Does this give some encouragement to Gordon?
December 3rd, 2007
How “certainty to vote” is driving the polls
The above table has been reproduced from the full data set from yesterday’s ICM survey for the News of the World which showed that Labour was 11% behind. This highlights how those surveyed responded when asked how likely, on a scale of 1-10, it was that they would vote.
The columns show how supporters of the various parties responded and also included is a breakdown based on what people said they did at the last election. Clearly for all parties those who voted last time are more likely to do so at the next election.
A trend that is impacting on the headline figures is that the gap between the parties is wider than it was. What could be encouraging for Labour, as Nick Palmer regularly points out here, is that there is a body of voters who have not switched parties - their desire to vote might be enhanced in the frenzy of an election campaign when there is a real prospect of Labour losing power.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m being thick. Can you explain the three right hand columns.
Does it gove some encouragement to Gordon? yes, but it is false encouragement.
John Major managed to lose millions of voters, not because they all voted Labour but too many were so disheartened they did not vote at all in 1997.
The fact is that Labour are at the moment driving the morale of their base so low that they may achieve a similar effect.
- “The fact is that Labour are at the moment driving the morale of their base so low that they may achieve a similar effect.”
These figures show that Brown has the “potential” to revive the Labour vote and return us to the two party battle that seemed likely not so long ago. The Brown bounce was mostly based upon previously disillusioned Lab identifiers (unhappy at Tony’s Toytown toryisms and the sofa style of govt) “coming home”. However, some political genuises close to Brown have done all they could to blow this apart. The Brown slump is in a similar vein down to the collapse in morale of Lab identifiers.
A steady leader with good economic credentials (contrasting with a spin happy etonian on the other side) doing lots of solid breand and butter social democratic stuff like steadily improving educational opportunities and continuing to improve the speed and quality of our health care was a winning ticket. I don’t know now that we can ever get back to this position.
Re 3, Labour Humanist “However, some political genuises close to Brown have done all they could to blow this apart.”
Yep. That would be Wee Dougie Alexander and the brilliant Ed Ballsup Balls. As a Conservative I thank them from the heart of my bottom.
“A steady leader with good economic credentials (contrasting with a spin happy etonian on the other side) doing lots of solid breand and butter social democratic stuff like steadily improving educational opportunities and continuing to improve the speed and quality of our health care was a winning ticket. I don’t know now that we can ever get back to this position.”
Yes that was the position before the Conservative party conference, and it has gone.
Having said that it, was always open to attack. Down from 3rd in world literacy rates to 15th in 5 years with all that extra cash shows that Labour has the wrong mindset to fix the problems.
alex - the last 3 columns show the willingness to vote fof people who voted for each party in 2005, so e.g. 75% of people who voted Tory say they’ll definitely vote next time, but only 64% of Labour voters. Of course, some who plan to vote may want to vote for a different party.
It’s certainly the impression I’m getting from re-canvassing former voters, and colleagues say the same. It’s a rarity to meet people who have switched from Labour to Tory, but a commonplace to meet people who say they voted Labour and yeah, they probably will, but have to see, eh, which one can put down as Weak Labour or Doubtful according to subjective judgment. To a neutral pollster some will be saying “abstain” or “don’t know” and some will be saying Labour but with reduced certainty to vote. It’s a common mid-term pattern.
We can argue about fine shades of reaction and what they mean, but really we don’t know. I will say that I encountered much the same in the 1997-2001 and 2001-5 Parliaments and most of them hardened up when it came to it. The times I’ve been seriously worried were during the fuel dispute, when we were losing voters to the Tories hand over fist (it stopped when the Tories admitted they weren’t going to slash tax by anything like 20p as the protesters wanted), and of course by the struggle to hold on to support after Iraq. It doesn’t feel at all like that at the moment: many floating voters are pretty unenthused by any of the parties, and not especially hostile to any of us either - “disengaged” is the word that springs to mind.
Just noticed that the spiral of silence adjustment knocked two pts off the margin.
Incidentally the Guardian poll (37 Con 31 Lab) had all three parties showing same turnout figures - goes a long way towards explaining that one.
O/T From previous thread
stjohn - Someone on here 2 or 3 days ago was more than willing to offer me 25-1 against Huckabee landing the absolute top job - if he sees this, please come back with your current best price.
Did you see my post on Hills shortening Clegg to 1/6 today?
re 5 Nick - the same poll shows that 13% of Labour 2005 voters and 23% of Lib Dem supporters last time now say they will vote Tory. So it’s about one in eight Labour voters who have switched.
If this gives encouragement to Labour, then by the same reasoning it also gives encouragement to the Lib Dems.
The ‘bump’ in the figures for certainty to vote = 5 suggests a weakness in the methodology though.
5: “It’s a rarity to meet people who have switched from Labour to Tory, but a commonplace to meet people who say they voted Labour and yeah, they probably will, but have to see, eh, which one can put down as Weak Labour or Doubtful according to subjective judgment. … It’s a common mid-term pattern”
What a shame that’s all spin from Nick instead of evidence of real complacency in Labour ranks. I’d love it to be the latter, but for all their bumbling incompetence of late, Labour aren’t that daft…
From previous thread:
PtP - you commented: It’s always a good sign, Alex, when people find it hard to classify you.
Although you make no secret of your historic allegiance, I think the same could be said of your good self. Indeed, IIRC in the poster of the year contest, Mike had you as unalligned.
PfP - he’s 33/1 for Pres with ladbrokes if you’re quick.
9 - The justification for how the “certainty to vote” figures are used has always seemed to me to be the biggest problem with the whole thing.
It seems Newsnight has some bad news for Gordon in their poll this evening. (According to PM).
Tonight the Labour MPs get together for a chat. With 40% of them facing the prospect of losing their seat at the next election are they like Nick feeling lucky? Or are they genuinely worried at the continuing melt down in their support?
Looking at Mike’s article, I interpreted it that Labour have further to fall in 2008. But we have Xmas coming up which at least will delay any more bad news and avoid statements to parliament for a month.
There is a transition like falling out of love, for some people they first give up on their partner then delay a while before starting a new relationship with another (party).
14: Nah, it’ll be fine. Just people saying they’re not sure if they’ll vote or not. They still hate those nasty coalmine-closing Tories. Cameron will be massacred at the next GE….
In fact, any more polls like the recent ones, and talk of a February election will be hard to stop…
11 “Indeed, IIRC in the poster of the year contest, Mike had you as unalligned.”
You do recall correctly, Peter, and I was very pleased.
These days I tend to describe myself as ‘leftish’ but only to help those who like labels.
12 Many thanks Caveman for coming up trumps again - I’m sure he won’t win, but at this price it should be possible to lay off for a useful profit later.
Re the Wendy A situation, I’ve not been keeping up today (damned work), but now that the Standards Watchdog is calling on her to reconsider her position and GB has failed to back her it seems, what chance has she got of hanging on?
And why can’t GB either come out and say “She’s staying, she has my full support” (and say why), or wield the knife if he doesn’t think that?
Wouldn’t that be the sort of strong leadership we’d expect from a Prime Minister?
18. Who knows, its getting very close now as he’s only 3 points behind Rudy in the latest Rasmussen poll…
Rudy Giuliani 20%
Mike Huckabee 17%
Fred Thompson 14%
John McCain 13%
Mitt Romney 11%
Ron Paul 7%
MOE +/- 4%
7. PfP. I did see that. Thanks. Real odds should probably be about 1/10 or even shorter I would have thought. Mike described it as “almost risk-free”. Let’s hope he is right, as usual!
5 Nick P ” ….many floating voters are pretty unenthused by any of the parties, and not especially hostile to any of us either - “disengaged” is the word that springs to mind.”
Iti really a “Dear John” time in relationships. They are actually in the transition stage before finding a new party Nick.
They are saying “can we still be friends”, while in reality they have already found their next partner!
What aboy an “enhanced” vote by the general public to rid the country of this sleaze ridden government. IMO things will get much worse for labour when the resignations/investigation kick in.
**just a bit of fun**
using the above data and some basic excel skills combined with five minutes to plug the results into electoral calculus:
where the turnout consists of accumulated responses (ie turnout 10 = those marked as 10, turnout 9 = those marked as 9 or 10 etc) and therefore the lower the T/O indicator, the higher the turnout, we have…
T/O Con Lab Lib Con maj
10 417 175 29 184
9 398 193 29 146
8 380 210 30 110
7 361 220 39 72
6 350 227 42 50
5 333 245 41 16
4 329 248 42 8
3 326 244 49 2
2 327 242 50 4
20 - Given that the US presidential contest usually ends up with two uninspiring candidates it’s bound to be Clinton vs Huckabee.
22 - Nick P, has anyone on the doorstep told you ‘it’s not you, it’s me’? If so you are in deep trouble…….
23. should read “what about”. difficult to type with pc on busted leg.
27 “…Difficult to type with pc on busted leg.”
What’s this? You out for the season?
2 Benedict “John Major managed to lose millions of voters, not because they all voted Labour but too many were so disheartened they did not vote at all in 1997.
This was the theory that if the Tories had got their vote out and stopped leakage to the referendum party they would have won the election, and it drove the core vote strategy. Lord Ashcroft’s post 2005 election study rubbished it as a theory and showed that large numbers of Conservatives (over 2 million) had in fact become detached from the party and voted Labour.
http://www.lordashcroft.com/politics/generalelectionreport.html
26 or are the voters saying “I need to find myself”
ICM state that their methodology for weighting for turnout is:
“Those saying they are 7-10 certain to vote are included in the vote calculation.”
Though I respect ICM as a company, I don’t feel that this is how the real world works.
They are treating someone who says that they are 70% certain to vote the same as someone who says that they are 100% certain to vote. This is, in a word, pants.
I don’t know what the actual figures are, but I’m certain that in the real world, more of the 10’s will vote than the 7’s. Yet ICM treats them the same.
I think that they should use a sliding scale. E.g. Someone who says that they are a 10 should get counted as 1 vote, someone who marks themselves a ‘9′ should get 9/10ths of a vote in the poll, and so on.
(In the real world they might find that 90% of 10’s actually vote, and only 50% of 7’s. Once they find out, they can use these weightings)
Peter Hain admits more unregistered donations. He is very sorry.
20 Caveman - Thanks for the Rasmussen GOP poll. Wow, Huckabee really does look value on this basis, especially with all the momentum currently going with him. Somehow, I’ve never thought Giuliani would make it, yet IIRC with Ladbrokes he’s around evens, compared with Huckabee’s 8-1 to win the nomination. Anyway, for now I’ve taken the 33-1 on him winning the Presidency - no point in doing things by half measures!
31 - that is i think what they used to do, i forgot they’d changed (they weighted everything over a 5, I think). The new way i think is far more robust.
31. It’s all a guess anyway. If asked, I would say 100% certain to vote - but at the Scottish elections this year I didn’t receive my postal vote in time so I couldn’t vote.
Nick Palmer do you really think that a former Labour voter is going to look a Labour MP - or even a Labour canvasser - in the eye and say they are going to vote Tory in future. People are not that gauche or cruel.
Remember that a 7/10 Labour supporter may ultimately (using some sort of expected value formula, be worth more to Labour than a 10/10 Conservative supporter (because the former may be more attached to Labour than the latter to the Conservatives).
34. Alex. Since I am genuinely interested in this and freely admit to not being an expert, may I ask you a friendly question? (Emphasis on “friendly”)
How is ICM’s new way more robust?
Basically it doesn’t make total sense to start weighting certainty to votes (as long as you are reasonably certain they are going to vote - hence restricting to 7/10 and above) if you are not going to weight their certainty to vote for their stated party.
What’s with the cluster around the 5/10 point? Is this simply medium answer bias? Mike, can you explain the last three columns - are these how the people who are saying they are (for example) 9/10 likely to vote NOW voted last time, or how the people who said they were 9/10 likely to vote AT THE TIME voted last time?
25. Whatever you can say about Huckabee, he’s not boring/uninspiring. He’s an amusing and entertaining candidate - this is the reason he’s doing well, not his fundamentalist views.
14. The Newsnight poll mentioned above
http://tinyurl.com/yobczj
Doesn’t look too bad to me.
37. This is a very good point. What we really need is for a pollster to ask both “how certain are you to vote?” and “how certain are you to vote for your current favoured party?”
bTW don’t assume that i’m posting from anything like an expert opinion.
32 Peter Hain admits more unregistered donations. He is very sorry.
Oh for God’s sake, just do the decent thing and resign won’t you!
32-Was it done in “good faith”?
40 - Mid point cluster would probably be a reasonable assumption. Of course there’s also a cluster around 10.
Personally i’m surprised more people don’t say 7.
Elaborating on the above - I suspect the differences between people who say 7,8,9 or 10 often have as much to do with their personality as their actual certainty to vote.
36. Especially so if its a nice bloke like Nick who they like, but oppose a Labour government. You’d just say “I don’t know” or “I won’t vote”. I guess parties should start sending out canvassers claiming to be from fringe parties (although this reduces the “Well, at least they asked” benefit).
41-Thanks for the link…
Re “the English effect”: there has been an English effect for well over 50 years. In 1964 and Feb 1974 the Tories won the most seats and votes in England but were overturned by the Labour strength in Scotland and Wales. That difference was still present in 2005, with the Tories doing 3.3% better relative to Labour in England versus the entire GB, and actually winning the English “popular vote.” The difference will certainly be there again next time.
However, what wins or loses seats under FPTP is the swing, not the baseline strength in any particular region. So while the Tories are weak in Scotland and Wales, they can still add to their seat totals there because there are a few marginal seats to be had - pockets of strength in an electoral desert.
Most forecasts assume the swing to be even across the nation, which of course it isn’t, but you should remember an above average swing performance in one area MUST be compensated by a below average performance somewhere else.
So you cannot say the swing in England will be “above average”, thereby delivering more seats, WITHOUT saying “and the swing will be below average someplace else, delivering fewer seats than the uniform change would forecast.” Otherwise you are saying the swing will be average or above average EVERYWHERE, which is nonsense.
There are marginal seats everywhere, even in the Tories weakest areas, and so above average seat gains in one region will be broadly cancelled by failures elsewhere. It won’t be a perfect zero-sum because there is non-uniformity in the distribution of the marginals. However, as an example, take 2005. If the votes cast at the next election happened in total to exactly mirror the GB votes cast in 2005 i.e. L36, C33, LD23, yet there is the same regional variation in SWING, what would likely happen?
As far as Lab and Con are concerned the Tories would gain
Harlow
Battersea
Croydon Central
Finchley and Golders Green
Crawley
but lose
Wirral West
Somerset North East
Shipley
5 gains versus 3 losses (a net gain of 2 seats against Labour)
So overall, an insignificant change.
If instead of a 2005 swing pattern, we apply a more variable “negative 1997″ pattern , the number of seats affected more than doubles.
Con gain
Harlow
South Basildon and East Thurrock
Watford
Battersea
Croydon Central
Finchley and Golders Green
Crawley
Dartford
Hastings and Rye
Hove
Milton Keynes South
but lose
Dumfriesshire Clydesdale and Tweeddale
Somerset North East
Clwyd West
Preseli Pembrokeshire
Rugby
Scarborough and Whitby
Selby and Ainsty
Shipley
11 gains balanced by 8 losses (a net gain of three seats versus Labour.)
So again, no significant change.
Most patterns broadly cancel out in this way. An exception was 1992, when a poor performance across across most of England and Wales was masked by a sensational performance in Scotland. Unfortunately, there were few marginals in Scotland for the Tories to capture, leading to a solitary gain (Aberdeen South), which could not compensate for the above average losses elsewhere.
Nothing much has changed. If the 1992 pattern was repeated on the 2005 result we would expect:
Con gain
Dumfries and Galloway
Con lose
Kettering
Wellingborough
Hemel Hempstead
St Albans
Ealing Central and Acton
Enfield North
Portsmouth North
Sittingbourne and Sheppey
Somerset North East
Clwyd West
Rugby
1 gain versus 11 losses (net loss 10 seats.) A 10 seat underperformance is “significant”, particularly in a relatively close election like 1992. [In fact, in 1992 the Tories lost a further 9 seats, due to tactical voting] But the 1992 pattern was exceptional, and must be ascribed to the particularly toxic effect Mrs. Thatcher had on Scottish sentiment in the period 1983-1990.
We do not know for certain what the pattern at the next election will be, but it seems reasonable to hypothesize an above-average swing to Conservative in the South-East. Everything the Tories have done post-Cameron seems to suggest that is their strategy. But as the examples above show, that strategy in itself will not be enough to more than fractionally influence the overall result.
47 - or from the “Tory Party”!!! (Labour canvassers)
46. Yes, I’m always surprised by how many people say 10/10. I imagine this is an exagerrated figure as the people who are likely to vote are more likely to answer a poll. Equally, for the 1/10s - if you can’t be bothered to vote you won’t be bothered to answer a stranger’s questions.
BTW Does anyone know what happens to the amounts left over from the not insignificant lump sum gifts, e.g. to the Deputy Labour Party Leadership candidates. Does it get returned to the donor (seems unlikely), paid into the Party’s central funds or pocketed by the candidate?
I think we should be told.
49 - I assume that what the “English effect” argument is getting at is something like a “negative 1992″ swing. ie. no improvement in Scotland where there are almost no seats to be had. How does that shape up?
40 - Pot-ay-to/Pot-ah-to - Huckabee comes across as pretty uninspiring to me, I’m not exactly his target audience though.
Labour almost made it through a whole day. So near…
44 Someone asked earlier what today’s Labour disaster was. Here we have it. Gudo has more… http://www.order-order.com/
44 Someone asked earlier what today’s Labour disaster was. Here we have it. Guido has more… http://www.order-order.com/
I see Hain is in trouble now. First Guido here:
http://www.order-order.com/2007/12/hain-fundraiser-small-problem-with.html
Then the BBC here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7125770.stm
Is there any one in the Labour party who can do compliance with the law?
49. Ahh! The ‘Thatcher destroyed the Scottish Tory vote’ myth.
John Major only polled 2% less in Scotland in 1992 than Ted Heath polled in 74.
Thatcher didn’t particularly depress the Tory vote in Scotland, but she did polarise the anti-Tory tactical vote against her.
O/T
“A new AP-Pew poll shows Clinton ahead nationally and in the three early nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. This poll will likely get a lot of play, because it is connected with a wire service, but it should be noted that the state polls were conducted over two-and-a-half weeks from Nov. 7 to 25. The national poll was conducted from Nov. 20 to 26.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/03/493717.aspx
49 Rod
How useful a factor is regional swing for assessing individual constituencies ? Are the constituency swings within a region quite tightly bunched around the regional average ? For instance (and I haven’t checked the data, but have been to West Kirby and Caldy ;)) it would seem that a seat like Wirral West might be subject to quite different dynamics from much of the North West.
59 - dead cat bounce
LOL - Channel 4 News. Boss of HMRC (Paul Grey) back at work on same pay in Cabinet office
Alex 55 Lol.
Nick Palmer, you must be regretting your backing for Hain. What a {redacted - lawbreaker}, not declaring donations to the electoral commission. Our local Tory party is all over us for name rank and serial number of the tiniest donors. What is wrong with Labour. Why can’t they just stop breaking the law? They wrote the bloody law.
Does anyone else find it amazing how many Labour political campaigns seem to operate with those in charge of the campaigns having no idea how much money they have to spend on those campaigns? No wonder they all go over budget!
Re 55, Alex “Labour almost made it through a whole day. So near…”
A miss is as good as a mile
53.
Con gain
Broxtowe
Corby
High Peak
Loughborough
Northampton South
Harlow
Battersea
Croydon Central
Finchley and Golders Green
Crawley
Stroud
Aberconwy
Con lose
Dumfriesshire Clydesdale and Tweeddale
Shipley
12 gains versus 2 losses (net bonus 10 seats)
“Ould Nick” would be out… on a zero national swing.. LOL
However, as I said, such a lopsided pattern in 1992 owed a lot to Thatcher’s “War on Scotland” in the 1980s, leading to a significant recovery under Major in 1992, while at the same time millions of people in the South were “hurting” due to the property crash, and increased unemployment in the white collar job market.
A negative 1992 pattern would suggest that Cameron is as relatively unpopular in Scotland as Thatcher was. Likely? I can’t see why. Ergo, if they don’t do as badly in Scotland as the “neg 1992″ suggests, they can’t do as well as it forecasts elsewhere, and consequently the bonus is unlikely to be as many as 10 seats.
OT Lib Dem Leadership - back to this question Mike - why don’t we get Betfair to put up the below market - we can settle our wager and also put up an interesting market to bet on;
“can Clegg do better than Ming”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/384786/can-clegg-be-caught.thtml
If Clegg wins, the next hurdle for him is to beat Huhne by a larger margin than Ming Campbell did, Campbell won 57 to 42 in second round. If Clegg fails to better this result despite all the advantages that he possessed at the beginning of the contest, it would show what a damp squib his leadership campaign has been and minimise the momentum that he would accrue from his victory.
PS congratulations to Guido Fawkes on breaking this, how many totally unethical dead tree press will steal it from him without attribution?
65 Alex And isn’t it plain that they follow the same hit and miss management style in spending taxpayers’ money as ministers?
Re 69, Test, “PS congratulations to Guido Fawkes on breaking this,”
Here here!
“how many totally unethical dead tree press will steal it from him without attribution?”
none, hain coughed a press release.
Needless to say he did not elaborate on his source
67 - not necessarily. It could imply that a lot of the voters deserting Labour are now going to the SNP where previously they would have gone to the Conservatives.
You give the result on a zero swing. What would the difference be on, say, a 7% lead? This is important because of the “tipping point” when large numbers of seats start to fall quickly. The point is that if Tory swings were concentrated in the right areas (ie. not Scotland) then that tipping point comes within reach on a smaller swing.
69
Adam Boulton credited “websites and blogs” for chasing story before the breaking news of Hain’s confession on Sky.
64 Test “Why can’t they just stop breaking the law? They wrote the bloody law.”
Exactly! So it is no use promising to pass new laws to regulate party funding.
If they can’t be bothered to obey the laws that they passed before, what reason have we got to trust them to obey the new laws.
72 (con) - BTW I forgot to thank you as usual, Rod.
BTW did anyone notice that Cameron said earlier that Lord Ashcroft was responsible for 4% of Conservative donations. Not quite bankrolling the party.
It was not a joy to see Vaz on the Daily Politics (watched just now online). He really is part of the unacceptable face of the Labour party when it comes to trust and dissembling.
75 - That one’s for Tressage!
Just heard that the MP for Croydon Central - Andrew Pelling is to quit at the next General Election.
AP was recently accused of beating his estranged wife but the police decided not to press charges, he has now been given back the Conservative whip.
Croydon Central is the second most marginal seat, where he had a majority of 75 in 2005.
http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=250080&command=displayContent&sourceNode=250082&home=yes&more_nodeId1=250133&contentPK=19149738
59. Doh!, but Major got about 6% more GB Tory votes in 1992 than Heath did in 1974, so the Tory vote has been seriously damaged in Scotland in the intervening period. I agree the Nationalists started the rot in 1974, but Thatcher most definitely finished the job…
61. No methodolgy can reasonably predict each individual seat with certainty. That is not what I am trying to do, but to give an illustration. Just as between regions, above average swings will largely cancel below average ones, the same thing will occur WITHIN regions. So Wirral West would likely be compensated for by another seat in the North West region…
Gordon Brown’s epitaph from Warren Buffet when he said in another context,
“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”
75-A silly question:
When Cameron says that Ashcroft was responsible for only 4% of Conservatives donations, does he means his companies too? And does he include this:
“that is true, then perhaps Lord Ashcroft would like to explain why, of the £565,374 donated to the Conservative Party by Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd over the last two years (Q2 2005- Q2 2007) - BCS is known to be Ashcroft’s main vehicle for padding Tory coffers - only £212,163.50 is actually recorded by the Electoral Commission as having gone to Conservative Central Office?
The balance of these funds - £353,210.50 - is recorded by the Electoral Commission as having found its way in Tory coffers by way of a total of 56 individual donations given directly to Conservative Associations (including one case of a donation to a Federated body, Milton Keynes, covering two constituencies).”
( http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2007/10/18/show_me_the_money/ )
O/T just had a thought on the old story of Chris Leslie and the Harman donation.
Apparently the line goes that Gordon Brown’s campaign was offered a donation by Mrs Kidd and turned it down because they didn’t know who she was.
After she was elected HH was short of cash to pay her debts so asked Leslie if he knew anyone who might be able to help out. He put her on to Kidd.
So the question is: why on earth did Chris Leslie think that someone who donated to Gordon Brown’s campaign would now want to give some money to Labour’s deputy leader? In the context of claiming he didn’t have a clue who she was?
78 - wasn’t Peling being rumoured to defect before his recent episode?
Mind you, a lot of these rumoured defectors never move over. Laws remains a LD. Similarly, Andrew Rowe and others never left the Tories in the late 1990s.
83 - defect to who? Never heard that one.
81 - yeah. 4% seems a bit low.
85 - Scrap that 500k would be about 4% i guess.
82 Alex Adam Boulton had a story many bloggers and journalists missed on his blog.
He claims Leslie actually had a conversation with Janet Kidd before recommending her to Harman
This story is a resignation matter for Brown if the media dug it up carefully enough. Otherwise maybe Guido will?
87 - if that’s true then Labour really are in the sh1t
72. That’s where it gets complex! LOL.. I’ll get back to you on that one.
On 7% lead “neg 1992″ produces 11-2 (net Tory bonus of 9)
On 10%…. 12-3 (+9)
On 12%…. 12-3 (+9)
On 15%…. 10-4 (+6)
On 20%…. 10-3 (+7)
Play around with the swingometer yourself. I’ll try and update it with more patterns in the near future. Select a pattern and press “Show Different.” The Results panel shows two columns “winner uform” and “winner adjst” Blue in the second column and red in the first shows those seats the Tories would win due to the regional swings, and vice versa.
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/Swingometer.rar
Re 87, Test, got a link for that? As Paul D says at 88, that could blow up big style!
27. Afraid so Ptp. Fractured knee cap. Fell off bike. So much for doing my bit for the enviroment. Should be OK by Chritmas/PBC party!
87 Yes, it is rather a hot issue. What Boulton’s blog says is:
“Has Chris Leslie told us the whole story? It’s been suggested to me that he may have spoken in person to Janet Kidd, prompting her to contact Harriet Harman. Leslie insists he never knew of the true connection between Kidd and David Abrahams. So one must assume David Abrahams’ name didn’t come up in any conversation he had with Janet Kidd? - Clarification would be useful.
On a separate issue, where will the trail lead back to? Remember, the Abrahams arrangement pre-dated Peter Watt. My sources tell me the previous General Secretary Matt Carter didn’t know about how things had been set up. So who does that leave? - surely not Lord Levy again…..?”
85-Yes. It seems very low…
According to Bearwood’s last published accounts there were no political donations, yet in the period covered by the accounts the |Electoral commission record over £250,000 having been received by the Conservative and Unionist party.
Keep digging at Bearwood!!!
Are Tories lying b*startds - Do bears shit in the woods
92 And the connection between Levy and Mendelsohn is?
54. You’re also not American
It took me about two months living here before I really could understand how people liked George Bush. Huckabee has the same factor multiplied by ten. The more religious conservatives see him the more they will like him. He’s got that vote in the bag - its just fiscal conservatives that don’t like his so-called “tax and spend” philosophy that oppose him.
96-Last week Economist had one good article about him:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10179986
83 - 84 http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/06/27/the-brown-era-the-opening-prices/
Probably just Dan stirring - 125 on link - but this was my memory of Pelling’s supposed defection. It was before his wife didn’t get beaten up by him.
Remember Mendelsohn is just Mandelson with less of a spelling problem. Perhaps the honesty rating has a similar common factor?
91 “Should be OK by Christmas/PBC party!”
Very glad to hear it, Devon Loft.
We can put away the green screens then?
92 It would seem that a number of itemised telephone records are likely to be scrutinised by Knacker of the Yard over the coming weeks!
92 - I think the story was that Kidd had actually sent a donation unsolicited to Harman, accompanied with a letter saying, “further to conversations with Chris Leslie…”
100 - Peter the Punter - can you pack in this London slang - “Anyway, I’m off to Uncle now”- it’s taken me more than ten minutes to work out it meant uncle ted i.e bed - is that right?
100. The latest TTTF is up on the site.
97. He also did the greatest campaign ad ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE
Although you have to have been aware of the string of Chuck Norris jokes going round university campuses in the US to get it. Still, it was incredible campaigning to actually get the guy himself.
97.
The Economist is socially liberal (to the point of libertarianism), economically conservative and obsessive about free trade so obviously they will be critical of him (I’m not saying that the last one is bad - just stating a fact). However, apart from his support for farm subsidies, his foriegn policy isolationism and his support for a national sales tax (which would hit anyone who isn’t a millionaire) he would be a very strong challenger to Hillary. Heck, if he keeps this up he could even win the New Hampshire primary.
Yes it means gordon can expect at least 30% and 220 seats!
LOLOLOLOLOL
96 So, Socrates, how do you realistically rate his chances of winning the nomination - I mean is Giuliano really an evens money shot, whilst Hucks is priced at 8-1?
105-”Still, it was incredible campaigning to actually get the guy himself.”
Indeed.He’s no Oprah, but he’s good!
96 “its just fiscal conservatives that don’t like his so-called “tax and spend” philosophy that oppose him. ”
He’s weak on immigration as well.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/26/mike-huckabees-open-borders-record/
103 Well, Uncle Ned, to be very pedantic, Vino.
Sorry about that. Thought it was perfectly Hague’s Dimple.
106-What struck me in the Economist’s article was this:
“That pretty much captures the mood among socially conservative voters”
Part of the article shows why he can appeal to the social conservatives and how he is likeable and funny. And I do think they demonstrate a fact when they write about trade and foreign policy. As you I do not rule out his victory in NH, if he wins in Iowa…
OT sort of: Former chairman of HM Revenue and Customs chairman, Paul Gray who resigned less than two weeks ago because his department lost millions of people’s confidential details is back in a civil service job in Downing Street.
Why don’t Labour just fax Cameron a list of damaging issues for PMQs to save time.
110-But in one poll in Iowa he’s one of the most reliable candidates to deal with “immigration issues”
Re 113, Ralph, “Why don’t Labour just fax Cameron a list of damaging issues for PMQs to save time.”
The problem here is that Labour have subbed out the digging of the hole they are in on a PFI deal where an odd clause gives the PFI firm more money for a deeper and broader hole. I hear it was one of the key performance indicators.
BTW, I have covered that story on my blog as well as some associated questions that should be asked.
115 - have you got a blog?
I didnt know this…..
103 Thanks Devon
Our best line is one point off the leaderboard at 254= (166 points). We have three others in the top thousand.
106. What makes you say the Economist is libertarian? It has argued for gun control in the past, which is the corner stone of libertarianism. It’s also praised Giuliani’s less than liberal attitude to policing in NYC. It is also not obsessively free market, having argued for universal healthcare and tax rises to fund US infrastructure. Seems to me its editorial view is reasonably liberal socially, pro-growth economically and willing to go with what works.
111 - Peter the Punter - “Hague’s Dimple” - easy - “simple” It when you miss out the rhyming bit i.e “off to Uncles” - spent the time trying to rhyme with uncle - do you do it just to wind up us midlanders?
Re 116, Ave it 07, *cough* a blog, yes I have one, but like to keep it quiet
But as you ask it is here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
Re 117. Peter the Punter, What are you and Devon talking about?
Vince Cable HAS been warning about the debt bubble for many years while George Osborne was wimpering like a baby when faced with the awesome power of the Iron Chancellor.
If you google ‘Orange Book liberal democrats’ you’ll find a political platform distinct from the Tory party of privilege and New Labour’s crony capitalism, authoritarianism and wasteful public spending. It’s not all my cup of tea but it does make Lib Dems more relevant than the media suggests. The question is, how strong is the SDP wing?
Another economically literate spokesperson is the Green Party’s Molly Scott Cato who has also identified the debt-bubble dangers and is even monetary-reform aware. Sadly, like Cable, she’s in a particular wing of her Party.
I make way for the creatures of the night.
108. Sorry, just saw this. I don’t think he’ll win the nomination but its probably better than 8 to 1. I think his odds will certainly shorten as he wins or comes close in Iowa. The way the caucus works probably goes against him though - the discussions at each location will be his supporters arguing (potentially nutty religious folks) rather than the charming man himself. Still, I expect Iowan Republicans will look at the other candidates, give them a hearing, but at the last moment feel queasy about a Mormon or New Yorker and vote with their hearts for someone they feel is like themselves: a folksy, rural, easy going Protestant who sticks to what he believes in.
67. I may have misunderstood your post? Were you suggesting the Tories would lose Selby?
Seems odd as it is currently in Labour hands.
As for a significant Tory swing having no great effect on seats gained, you may be right, but if the English vote decisively for a Tory Government, much more so than last time, and feel effectively diesnfranchised, there will be many consequences.
PS. Giuliani probably is about 50-50 to win it. Keep an eye on Romney though. I don’t think he’ll get it but he’s about to make a speech on his faith. If he strikes the right tone he could get a short term boost.
Rumours abound that peter Hain has admitted that there was more than one “donation” that his camapign team failed to register…ooops…no wonder he needs all those extra staff at the Welsh office…
118.
The Economist has consistently argued for the legalisation of prositution and drugs (I vaguely remember reading an article about ten years ago where it argued that Child prostitution should be legal). Few people would dispute that it is extremely critical of anything that smacks of protectionism. It’s not that I particularly disagree with its stance, especially since I consider myself pro-growth and free trade, but you should be aware that being called ‘protectionist’ by The Economist is different from being accused of that by the New York Times.
Of course the Economist is not a paleo-libertarian newspaper and would never engage in Ron Paul style ‘abolish the government’ posturing (in fact it might support a Bloomberg candidacy). However, it can be extremely economically conservative and see things through a very narrow perspective - it recently ran an article that said that the GOP’s main problem was keeping high income voters and the business community on board.
Looks to me as if it is time for Peter Hain to use the Elf Defence as brought to us in March of this year by Yokel. Unfortunately it failed as will the ignorance defence.
123. Sorry, I should have made that clear (as I have done in previous discussions on this topic).
All forecasts are only meaningful based on the “notional 2005 result.” Anthony Wells’ calculations have Selby as Tory in 2005 on the new boundaries…
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/selbyandainsty
Those are the calculation I have used.
As to your second point, I agree entirely, and it’s now a near certainty to happen.
I think we could see a SNP-Tory coalition at Westminster to “lop-off” Scotland from the UK. It’s in both parties’ interests.
We seem poised Peter!!
120 Erm, Benedict…I take it you didn’t see the announcement a few weeks back about PB’s entry in the Tote Ten To Fellow Competition?
I must admit I was a bit surprised you didn’t enter. Ah well, when we’re all millionaires (round about Grand National time next year) I dare say we might have a little whip-round to buy some sweets for PB’s remaining few poor orphans.
Toodle pip!
That Newsnight poll seems a bit hard on Vince Cable: 15% think he’s sleazy, apparently 86% don’t think he’s competent! A touc hof name recognition problem, I guess.
To the various suggestions above that voters are polite to MPs even when they’re really defecting - that’s not my experience. When people are really fed up they tell you, in no uncertain terms - possibly with some mitigating clause (’Sorry to say this to you but…’). Moreover, like most professionals I place no faith whatever in canvass returns from people we’ve not canvassed before. Unless one thinks that people have become more polite for some reason, it’s usually a fair assumption that they will be as honest or dishonest as when you last talked to them, and I’ve predicted every election I’ve ever fought on that basis within a couple of percent.
Anyway, that’s enough about canvassing. The PLP meeting was in full cry about spending limits - speaker after speaker was demanding them.
127 By comparison with some of the stuff Labour have been coming up with, Fitaloon, the celebrated Elf Defence is pretty powerful.
126. Prostitution IS legal in most Western countries, something many people seem not to realise. Fair point on the drugs though. As for, “I vaguely remember reading an article about ten years ago where it argued that Child prostitution should be legal” - I would have to see it to believe it!
Incidentally, the GOP’s problem is keeping higher income voters on board - they’re sweeping across to the Democrats at the moment, uncomfortable with the working-class religious populism of Bush.
Although big business has been very well served short term by the last eight years, their future concerns aren’t being addressed. Social security privatisation was dropped and the Republicans are trying to best each other on how tough they can be on immigration. Big business is never loyal, they are the most organised special interest (for their size) and will always switch support to maximise the concessions it can get. Big business would certainly be willing to support a Clinton presidency.
125. More than just “rumours” - it was reported on the news a couple of hours ago.
129 Yes, we are Icarus.
I was trying to figure how well we were doing and decided that if there’s a total entry of about 100,000 lines, and we are responsible for 1,000 of them, you would reckon we should have one line per 1,000.
The fact we have four in the top 1,000 suggests we’re generally running ahead of the pack, which is my impression anyway.
We also have very few lines now that have ‘nul points’, which is a good sign too.
I suppose I am now going to be pounced upon by PB’s house statisticians who will point out the numerous flaws in my logic, but if we lift the £450,000 first prize in April, they can go and get cattle trucked.
Vino 118 “It when you miss out the rhyming bit i.e “off to Uncles” - spent the time trying to rhyme with uncle - do you do it just to wind up us midlanders?”
No Vino. Nothing personal. It is customary down here to miss-off the second part otherwise the whole sentence would get far too long. e.g He’s a bit mutton so you’ll have to brussel.
128 Sorry, it can be a real bore repeating yourself for the sake of Newbys.
Selby will go Tory. They didn’t have a great Parliamentary candidate last time and were up against a well known Labour rebel. The new Tory candidate is all over the local press and the encumbant MP is stepping down, having declared it ‘looks too difficult’. I doubt recent events have led him to doubt his decision.
137 - Selby is already Con on notional bundaries.
It will be 10,000 maj next time
As will York Outer - still havent worked out why it is ‘notional LD’ - LD will do well to get 7,000 there next time….
131 NP “The PLP meeting was in full cry about spending limits - speaker after speaker was demanding them.”
So the threat to their re-election is nothing to do with backing a lousy incompetent Leader and his bunch of sychophants?
Just because the Central Labour party does not hand out any dosh that it receives from Sainsbury and Mittal. Amounts that are more than double Ashcroft’s.
Did any of these “speakers” have the slightest idea how expense is to be restricted in an constituency when there are different elections going on and staff in some cases employed on those? Or a councillor who is also a PPC producing and delivering leaflets?
Does a councillor leaflet omit the PPC?
The practicalities of enforcing a low spending limit (under £40,000 p.a.) simply beggar belief.
How can it be if an MP pays for an agent (from Govt funds) but a PPC is not allowed to pay for one from donations?
Interesting to read about canvassing…my gut feel is that the tribal Labour core is almost unshakeable, but younger voters are nowhere near as tribal, and don’t feel as bound to the party as their parents.
And a late entry into the Limerick contest:
David Abrahams had an inclination
to give Labour a chunky donation.
He wouldn’t give his name
looks like Harman’s to blame
while Mr Bean’s running the nation.
131 and was speaker after speaker demanding an end to the Communications Allowance? Surely the PLP destest such incumbency advantage!
Good luck with trying to fiddle the rules for narrow party advantage when you’ve been caught with multiple hands in the til. PLP want to keep the Communications Allowance and ban challengers from fighting it.
Very fair.
140 - On pollbludger.com we have rhyming couplets such as:
Labour are not very good
Its better voting Tory in the hood
Works for me, Ave It!
143 hehehe
LDs last won in 1850
They wont win again, thats very nifty!
140, 142 No one can improve on the best of all political rhymes from Iolanthe:
When in that House M.P.’s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell ‘em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!
Vino 118
Sorry, I’m not ignoring you, but I wrote a long explanation and it’s stuck in the spam filter.
Disraeli’s briefer comment have to do if it doesn’t escape.
145 or as we said in 1862:
Labour hasnt started yet
Lets leave it that way!
(Near rhyming couplet)
136 - Disraeli - thanks,I’ve just googled “Cockney rhyming slang” - very informative - mutton “deaf” but what the hell is “brussel”!!!
brussel sprout = ???
Re 130. Peter the Punter “120 Erm, Benedict…I take it you didn’t see the announcement a few weeks back about PB’s entry in the Tote Ten To Fellow Competition?”
I don’t recall.I may have been busy doing other things besides blogging.
Is it too late to enter?
148 SHOUT!
32 don’t tell me - he acted in good faith as well.
Re 131, Nick Palmer, “Anyway, that’s enough about canvassing. The PLP meeting was in full cry about spending limits - speaker after speaker was demanding them.”
What is the point of new laws as Labour seems unwilling or unable to kep to existing ones?
148. Nowt.