk of the ones likely to survive the next GE - might decide was worth standing up and fighting for, with the opposition benches their next likely destination regardless, rather than carry on toeing an impotent party line. Just a thought.
re 39 Nick your agument is seriously flawed. From 1945-1970 there was a miniscule chance of a hung parliament because the number of non-Lab or non-Tory seats was about 10 and often less. In 1974F that increased to 40 and we got a hung parliament. it’s now over 80 and with the nationalist breakthrough in Scotland could be up to almost 100 next time. This means the likelihood of a hung parliament is cvastly increased and comparing it with the period since 1945 is nonsensical. A much better comparison period is 1918-1935 when hung parliaments were common.
100 Er…:oops:
Sorry. Bit ’senior’ that.
Did someone else hear these rumours?
“the Tories have had to do little themselves to bring it about (if we discount rumours that it was a team of investigators paid for by Tory fundraiser Lord Ashcroft that uncovered the Labour’s proxy donor scam).”
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=9689
114. “And lastly there is an incentive not to retire in that if you fight and lose an election there’s a payment, right? ”
I think there’s no more that opportunity and defeated candidates and retired MPs will all receive a “resettlement grant” to adjust to their “not parliamentary life” (between 50% and 100% of their salary depending on age and years of service).
@peter, the punter..:I will email you tonight
It would appear that Mr Clegg’s bar charts show him as the clear winner in a genuine two horse race -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7124627.stm
Antifrank @ 115 - I’m not at all sure that the Tories have reached their “ceiling”.
Cameron’s pulled the party up from being at the low 30s in the polls, and I’d credit that to three factors:
1) Simply being Cameron - a new, fresh-faced leader. This is your “decontamination” factor.
2) The policies announced at conference in September - specifically “only millionaires should pay IHT”.
3) Labour incompetence / sleaze / etc.
Factor 3 will come and go - I’d estimate that the Tories will slip back by a couple of points if/when Brown gets a decent period of good media coverage.
On the other hand, the Tories can repeat factor 2. Another 5 or 6 striking, easily explained policies, announced over the next couple of years, is the key to getting another sustained polling boost - one that is “solid”, rather than depending on the government to throw away yet more support.
115
Trends tend to continue for longer than people think possible.
The current trends are Down for Labour - largely due to an uninspiring leader on top of an already dubious reputation for spin and incompetence.
And Up for Conservatives.. being different than before.
And Sideways for the Lib Dems - probably a consoildation phase before they rise to c 70 seats or fall to 30 ish depnding on what the new leader does.
As we have at least two years before an election, one sideways move in support for any Party means nothing.
It is possible for Labour to reverse its slide by being competent, having fresh ideas, brutally ridding itself of all traces of electoral fraud by ruthlessly removing all Ministers involved.
It is possible for the Consevatives to blow up with indiscipline, a funding scandal, and silly policies.
Until either of the above scenarios happen, I assume current trends will continue… the speed will of course depend on events.
Re 108 Peter from Putney “96 Sorry, Benedict, but it simply doesn’t work like that if, say, house prices were still falling 2 years after the Tories took over, they would get all the blame.”
Well Labour managed to keep blaming us after 5 years in power…
119.That rumour has been floated around since the story over the Abrahams donations broke, but it was good old fashioned journalism from the Mail on Sunday after the most recent list of donors was published that brought the whole mess to the public’s attention.
At the rate the rumour mill is going Ashcroft is going to outstrip Gordon Brown as a mythical all powerful being in the political world.
Fascinating article by Andrew Rawnsley suggesting Gordon Brown was behind the cash for honours probe. It is sourced “Friends of Tony Blair”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,2220663,00.html
“Towards the end of Tony Blair’s time at Number 10, at a point when his relationship with Gordon Brown had become utterly poisoned, the two men were locked in a ferocious row in the Prime Minister’s study. It was a combustion ugly even by their standards. The confrontation climaxed with Mr Brown storming out as he shouted: ‘You haven’t heard the last of cash for peerages.’
According to a slightly different version of this unpleasant scene that I’ve heard, Mr Brown was even more brutally menacing. To the Prime Minister he was agitating to supplant, he directly threatened: ‘I’ll get you over the peerages.’ Mr Blair subsequently told friends that he was so alarmed by Mr Brown’s behaviour that he reported the conversation to the Cabinet Secretary, then as now, Sir Gus O’Donnell.”
122 Rory is right, of course. It’s nonsense that none of this is “pro-Tory” rather than “anti-Labour”. The IHT promise was a bolt of blue lightning. We have more in the locker, but aren’t coming out with them til nearer an election - to prevent Brown’s “vision”