Is Hillary set to join Gord in the losers’ club?
December 17th, 2007
Are we witnessing a dramatic change of fortunes for Clinton?
There’s little doubt that one of the most spectacular changes of fortune ever in UK politics was the dramatic move against Gordon Brown in the first week in October. From a situation where a big general election victory looked certain Brown suddenly started to look like a loser and since then it has got progressively worse.
The question for those betting on the 2008 White House Race is whether the same is currently happening to Hillary Clinton. Are we seeing a rapid change of fortune in the fight for the Democratic nomination?
Certainly it has been a dreadful week for the Clinton team. Every little thing seems to be going wrong. Husband Bill said publicly that he had opposed Iraq - he hadn’t; claims about the role Hillary played in running America from 1992-2000 have started to unravel; and there’s been the ongoing saga of an apparent attempt to smear Obama by raising his drug-taking youthful indiscretions.
All this has been picked up by the polls and it’s starting to look as though Hillary will struggle in the first round of states to vote on who should get the nomination.
What Brown and Clinton have in common is that they face younger more media-friendly opponents and as the polls have moved sharply against them tensions within their teams are coming to the surface.
Both have benefited enormously from the appearance of inevitability about their campaigns - elements which have now started to drain away. And once the inevitable ceases to appear inevitable then anything can happen.
UK and US political betting prices can be found here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
Gordon has time on his hands to turn things round. Hilary has a month. For those of us who took Mike’s advice by taking the 50-1 on Obama to be president, things are looking up.
I said to PTP recently that Hilary was way too short in the betting to get involved, because something could happen. And it seems the momentum is with Obama.
Oh bliss, Obama winning the Democratic nomination. Hillary finding that he’s taken the silver spoon right out from between her lips. New energy replaces old energy. Perfect!
Can’t see New Labour turning on Gord, though, Mike. Only a few months into his leadership, his MP’s will carry on thinking that the Government can turn it around. After all, some of them really do believe in all the New Labour claptrap, bless ‘em. I think Gord will turn into a lame-duck PM, if he isn’t that already. There have already been some economic bodyblows and more hits are fast approaching, so, the chances of Gord - the Chancellor who gave the country a sustainable economy not - turning it all around are a big fat nil. Is this zero-base forecasting?
Timesonline: “Plans to abolish small independent surgeries and force family doctors to move to “one-stop shops” serving up to 20,000 patients are being backed by the Government. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3060014.ece
You know, Vince Cable wasn’t quite right. Gord hasn’t gone from being Stalin to Mr Bean, he has a split personality.
Stephen Phelps @ 4 re supersurgeries.
How stupid is the Cabinet? Even if this reform is the best thing since the creation of the NHS, it will be unpopular with voters, most of whom are quite happy with their GPs. Most patients won’t want to travel further (and be charged for parking!) for a less personal service. How will this win back voters?
When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Things get worse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/dec/17/prisonsandprobation.publicservices
6 and worse
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3060230.ece
Bye bye Independence for the BoE, lets put the power in the hands of Alistair Darling, who proved so hopeless when Northern Rock crisis broke, that’ll assure business confidence won’t it.
Unfair comparison. Clinton may recover but Brown is a dead man walking…
7 - Does this mean that the Treasury believe that something went wrong in the way the recent crisis has been handled? Perhaps they will make a statement to the House…?
6 and 7:
Worse? Worse?? You don’t know the meaning of the word:
“House prices in London have fallen by an average of £28,000 in the past month, as the capital sets the pace of an accelerating property downturn”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/property_and_mortgages/article3059977.ece
(reposted from Matt J late last night.)
Mike,
On the one side…
Brown has not lost anything yet as far as I can see. So strictly speaking you’re off the mark. Labour are only 2pts down on 2005. It’s the LDs who have really collapsed.
On the other…
IMO Brown’s got weeks rather than months to prove that he can win despite the Tory advance. Or “ill health” will intervene.
And the last…
A good betting question is what is the Tories high tide mark and what happens if the polling momentum starts to move the other way.
8 Don’t think it is unfair though I concede Brown was more effective at killing off the opposition in his own party for his triumphal ascendancy. Early favourites haven’t had the searching investigation that a campaign brings - in Brown’s case its happened after he won - which tests their suitability. US elections are rarely easily to forecast before the primaries and Clinton’s campaign is showing signs of weakness.
There used to be three rules in US elections : the bald one lost, the one with a foreign (ie non Irish/British) name lost, the taller one won. Mrs Clinton isn’t bald, has a good British name and is the tallest woman though not the tallest candidate. Obama isn’t bald, is the taller but has an unfortunate name. So which of the two out of three counts more
[3][4] This is a good example of my theory that the difference in politics to-day isn’t between Labour and Tory so much as it is between government and opposition. Whatever Andrew Lansley says now, the Cameron government will continue this policy, which makes sense economically. Of course, if the Tories really wanted a progressive consensus, and Cammie’s alleged desire to revive the co-operative sector wasn’t all froth, primary health care would be one of the best places to do it.
The following comments from my own Patients’ Action Group may help to size the problem. My GP told our last meeting: “doctors aren’t managers and we don’t want to be” - subsequently one of my colleagues in the Group e-mailed me with the comment: “no, they’re not managers - and they don’t want to be managed, either”. In some ways it’s extraordinary to think that, although GPs have been paid by the State for 60 years just as much as any civil servant, they have retained their status as independent professionals.
And, no, I don’t think that supermarket chains, hiring salaried GPs (doubtless Romanian ones at half the price or less) are the answer. Still, the government is not being unreasonable in expecting GP surgeries to open 60-70 hours/week (and I imagine the Tories and LibDems support that goal) - you can’t do that with a practice of three GPs or fewer. And a lot of GPs operate out of premises that are not fit for purpose, especially in urban areas.
Ara Darzi’s “polyclinic” vision is one I’m happy with (and I think most GPs are too), because it offers a higher quality of care and possibilities of economies of scale, compared to the present system. The devil is in the detail. If we as patients sit on our backsides and wait for “them” to do it for us, Tesco and Virgin are what we’ll get - and serve us right for choosing to be consumers rather than citizens.
I don’t think either Hillary or Gordon can turn it around. Hillary only has a month, and Obama seems to have the big Mo as they say.
Gordon has over 2 years to turn it around, but has not got either the personallity or the policies (super surgeries I ask you)
The really funny thing is that the damage done to both of them is mainly self inflicted.
Well done to a well briefed John Humphreys duffing up Peter Hain @ 735 this morning including Gordon’s part in Labour’s pension funding scandal
re 11. Jonathan - The average Labour polling figure in the latest polls from the five companies that regularly survey GB voting intention is 32.25%. In May 2005 Labour got 36.2%.
I fear that you are not looking at the range of polls and you are using the UK figure - including Northern Ireland - for your comparison. Polls work on a GB not a UK basis. Labour’s share on a UK basis was 35.2%.
Clearly it can turn round for Gordon and for Hillary. I think that there are only two possible outcomes - a Tory majority or a hung parliament.
11 - That you - with Nick P, Labour’s most credible stalwart here - believe that Brown has only until, say early March, to turn things around is very interesting. Things must becoming pretty grim then.
I honestly can’t seeing him being pressured out in such a short timescale, and there would surely have to be something genuinely wrong for an ‘ill-health’ pretext.
(And O/T but I’m surprised that Stuart Dickson hasn’t already worked himself into a state of ectsasy about this
http://tinyurl.com/25aj27
I suppose it was over 50 years ago BUT Eisenhower broke Ted’s rules. It could be argued that his election opponent was also bald and he had a strange forename.
I think it was the Sunday Times yesterday who said it would take 100 seat losses in May to really put the pressure on Gordon.
17. But Stevenson was (a) pretty bald himself, (b) a thoroughly useless campaigner in the general election - twice - and (c) not a five-star war hero general.
16 Mike
When you consider the turnround that there has been over the last few months (both up and down for Tories and Labour), and the scope for movement in the Lib Dem numbers with a new leader, I think it is still very open to any result. I personally don’t think a Tory overall maj very likely, but that may be my bias. there is no doubt Labour will hypethe possibility to get more “anti-tories” on side, but they usually do that anyway.
Tories on this site (and some of them in the media), as you know have got very excitable about their terrific prospects, and that GB is so appalling and incompetent he can’t possibly win, but I still think the Government have a long way to go before we can say categorically they have lost.
21 - Labour can recover but Gordon Brown is doomed.
“… once the inevitable ceases to appear inevitable then anything can happen”
Indeed. Which is exactly why Tony Blair’s decision (undoubtedly against his better judgement) to go ahead with John Smith’s devolution plans were a blunder of monumemtal proportions. Not least because it became inevitable that at some point in the future the opposition would become the government, and of course that duly happened in May this year. Why do you think that we in the Scottish National Party campaigned so vigorously for a ‘Yes’ vote in the 1998 referendum?
Throughout most of the 300 year history of the Union probably the greatest weapon the Unionist have had has been the inevitability of failure for any Scots who advocated regaining their lost statehood. The continuance of the Union has ceased to be inevitable, and now Scottish independence can, and probably will, happen.
21 “I still think the Government have a long way to go before we can say categorically they have lost.”
About 4.00 am on a Friday morning in early May, 2010. But do you only bet on “categoric winners”?
The question in the cases of both Clinton and Brown is how will they respond to being the underdog after so long as favourite for the nomination / premiership? Neither seems to have the likability that is so crucial to winning from behind, though Gordon has longer to turn it round.
In Clinton’s case, there’s this week, then Christmas and New Year, then it’s straight into the Iowa caucus. After that, it’s polls at least every week through to Super Tuesday on February 5th. Clinton of course does have a big campaign war chest, but how will she use it? Much as it’s against her nature, I’d think that going defensive is her best option: sell Clinton-the-woman (and while she’s at it, hint at Clinton-the-partnership), in a positive way. From what we’ve seen so far, she’s more likely to sanction attacks on Obama. That may yet work if her team can find an issue that sticks (his inexperience? parts of his voting record?), but I have my doubts.
With Brown, the issue is much more simple: he has to start leading and acting like a leader even when what he’s doing is unpopular. He needs to stop playing silly games like the Lisbon signing and start telling the truth. “This is what we are going to do because we believe it and it will work” is at least a message the Labour Party can sell, though if the super-surgery idea is anything to go by, it won’t work and will be unpopular.
With an economic downturn in the offing, he has to be even stronger in the face of what will no doubt be strong attacks, made all the easier because of his 10 years as chancellor - and that means putting himself forward to take some of the flak coming his way. His instinct will be to do the exact opposite - to hide away.
In that way, Brown and Clinton’s futures are linked: I think they each need to start acting in a way that is contrary to their natures. Of the two, Hillary is the more likely to achieve that successfully (though even in her case, I’d say it was odds against that she’ll do it, never mind it being enough to win).
Brown at least has three advantages: time, the lack of alternatives, and the complex mechanism to replace him. He must now be thanking his luck stars that Blair stood down as an MP immediately, rather than at the next election: Miliband was right, and just about spot on with the timing.
25 - Yes, I wonder whether Blair (and Cherie) are also thinking that! Would Labour MPs now be clamouring for his return to the job he never wished to leave. Boy, what a counter-factual….
Re. Hillary, she’s also been undermined by what happened during the recent debate. Someone asked Obama just how much change he would represent when he had so many advisers from the last Clinton administration. Hillary stage-cackled and said ‘I’d like to hear that’, only for Obama to get the last laugh by saying ‘Well I’m looking forward to you advising me as well’ (ie ‘I’m the future, you’re the past’
It’s probably the best putdown since Lloyd Bentsen’s ‘You’re no Jack Kennedy’ comments twenty years ago, or Perot’s ‘I don’t have experience of running up an enormous deficit’ in 92.
Boris needs to watch this.
Obama is the American version of Ken Livingstone, at least insofar as he answers questions thoughtfully, and has something to say, rather than acting like every other politician and ignoring the question in order to deliver a pre-prepared rant or soundbite. That, anyway, is the impression gained from a distance.
Re. 26, there may be a third volume of Politico’s counterfactuals, so get writing, John O!
An even more intriguing leadership counter-factual is what if Mrs Thatcher hadn’t stood down from the Commons at the 92 GE. The Tories were so fed up with Major in the Winter of 92 that, had she still been in the Commons, she could have staged a De Gaulle-like comeback.
23:Dream on Stuart.Salmond started making mistakes already - imagine being duffed up by Nicol Stephen!
Secondly you underestimate the number of unionists who voted for Salmond to get rid of Labour.
I am a staunch unionist yet even I was pleased when Salmond won. However I would never vote for undependence in a million years.
Interesting that Adlai (the Egg) Stevonson is now regarded as a useless campaigner. In 1952 his momentum for the nomination was built up following his inspirational address of welcome to the Convention as Governor of Illinois.
He ceratinly did notunderstand TV.
BTW before I leave for work, I noted that in the ST poll, 60% of identified LIberal Democrat voters answered “Dont know” on the Huhne/Clegg leadership question. Probably is a good idea the resultis known in Christmas week.
“O,Lord,make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it” (Voltaire).It seems, the Cons have struck lucky too.Sadly,even the Labour party cannot make an ass of itself for another two years.
Stuart Dickson @ 23 re devolution being against Blair’s better judgement.
I doubt it. Whatever Blair’s qualities, concern for the long term was not among them. Look at the House of Lords for another example. Or the soundbite-driven Criminal Justice Act of the week approach to legislation.
During the 80s, Reagan in the US and Thatcher here were enormously popular despite racking up problems for their successors. The lesson drawn is that the long term doesn’t matter.
Clinton picked up the De Moines Register (largest circulation paper in Iowa) and a number of ’super delegate’ endorsements over the weekend, though Obama picked up the Boston Globe endorsement (v.big circulation in New Hampshire)… meanwhile McCain was also endorsed by both and continues his steady recovery in NH (it’ll be very interesting to see if he can take advantage of a Romney collapse in NH which could catapult him back into contention in a race against Huckabee – but I think it’s too little, too late and it’s got to fight over the same ground with Gulianni, Thompson and Romney).
That said, the DMR has a track record for backing the losing candidate and the endorsement looks like it came after some pretty heavy lobbying from the Clinton camp, furthermore I wouldn’t read too much into newspaper endorsements though they can be helpful in the states where local papers are so much more influential .
For Obama this week could be the most dangerous of the campaign so far, he has to maintain that momentum of the last few weeks going into the Christmas break (when campaigning is going to recede in both IA and NH) if he can do that… with both Edwards and Clinton now going negative against him… he should be able to carry his advantage into the caucus itself and win.
Win in Iowa, by the next day he’ll be in poll position in New Hampshire (by way of the Nevada Caucus) and should he beat Clinton there, I can see her position in South Carolina totally collapsing, leaving her campaign with super Tuesday to turn things around (and realistically that wont happen it she’s lost the first four primaries).
19 - Is a 100 seat loss really that bad for Labour, having lost over 500 last year? I know for Labour their starting from a lower base but surely limiting losses to bellow 100 wouldn’t be bad going… or is this a case of the bar being set high so Brown can fail?
As it is I cant see Brown being challenged, he’s utterly hopeless and it’s fair to say Labour made a massive mistake in allowing him to saunter into the job unopposed but frankly there is no other viable candidate (Brown and his allies have seen to that over the years), furthermore any putsch would make Labour look even more like a basket case (as Redwood’s challenge did for the Conservatives in ’95).
Having said that the mutterings will do more than enough damage, though I’d surprised if even if/when Labour lose and go into opposition Brown does not remain leader (there simply is no real alternative and I cant see Brown wanting to give it up).
Change in fashion is hurting many previous inevitables.
Straight talk is outperforming the image-creation that soared in the 1990s, when the economic good times rolled.
Economic times are hard with food prices and energy costs rising. Property prices are sliding. People are listening again, and have their bullshit-o-meters back in action.
Clinton and Brown are from the Clinton/Blair big bullshit era. People want a new politics - less glitz, more control back from bureaucracy and big government, and less bullshit.
17. John O - “… I’m surprised that Stuart Dickson hasn’t already worked himself into a state of ectsasy about this… “
No, not really. After all, it was published yesterday in the Sunday Herald. English readers are just get recycled old news after we Scots have already read it. And ’so what’ anyway. It is entirely in line with all recent polls that I can think of.
For Labour, it must be a new start. It will have to be Gisella Stuart.
All others are tainted with Blairism.
How rebellious are the Labour MPs? Some stats say that this is one of the most rebellious groups (against Blair), yet they put up no challenger to Brown.
Apart from the rebels are the bulk more corporate in their approach? (I exclude our Nick P from this). This bulk are more like paid delegates selected by AWS and other centralised Labour selection processes. They were swept in on the 1997 wave. Paid delegates are loyal to a Leader who has best chance of winning and keeping them in their job as an MP.
8% of them are retiring so they do not have to worry about being re-elected.
Looking at the paid delegates I do wonder if they have a greater fear of losing their seats than the Conservatives did in 1992-97. In that period the move against Major lacked enough support to oust him or even mortally wound him like Thatcher. The noise in Major’s time was made by the small core of Eurosceptics who opposed on policy issues. Could the paid delegates in Labour’s ranks have more of a fear of the dole and therefore act in bigger numbers than went for Major?
I won’t start a yes-he’ll-win-no-he-won’t exchange about GB as we all know our respective views. On Clinton I think the article slightly overstates her poll difficulties. Here’s Iowa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
- Obmaa marginally ahead in a three-way statistical tie. And here’s NH:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html
Clinton marginally ahead in a two-way tie. After that comes the first big state, Michigan, which at present is a Clinton walkover:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_democratic_primary-238.html
followed by Nevada (another Clinton walkover), South Carolina (close) and Florida (Clinton walkover).
Momentum changes these things, of course, and if Obama wins by a good edge in Iows he should carry NH too. But he seems to have concentrated so nmuch on those two and SC that I doubt if he can avoid the impression by end-January that he’s shot his bolt. I’d put Clinton 2-1 on at the moment.
As has been suggested above, in this game it doesn’t matter if you are good bad or indifferent, what matters is the perception of you, relative to your opponent, by the voter .
For the last ten weeks all the attention has been on Gordon Brown, at some point this will switch to Cameron, he will come out with a policy proposal that backfires, fail to deal with a rabid anti-European MP or something similar. It will then appear that the skids are under him rather than Brown.
Has anyone opened a book yet on the next Governor of the Bank Of England?
It looks grim for the present incumbent!!
15
Didnt hear JH but If it is true that all 125000 will get at least PPF benefits then thats fantastic. sad for those who have died in the meantime. Given that Gordo has nicked at least 5 billion a year for the last 10 yrs (by the withdrawl of investment tax relief),( probably nearer 100 billion on investment), its an absolute scandal that it has taken so long. Its rather ironic IMHO that its virtually been forced upon the Bunker, as they just couldn’t cope right now with yet more criticism.
I am a trustee of one of those schemes that will now get PPF benefits, and I’m very glad for all our members including yours truly
Time to start campainging for the other 10%………
30. His Eminence - “you underestimate the number of unionists who voted for Salmond to get rid of Labour”
But you underestimate the number of people who support Scottish independence who voted for the three Unionist parties.
The last time a proper poll was conducted into that issue, it found that approximately 40% of Labour supporters backed independence; about 15% of Tory voters and about 10% of Lib Dem voters.
It is no surprise to us in the SNP that the Lib Dems are the most ‘British’ of the parties. That is definitely the impression that you get on the ground. An awful lot of Labour and Tory voters are fiercely pro-Scottish.
39 - Nick, Kerry had zero organisation beyond Iowa and New Hampshire in ‘04… the “big states” will follow what ever trend comes out of IA, NH and SC.
Quite frankly it doesnt matter if Clinton has a big lead in FL or MI right now, sure she has the resources and ‘establishment’ backing to persist with her campaign but it’s unlikley to pay off if she loses in Iowa.
Having said that if she wins Iowa, then she’s probably got the nomination wrapped up, then again if Obama wins in Iowa the same is probably the case for him, but should Edwards pull of a surprise win the race could open up a good deal… as he is very much a “one state” candidate, not to mention a far weaker candidate than either Clinton or Obama.
Just a thought! If Clinton2 did become Pres, and if there was a palace revolution here, and Brown was replaced by Benn. The US President and the PM would have the same Christian name, bar one L, odds on that, peter the punter.
Property prices falling a bad thing, no! a good thing, a dose of reality in the housing market is long overdue. As for economic times being hard, we’ve been through a long, (by British standards) period of growth, that isn’t going to go on for ever.
Forecast for next year is about 2% growth, so still no sign of a recession. Think some of the doom and gloom is a little over done.
Its going to be a difficult winter, but not as difficult as some of us can remember.
38: HF - I’ll try to give you a straight answer. People generally become Labour MPs because they’re ideas-driven, so we’re quite prone to revolt on issues, and as you say the post-1997 period has seen more and bigger Labour revolts than any other Labour governing stretch. On the other hand, we tend to be loyal to our leaders, partly because of the labour movement’s history, which teaches the same lesson (unity is strength, division is disaster) over and over again.
In particular, few Labour MPs see any point in sniping at the leadership without any real attempt to change it, and most take the advice of the whips, which is not to respond to surveys or comment unguardedly to the media, since if you make 10 positive comments and one critical one, you know which will be published. That’s why, although among 400 people you can always find some outspoken dissidents (creating material for stories starting “I spoke to a senior Labour MP and he said…”), you tend to see the same names again and again.
Obviously the polls are not good at the moment, but we’ve all seen polls rise and fall and the fact that a 2008 election has been ruled out has made professional politicians pretty phlegmatic (on both sides). While the non-election was obviously a mistake, we don’t see the underlying problem as being the leadership but a general loss of confidence among floating voters after a long string of bad-news stories which are (IMO) essentially unrelated but strung together as a narrative by the media.
One can argue about the prospects of recovering from that, and in truth nobody really knows, however confidently some here assert their certainties. But I genuinely can’t see a leadership challenge in any reasonable forseeable circumstances next year.
Here’s something to think about…
I’ve noticed an ever-so-slight turn in the Daily Mirror’s attitude toward Labour recently.
They’ve gone from licking Broons backside / Everything is wonderful under Labour to ‘must to better’ to ‘Labour / Brown need to get a grip’…
What with 45% of people currently supporting the Conservatives, how long do you think they can stay so loyal to a increasingly unpopular government?
Will they remain loyal until the bitter end even if 10, 20% or even 30% of thier readership turns thier backs on the government and wants a change?
…and therefore a change of newspaper…
At the end of the day, as a rule, red tops don’t like to back losers and the Sun have already sussed out which way the wind is blowing…
Absolute hate against your political opponents can cloud judgement (I should know) and I think the Mirror is in danger of suffering a battering along with it’s beloved Labour Party if it stays on it’s current course.
Is there nothing at all that they like about the Conservatives?… is this purely about thier editors fall out with Cameron or what?
Cameron looks like winning that battle on a late knockout after taking some heavy punches over the last couple of years.
Surely the Mirror must see that a change of government is most likely going to happen now. They would be mad not to move to a ‘we don’t like Cameron, but maybe it’s time we gave him a chance’ stance.
…or… maybe they will turn on Brown first to see if they can replace him?
24 No, of course I don’t just vote for certain winners - it would be difficult to find markets on those! What I am saying it is far too early to even say which way events are going for 2010 - polls etc have been up and down like yoyos, and the excitability of Tories at this stage is unjustified.
Even if Labour loses another 500 councillors in May (won’t happen) I cannot see Brown going before a general election. He has wanted the job so long and plotted so often to get it, he his not going to give it up now.
The good news for the Tories is that they have persuaded people that is alright to support them again. They have to now firm up the floating vote with some good policies. You cannot rely on the protest vote to carry you into power.
48Polls HAVE ben up and down recently. It’s called a Blip -or if you like the Brown Bounce. The Labour trend is unmistakeable.
As I hav said before, trends go on longer than anyone thinks they will. See house prices. See oil prices. See the rise of the evangelical right in the US.
To stop a trend which has being going for years - as the Labour one has- you need a change in policy and leader. The second has been tried. And failed. The policies have failed but not changed.
So imo the trend will continue.
Look how quickly the Conservative trend reversed when Major became PM, he won an election, and the prior trend continued. For another 20 years.
46
That may be true of ‘Old Labour’ but is it true of ‘New Labour’
Old Labour was a party of protest that occasionaly became the government, New Labour sees itself as a party of government.
As a party of government, New Labour may have to take a leaf out of the Tories book, and develop a taste for the, ’stab-in-the-back’ (The quiet man is here to stay etc).
What Labour may be going through could be compared to the ‘Suez’ period for the Tories. A leader who after a long time, (too long) as the understudy, finds being PM too much of a strain: buckles!
Labour might start looking for its, ‘Macmillan’
O/T For those interested in continental politics
There was a parliamentary by-election in France yesterday. The socialists held the seat of Dominique Strauss-Kahn (who has left to lead the IMF) with almost exactly the same result as in June (54.3%/45.7% in December; 54.5/45.5 in June).
No swing either way then but it proves that the socialists, even in a complete disarray at national level, are able to hold their strongholds. However, they were not able to increase their lead in one of the most impoverished constituencies in France.
52- Obviously,French media commentators are much more interested by yesterday’s revelation of Sarkozy’s new girlfriend, the Italian model and singer Carla Bruni.
“With sales sailing past the landmark £100m figure for the very first time to over £101m (week ending 15 December) John Lewis has reported the highest ever figures in its history and a record for the second consecutive week. Sales were up 7.7% compared with the same week last year.” JLP press release
Governors of the Bank of England and members of the MPC shop at John Lewis so they think everything is OK. Debenhams shares dropped 6% this morning and even M&S dropped 3%.
It is the economy stupid!
46- Nick Palmer- I admire your loyalty to Brown, but I disagree with you strongly on the reason for the downturn in Lab’s fortunes. It is down to the leader, simple as that. If Brown was a competent and credible leader he would have been able to deal with the bad news stories easily. Isn’t that the role of government, managing bad news? Brown’s credibility may well have risen too depending on how well he dealt with poor events.
Brown’s problems are all his own making. He is a new PM, leading a united party during a relatively benign period. He is terrible at presentation in a media savvy age, and to be brutally honest he is really quite personally unappealing, and unlikeable. Look at the female vote in the yougov poll.
The longer you say that it is down to bad news the longer you are avoiding the crux of your problems. The die is cast on Brown, and he has not the personal qualities to change this.
53
Can you blame them! Lucky ‘ol dog,
46 - Mr Palmer - “People generally become Labour MPs because they’re ideas-driven”.
And there was silly me thinking that people like the Balls were in it for half a million quid a year.
57 - And of course Balls doesn’t rebel himself, he just ferments others to do it on Gordon’s behalf.
There are still big question marks about Obama’s experience at the top of American politics. However, he is new and fresh and full of drive, which reminds me quite a lot of David Cameron in his leadership campaign a few years ago. No-one really saw him coming but he ended up winning by a comfortable margin.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
and the Blairs!
46: Nick, you’ll be very lucky as a party to go through the festive season without someone attacking Brown in public. Any guess who it’ll be?
49: Labour will lose relatively few councillors in May mainly because they have so few of them, and the ones they do have have large majorities.
46 Nick P I did not include you in that bracket of “paid delegates”.
The main reason for the rebellions has been that there are about 40 MPs that have core beliefs in old Labour and have voted accordingly. With big majorities (97 and 01) or policies that the Conservatives agreed with, the revolts did not matter.
Selecting MPs goes back to the period after Militant when Labour HQ wanted control of MP selection. The paid delegates were selected because of a lack of core beliefs, they wanted to be MPs and in power. The Labour party was a secondary issue it just happened to be the party with the best chance of power. Labour HQ just wanted delegates. Which is one reason why the cabinet is of such poor quality.
If these MPs stare down the barrel of the dole for the next 6 months, that will change their views and force them into action.
Just depends on whether we have a boat race of polls in 2008 or consistent Conservative leads of >10%. You said we would have dropped by now to leads of only 5%! It was 13% on the weekend.
re 42 “virtually… forced upon the bunker”
What do you mean? It has been forced by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Appeal Couirt, the House of Lords and European Court of Justice among others. Still give it a few months and Labour will be claiming this as a great triumph of theirs just like the age of consent for gay men which was equally grudgingly forced out of them.
62 actually Nick said that by December ‘normal’ service would be resumed with LAB leads of 4-5% and the Conservatives on 32-34%.
Nick seems a nice enough man but he has a terrible memory for facts - this is not unusual in a politician and LAB politicians seem to suffer from it even more.
55
One of the reasons why the political party is so absurd, is its tribalism. The chief of the tribe must be supported at all costs, even if the members of the tribe realise, it isn’t the right thing to do!
Political parties must become more flexible, leaders are there to get results, if they are not getting results, they must be warned, if the decline continues, they must be replaced.
.
62
“If these MPs stare down the barrel of the dole for the next 6 months, that will change their views and force them into action.”
The experience of Major, Callaghan and Heath says you are plain wrong. Historically no major party has done that recently with the exception of Mrs Thatcher - and it was obvious then that she had overstayed her position.
re 46 I can’t believe that any labour activist would become an MP because he wants to make gambling easier or lock people up for 6 weeks without charge, to name but two.
Clinton may lose Iowa, NH or both, but unlike Giulani she’s not actually losing support nationally. Obama is still stuck in the 23-24% rut he has been this entire year, and is even further behind in Florida. Sure, things will inevitably tighten up if Obama does get some wins behind him, but the gap is enormous.
61 Ralph “Labour will lose relatively few councillors in May mainly because they have so few of them, and the ones they do have have large majorities.”
True, Labour are down to 25% of all Councillors. This is the lowest they have been in in more than 34 years, which is as far back as my records go.
67 - quite right. Only tory activists become MPs for those reasons. Ho ho.
…and have the second highest “defence” budget in the world!
66 Madasafish, but the bulk of the Labour MPs are I would argue different from the ones you compare them with. They are a fairly unique bunch with weaker attachments to the party and a large interest in remaining as an MP.
http://www.order-order.com/2007/12/we-told-you-so.html
What happen if Edwards is first, Hillary second and Obama third?
In this scenario she loses, but Obama loses too…
Osborne backs Cable re Nationalisation of Northern Rock - wants to extend nationalisation to more banks (Todays FT)
“In his most substantive intervention on the banking crisis, George Osborne, shadow chancellor, argues for the introduction of “pre-emptive powers” to take over banks breaking set capital and liquidity levels. Authorities should also have exemptions from competition requirements to permit a “rapid sale”.”
74-In Iowa…
75. Thats not supporting nationalisation is it ?
Northern Rock will be on Gordon Brown’s tombstone but nationalisation is not the answer - closing to new business and running off as a zombie fund (with high interest rates so mortgage holders quickly transfer over to other banks) is the only way for Darling to get our money back.
Morning all
Glad to be off Christmas shopping detail for a few hours and a chance to catch up on things. I’ve put a response to DC’s “offer” on my blog here:
http://aloadofoldstodge.blogspot.com/2007/12/should-be-beware-of-tories-bearing.html
On wider issues, I’m more worried about the oil proce than I am the stock market at present. The snow storms in the US and Canada and the cold weather across much of Europe will keep demand high and the price may well push back toward the $95 mark. The stock market is marking time until New York opens. If the Dow rebounds, so will the FTSE so no need to panic yet.
I don’t pretend to know anything about Labour or how it works but some of the apocalyptic scenarios posted by the more excitable Tory activists just don’t wash. Labour has a more solid and entrenched core vote than the Conservatives in the sense that I find it hard to see Labour going below 250 seats at very worst. Given that Brown will go, the Party will regroup under a new leader.
Past experience also shows that an incoming Conservative Government soon hits trouble (18-24 months in) and there will be an opportunity for both the LDs and Labour at that time. In 1981, Labour fractured - could that happen again ? Seems hugely unlikely.
I think the US elections look fascinating - FOX are certainly talking up both Huckerbee and Obama (possibly through contempt for Clinton and dislike for Giuliani). As Nick alludes, however, early success is helpful only if momentum and organisation can be quickly transferred and the compressed nature of the primary process precludes that.
What’s this Ruth Kelly statement about? BBC strapline at the top says “transport data security issue”.
79-Don’t know, maybe it’s about this:
“NEW CRISIS FOR BROWN AS PASSPORTS VANISH”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/24154/New-crisis-for-Brown-as-passports-vanish/
Speaking from the Trading Room at Ladbrokes, traffic has been entirely anti-Clinton for the past couple of weeks, despite us trying to be top price about her in both the Democrat and General Election markets. We’ve seen some good money for Edwards this morning which might allow us to ease her price again.
Ian Duncan Smith on the Conservative party (on ConHome) - “Our party must at all times behave decently. Whilst this has begun to take place, there is still a feeling amongst the public that we will revert to type.”
My italics
By revert to type, I assume he means go back to being the nasty party!
81 - don’t forget to check the manual bets from a few years ago when I was laying 3/1 Hillary for you
Will cameron promise the voters a referendum when he gets into power on the present EU treaty when it is already ratified ? No.
Will Cameron offer a referndum the first since 1975 about in or out of the EU? No.
Will Cameron be any different in style to Brown over the EU? Yes
In that he will be more up the current leaders of France and Germany`s back side.
“….introduction of “pre-emptive powers” to take over banks…”
Take over = nationalisation.
79 The Kelly statement is presumably about some sort of data loss between the NI DVA and the DVLA in Swansea.
From the Guardian:
In a separate security failure, the Department for Transport has refused to comment on a report that a data breach involving the loss of the details of more than 7,000 motorists by the Northern Ireland Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) was more serious than originally thought.
Last week it emerged that two discs had gone missing between the DVA and the offices of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea - but the Sunday Times reported yesterday that an even more serious loss had now been uncovered.
I really can’t see Obama winning in Iowa. He’s just too inexperienced and would get crushed in the general election. Edwards is a more likely winner (though his move into deep left field has reduced his chances a lot). In any case I believe the value is in betting against Obama.
I also believe that McCain is looking a very good value bet - especially with Joe Lieberman’s endorsement.
83. Cheers Aaron. I think we’ll sweep those under the carpet. Unless she gets beat, of course.
46, 55 As a Labour supporter, activist and former Councillor - and occasional poster on here - I have to say that I agree with Tyson. Labour’s problem is Brown. Period.
81 & 83 Now, now, Aaron & Shadsy, no squabbling! You both work for very good firms and we appreciate all your contributions.
It’s hard to know if there is anything substantive behind the Hillary price move. My own guess is that it was always too low and is now readjusting to a more plausible level at around 1.70. I wouldn’t have thought there was much more adjustment necessary. The ‘Hillary’s-in-trouble’ posts here seem a bit overdone. Just look at the National charts; she’s still miles clear.
Iowa is quirky and Edwards has strong support there, which may explain why there will always be money for him if his price gets too high. At 20/1 for the nomination, I’d say he’s worth a few cents.
85. If you read the article then GO says the govt should have powers to intervene and allow a quick sale to protect savers. Thats not nationalisation a la railtrack.
If Darling had allowed NR to be sold to Lloyds he could have avoided this mess - but he was worried about the election that never happened.
78
I’m expecting oil to go to $86 again.
“once the inevitable ceases to appear inevitable then anything can happen”
Isn’t “Gordon Brown Is Doomed” the new inevitable? 2010 is a long way off for the doomsayers….
93 Why 2010, why not 2008?
93. Do you honestly think Brown will get MORE popular the more people see of him?
An interesting question coming out of Nick Palmer’s post at 39 is what effect, if any, the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries will have.
If I’ve got this right, both these states have been stripped of their voting rights as punishment for moving their primaries forward. Obama, Edwards and a bunch of others have pledged not to campaign in Florida, and they won’t even be on the ballot in Michigan.
Without knowing much about this, I find it a bit hard to imagine winning in these states being portrayed as the start of a Clinton fightback if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire. I suppose if the media are bored with boosting Obama by then they might want to run that story, but they’re more likely to ignore them and focus on the Republican contests, which will probably be very newsworthy at that point, whatever happens.
89: Labour’s problem isn’t Brown, it’s the party itself.
The party has a culture of spin, and political game playing which it can’t seem to break. It’s what changed ‘not flash, just Gordon’ into a poor version of Blair.
The Washington Post has a good article about Huckabee support:
“Home-School Ties Aided Huckabee’s Iowa Rise”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121602078.html?hpid=topnews
Interesting thread.
Both Clinton and brown were seen as such front runners that anything to take the shine off makes them look like losing so much momentum.
Once someone else gets the momentum it can be difficult to get it back. That said Gordon Brown has longer to do it, but his problem is that his government have left him more bear traps because it has been in power for 10 years.
97.
“The party has a culture of spin, and political game playing which it can’t seem to break. ”
You are, here, talking about Cameron’s Blairite Chameleon Conservatives, besides whom Brown is but an amateur in the spin stakes?
91. “GO says the govt should have powers to intervene and allow a quick sale to protect savers. ”
As usual the Tories are avoiding the issue.
Savers (those who haven’t bailed out already) will be protected.
The issue is the relative gains/losses/risks between the other “stakeholders” : taxpayers/employees/shareholders/potential buyers.
“We also have to look urgently at the other legislative obstacles to a bank rescue identified by Mervyn King, the Bank governor. In my view that includes establishing a new pre-emptive power that would allow the authorities to intervene and seize control of a financial institution when it is close to failing. We could set specific liquidity and capital triggers that would allow the intervention.
Everyone would be clear in advance how shareholders, savers and all other creditors would be treated. The authorities should be able to organise, if necessary, a rapid sale of the failing institution by setting aside normal considerations such as competition requirements.”
Power to seize control (AKA nationalisation)…organise, if neccessary, a rapid sale.
And what if no-one comes forward to buy them, without a huge government dowry??? Seizing control of various banks is all very well but this sounds like another half baked Tory policy.
Why are the Tories going for general powers to nationalise all the banks? Northern Rock is a special case we have already sunk £25bn plus and need to get it back, but other failing banks should fail with small depositors safeguarded.
102. They haven’t said they’ll nationalise it, just intervene to make a quick sale if neccessary.
OT - When today are we expecting an announcement from Cowley Street?
Power to sieze control doesn’t mean nationalise, or else he would have said that. The government effectively have control over NR at the moment but haven’t nationalised it and have no plans to do so.
104 It’s sometime tomorrow isn’t it?
Labour MP speaks out, previously a Brown supporter who asked for a timetable for Blair to go.
“Labour MP Geraldine Smith suggested last night that women had been put off by the “mess” of Mr Brown’s failure to call an election in October, the loss of 25million people’s child benefit records by Revenue and Customs and the refusal to call a referendum on the EU treaty.
She said all had highlighted a failure of the Government to listen.”
http://tinyurl.com/2vy5gm
Majority in 2005 = 4,768
99 But the US Presidential Election isn’t until Nov next year, do you really think Brown will still be PM then? I don’t.
105. What Osborne’s proposing sounds similar to the deposit protection scheme they have in the US where the authorities can seize control of an insolvent bank and pay off the depositors straight away.
101. This kind of protection is necessary in order to prevent future runs on banks as people panic about losing their savings so it’s directly relevent to avoiding another Northern Rock fiasco.
More bad news for Gordon?
“Dave - the massive hit of 2007″
According to the Guardian as well!…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/17/digitaltvradio
(Me linking to pieces in the Guardian, whatever next?)
110 Me linking to pieces in the Guardian, whatever next?
Quite so Bob - go and lie down in a darkened room.
103, 106 The event starts at 2pm tomorrow for the actual leadership result announcement at 2.30pm.
Very interesting theory but the fact remains that Hillary is still +18% in the polls. One would expect a bit of a more aggresive narrowing of the gap. After all, Obama (because let’s face it, there isn’t someone else who can challenge Hillary at mom) only needs to miss one of the early primaries to lose his momentum.
Anyway for all of you that still dont think that Hillary wont make it, stop debating about it and hit the 11.00 bid at spreadfair. That is the best ’short Hillary’ strategy so far…
Re 108, peter from Putney, “99 But the US Presidential Election isn’t until Nov next year, do you really think Brown will still be PM then? I don’t.”
Yes I do, because it takes about a year to kill off a reluctant leader in Labour and there is not enough support yet for getting rid of him.
100: That old chestnut again, if anyone points out how much Labour spins accuse the Tories of doing it too. Can we have some new material in the new year?
108. Well I’ve got 16/1 Brown ceases to be PM in 2008 Peter. I think that’s value but I agree with Benedict it’s not likely.
112: Clegg better do it. I lost out on the X factor at the weekend!
115. Ralph. Both sides claim to be “more spinned against than spinning”.
115 Indeed how can anyone question the integrity of Cameron’s Cons.
113: It is interesting how little the national polls have moved - a bit of a dip for Hillary, and only a little progress for Obama - even with the media being tilting quite hard in favour of Obama and against Hillary for the time being.
Three possible explanations:
1) Obama is doing well in the early states because he’s spending all his resources there while Hillary’s competing nationally, so come Super-Duper Tuesday he’s probably screwed.
2) As the vote approaches and people start paying attention, they start to like Obama and dislike Clinton, so if Obama can do reasonably well in the early contests we can expect the momentum from the national polls moving to carry him through.
3) Obama’s campaign is deliberately keeping his powder dry until close to the actual vote, when he will surge forward with carefully planned impeccable timing. (Seemed a bit dubious when I first heard it - see http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=1324 for a three-year-old discussion of the strategy - but watching his campaign take off in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Caroline with apparently immaculate timing I think there might be something to this.)
I think I’m inclined towards explanation (2), but I might change my mind if I saw numbers indicating that Obama had blown all his money on the early contests, while Hillary was hanging onto her cash or spending it nation-wide.
113-I don’t think that the national polls are important right now.I, as you, still think that Hillary is the front-runner, but I don’t think it will be an easy ride, as most were thinking before the election. If Hillary is third in Iowa, NH will be pretty difficult for her, and this seems to be a plausible outcome…
114 It’ll be a slow painful “political death”, which will be excellent news for The Conservatives.
114 This is a fix of the PLP’s making. It is for the PLP to find a way out.
It ‘elected’ Brown unopposed. It now appears a ghastly error, for which it can have few excuses and receive no sympathy.
The best remedy would be to admit the mistake and plan for what happens next, however unpalatable and difficult. My view is that would involve preparing for a contest in, say, six to nine months time, in which it has to be said all the likely candidates have serious drawbacks. In the meantime, the PM should be supported on the not altogther unreasonable basis that they put him in and he might improve.
Do you think the PLP that got itself into this situation will take this difficult but courageous route? Or do you think it will muddle along, hoping for something to turn up?
It all depends on Brown, will he continue to plow on as PM, or will he see himself as damaging the party and quit to help them. Before he became PM a lot of people saw him as politically astute, being a good PM and able to outwit the tories. Instead he’s turned out to be painfully slow at dealing with situations, and dreadful at dealing with the tories.
Re 122, “114 It’ll be a slow painful “political death”, which will be excellent news for The Conservatives.”
Yes, but perhaps not good for politics in general.
Re 123 Peter the Punter, I agree with all your sentiment
“Do you think the PLP that got itself into this situation will take this difficult but courageous route? Or do you think it will muddle along, hoping for something to turn up?”
The problem is they would need a revolt in percentage terms as large as that which got rid of Charlie Kennedy. It isn’t going to happen.
123 “Do you think the PLP that got itself into this situation will take this difficult but courageous route? Or do you think it will muddle along, hoping for something to turn up? ”
Well “Macavity” wont
123 - Peter, do you mean a contest next year to include Gordon (as I think John Major did when he re-fought the leadership), or a contest to choose his successor?
I think Brown Loathes the Tories and Cameron. It does not make him very statesman like. As PM you have to rise above it. Blair was alway good at doing so. Brown looked anything but statesman like at the EU constitution signing last week.
118: All parties spin but my suggestion is that Brown per se isn’t the cause of Labour’s problems but the culture of spin in the party that made the Clunking One think going to Iraq in the middle of the Tory Conference and all the ‘election?’ business was a good idea.
119: Question away, just please don’t bring out the ‘Dave the chameleon’ stuff again as it’s as boring as ‘Devil eyes Blair’.
125 I agree, Benedict. It’s unlikely, to put it mildly.
68 – Utterly and complete irrelevant! The national polls mean nothing as far as the primaries are concerned; just take a look back at the ’04 contest to see what I mean!
If Clinton loses Iowa she has a week… one week to turn all the momentum that will follow Obama into New Hampshire around (very difficult), if she then loses in New Hampshire she has a little longer till South Carolina where her position is likely to be crumbling rapidly (nearly impossible) then if she loses there she will have one last roll of the dice when it comes to Super Tuesday (will not happen!).
Momentum and Expectations are everything… on the GOP side things are frankly too confused for any true do or die contest to emerge so early but on the DEM side there are two candidates (beyond Edward’s capacity to throw a spanner in the works in Iowa) and that’s Clinton and Obama if either of those win Iowa then it’d take a hell of a lot to stop them going on to win the nomination.
74 – Then Clinton probably wins and Obama tries to fight on into New Hampshire (but probably doesn’t have sufficient time to turn things around), Clinton then probably wins New Hampshire but it wouldn’t be certain. To be honest, for the Clinton campaign if they have to lose Iowa they would rather lose to Edwards who they are probably fairly confident of “knocking down” in New Hampshire and the South than Obama who has the resources and appeal to go much much further.
78 – “…early success is helpful only if momentum and organisation can be quickly transferred and the compressed nature of the primary process precludes that.” On the contrary the opposite is the case (witness Kerry in ’04, no organisation outside of IA and NH in early 2004 and then went on to sweep the states there after), the compressed nature of the primaries means its at best very difficult and at worst nigh on impossible for a winning candidates momentum to be checked.
87 – Edwards is the most leftwing candidate in the race and would be the most at risk in screwing up what will probably be a “democrat year”, Obama’s inexperience is made up for in his stunning ability as a campaigner and perceived potential as a leader.
Frankly the issue of “inexperience” is overblown, in the last four presidential elections it was the “inexperienced” candidate that won, furthermore I’d suggest that experience is unlikely to be a huge asset in 2008 with such a profound mood in the states for a “change”.
I’d agree though that McCain could surprise in NH (though not in large part thanks to Lieberman’s endorsement) he’s been steadily recovering there, his only worry must be he’s fighting over the same ground with three other candidates (Romney, Gulianni and Thompson).
127 Not sure what the mechanics would be, Andy, but without the will amongst the PLP, it’s irrelevant. OTOH, if there is a will, I am sure a way could be found.